This is only true if you assume an empirical approach to knowledge. So, how would you show a rationalist that his atheistic or evolutionary worldview fails to account for logic?

Or to set it up another way. Why cannot a Christian justify logic in the same manner that Mitch attempts to?

This is only true if you assume an empirical approach to knowledge. So, how would you show a rationalist that his atheistic or evolutionary worldview fails to account for logic?

Or to set it up another way. Why cannot a Christian justify logic in the same manner that Mitch attempts to?

You responded: “No, I am not abandoning this position.”

However, you still have not explained yet how logic *itself* is outside the scope of atheistic or evolutionary explanation. Your argument is that *sense experience* itself is outside of atheistic or evolutionary explanation, which is not the same thing. This is why your last post did not answer my question. *Logic* and *sense experience* are not the same thing. I understand that one may be contingent on the other (though in an allegedly a priori or rationalistic system this would need to be shown). You do not have to keep repeating your argument ad nauseum to me; I have been doing this for some time now and I understand it just fine.

I am satisfied that you have not shown that logic *itself* is outside of the scope of atheistic or evolutionary explanation.

You responded: “No, I am not abandoning this position.”

However, you still have not explained yet how logic *itself* is outside the scope of atheistic or evolutionary explanation. Your argument is that *sense experience* itself is outside of atheistic or evolutionary explanation, which is not the same thing. This is why your last post did not answer my question. *Logic* and *sense experience* are not the same thing. I understand that one may be contingent on the other (though in an allegedly a priori or rationalistic system this would need to be shown). You do not have to keep repeating your argument ad nauseum to me; I have been doing this for some time now and I understand it just fine.

I am satisfied that you have not shown that logic *itself* is outside of the scope of atheistic or evolutionary explanation.

Logic is descriptive not prescriptive. They are created by man to do work, to represent the world to ourselves. There is not one kind of logic, there are many and they all have their uses in the areas for which they were created. In a deep sense, the world is fundamentally unintelligible and we impose our meaning on it rather than the other way around.

This was all decided about 100 years ago. There is no single edifice that is math or logic. Mathematics is not Nature's or God's own language. It is our own.

Logic is descriptive not prescriptive. They are created by man to do work, to represent the world to ourselves. There is not one kind of logic, there are many and they all have their uses in the areas for which they were created. In a deep sense, the world is fundamentally unintelligible and we impose our meaning on it rather than the other way around.

This was all decided about 100 years ago. There is no single edifice that is math or logic. Mathematics is not Nature's or God's own language. It is our own.