The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology.

"For example you are presupposing that, the only way we can know if something is true is by thorough observation using logic and reason." I never asserted that the only way to know something was empirical. At most I would assert that empericism is a way to know something and that it has a high utility as it contains the concepts of demonstration and falsification. "On what ground then can you tell a rapist that he is immoral? He thinks its ok, it makes him happy." As noted, there is no Bible of Science nor of Art and yet both of these progress, this is evident - and thus there is an answer to that question, unless you assert that there has been no progress in science nor art. "The answer is that God's perfectly good nature IS the standard of good and evil. There are no standards or absolutes outside of God. I wouldn't have a standard to apply to God since He IS the standard of good and evil." And thus, if God told you to do anything, regardless of what it was you would do it, and be happy doing it because it was moral by definition - anything he would say without restriction? Clearly now - anything that God told you to do, anything at all - that would be moral - anything. "1. Can you define what a "framework" is, in regards to the laws of logic? and also give an example of a couple of frameworks." A framework is simply a way of thinking which is governed by one or more definitional statements. Classical logic is such a framework, which (depending on which philosopher you ask) has at least two, possibly more fundamental propositional statements. There are many frameworks which reject these and do not treat them as constraints, as noted fuzzy logic rejects the classical logic constraint of the law of the excluded middle. "2. So if it is like the rules of language and grammar, can an opposing system of logic be equally as valid? for example, If I produce a system of logic where contradictions are ok, will this be valid?" There are indeed such systems of logic. "3. Which one of the contending "frameworks" is science based on?"" Natural Methodology and Natural Philosophy were at one point one in the same, so it used to be classical logic, it is no longer because that is too restrictive to explain all observations and handle all such problems. I gave you one very clear example of an engineering control which can not be developed using classical logic. Logic is simply a way to study an argument, science uses whatever logic it has to in order to handle a problem and when one is not available it creates one, just like math is also created when what is currently known also is insufficient, such as Newton and Calculus. "1. You're still proposing that there are different systems of logic. Define logic and define "laws of logic" 2. Do the laws of logic reflect reality and vice versa? if so how can there be varying systems of logic?" I am not proposing it, it is known that there are quite a few systems of logic, this would be like me proposing that there are different number systems beyond the counting numbers, that would take a fair bit of arrogance on my part. For a primary proponant, I would recommend "Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism" by Susan Haack which is a summary work on non-classical logic. As we do not know the true nature of reality, it would be unknown what system of logic would need to be utilized in order to explain it. There are three current large theories all competing for fundamental explanative power and they all have fairly radical interpretations of the nature of the universe (loop quantum gravity, string theory and unified field theory) - it is unknown at this stage which of these, if any is, as Karl Popper (Phlosopher of Science) would say "least wrong". It is known that as we have learned more about what we see that it is certainly not classical. The infinite history model of Feynman for example which is used to explain how one particle can intefere with itself (because it actually is in all places at all times in all states - just that it is only partially true for each case). "Fuzzy logic wouldn't be necessary if the the fuzzy thought is made more specific by giving specific definitions to each word." Fuzzy logic does not mean it is fuzzy in that the statements are unclear, as in "Go over there somewhere", it simply means that statements do not obey the law of the excluded middle. Note no one wants to use Fuzzy Logic in motor controls because it is much more complex than binary logic, it is used because binary logic controls have a very poor response time. If a binary logic control could be developed which did not have these issues then a PhD in Electrical Engineering awaits (as well a quite a number of very lucrative post-doctrate research/private sector positions). A more extreme logic in regards to deviation from classical logic is Dialetheism which holds that both a statement and its negation can be true, Graham Priest would be a contempory advocate of Dialetheism. "Im wasnt talking about individuals only, im talking about humanity as a whole. If lets say an alien race asks us, "why is raping immoral?" our answer would be "because we say so" if they ask us "why is self contradiction illogical? " the answer again would be "because we say so, we never did any observations to conclude this, we just came up with it and went from there"" I would hope that if an Alien race asked humanity why is rape wrong, our answer would be more explicit than "because we said" as that implies that they should accept it as wrong simply because we accept it as wrong, assuming of course that said race actually had the concept of morality (not all life does even on earth) and recognized a similar system of logic so a conversation could take place. But even if it was not, and that was the only answer given, I would assert that would be a stronger assertion than one person saying "because this book said so" or "because I heard a voice that said so". "He revealed Himself and His character to me through his creation, which includes me and his word (scripture)." Various other religions would assert that what you experienced is the devil (or a devil) and it is trying to keep you from the true path (theirs). How can you falsify their position that they have the true word of God and you have a devils voice and book? "If my worldview refutes itself it would automatically be falsified. If one thing about Christianity is proven false then it is falsified. Its pretty easy actually, but impossible because Christianity is truth." It is easy or impossible to falsify? Or both? Note it is easy to make a claim which can not be falsified, that does not mean it is strong or overly interesting. For example, "Right now I just thought that the remake of True Grit was a superior movie." this claim is impossible to falsify, it is also impossible to demonstrate. The classical example of this is Russell's Teapot, which was intended to challenge directly the claim of God(s) by making an assertion which is also impossible to demonstrate or falsify challenge directly the claim of God(s) by making an assertion which is also impossible to demonstrate or falsify and thus asking the question - does that mean we should accept it (and thus any claim which can also be made under similar conditions).