How do we know assuredly that the universe is in fact uniform?"We are wanting the laws of the universe to be such that we can understand them, but there is no reason offered as to why the universe should be like this." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity)
If I set out to argue the uniformity of the universe because I can predict cause and effect, am I not presupposing the uniformity and validity of my experience? Cause and effect is accurate reflection of what really happens?
Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and think and act on this very basic assumption.
Consequently the principles of uniformity is not scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. This, adherence to the principle of uniformity-though absolutely essential to science and scientific method- is an intrinsically religious commitment.
Unfortunately for the non-Christian cosmology, chance involves randomness and unpredictability. The unbelieving worldview requires faith in miracles, yet without a reason for those miracles. Life arises from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Morality from that which is a-moral. These are faith claims for explaining our world and how it came to be.The uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible, however, with the Christian worldview. The absolute, all-creating, sovereignly-governing God reveals to us in Scripture that we can count on regularities in the natural world.
(Ephesians 1:11, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3)
We just have to keep asking "Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?"
Can an Atheist justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things? Once he tries to justify universals and the laws of logic, he steps out of his worldview and into ours. His presuppositions cannot sustain his worldview and cannot account for universals.
**Entirely from [Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis]
bit.ly/UniformUniverse
No, Dan, non-christian worldviews do not require belief in miracles. You might as well add "inches and yards from that which knows not the concepts." Morality, like inches and yards, is a construct of sentient minds.
ReplyDeleteNow, many non-christians believe that life arose from non-life and that intelligence emerged from that which was formerly mindless. But they believe that there exist natural explanations for these phenomena -- just that we do not know these explanations. Other non-christians postulate other gods to "sort out the thorny problems."
All rational thought requires some uniformity. It cannot have been created by the christian god. Even if the christian god exists, his mind requires a pre-existing uniformity.
I just ran into this blog and thought that the title "Debunking Atheists" was very ironic.
ReplyDeleteHow can a position of non-belief in something be debunked?
In the case of Atheism, we are talking about non-belief in a god, or gods. Therefore, in that particular situation, the obvious answer to my question is that the believer needs to justify the claim "I believe in God", or "God exists", and of course define what that label God points to.
Does this blog try to do so? I have not taken the time to read a lot here but I did not run into any attempt at trying to prove God's existence. Is there such thing on this blog?
Cheers
(sorry if that's a double post, got an error with the first one on the other thread and I could not see it online, weird...)
Pvb,
ReplyDelete"Morality, like inches and yards, is a construct of sentient minds."
First, I had to look up sentient and second, morality is merely a measurement?
The "inches and yards" analogy is interesting, we understand that it was a subjective thing to measure with. Since your foot is probably smaller then my foot out "measurements" might be off. So they enacted a standard and the 'Foot' was the king's (Henry?) foot.
So who's moral standard do we follow?
I can answer that, as you know, how about your worldview?
"It cannot have been created by the christian god."
O'rly? Do tell?
"Even if the christian god exists, his mind requires a pre-existing uniformity"
Unless we understand that uniformity is His nature. God is the standard. Without the truth of His revelation, uniformity is meaningless (as can be evidenced by examining all of your claims to uniformity).
Pvblivs: what you said.
ReplyDeleteDan: let me try explaining it another way. If you go through your post, and substitute "the Universe" for "God", then nothing is explained: instead of having to account for the uniformity of the Universe, you have merely shifted what needs accounting for over to God. Christians typically get out of this by saying, one way or another, that they simply accept God, omniscience, omnipotence, temper tantrums, and all, as being an eternal given.
But how is this a better explanation than my saying that I accept the uniformity of the Universe as a given? Positing a God is a great deal (infinitely, in fact) more complex than my explanation, and has no additional explanatory power.
So in the absence of evidence for the existence of this collector of prepuces, as Buck Mulligan refers to him in Ulysses, I will stick with the simpler worldview.
By the way, off topic: that "Miracle Channel" logo is a very elegant piece of graphic design, with the "M" serving as a bolt of lightning too. I bet the artist is an atheist.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteBahnsen is a master sophist. If you take what he says at face value, you must ignore his purpose.
There is only uniformity in the universe where it is empirically shown to be uniform.
The background radiation from the big bang is not as unifrom as physicists calculate that it should be.
From what we know, this non-uniformity probably has a cause, but one that we have yrt to discover.
What makes your post so absurd is that you don't have a clue what you are addressing, and neith does Bahnsen. At best, he is taking a philosophical position.
Are you addressing spatial homogeneity of the universe or the uniformity of the laws of physics?
Bahnsen is like so many fundamentalistss. He's trying to claim that we presuppose things in the manner that he does. We don't. Nobody ever said that they would create the laws of physics so we can understand uniformity. We measured the laws of physics and found them to be what they are.
I am sure that Stan can far better speak to the non-uniformites of the universe better than I, although cutting through the horsweshit, what you are doing is again trying to claim that science is a religion which it is not. It didn't take faith to measure and find the speed of light. It does not take faith to see the speed of light for what it is even though we know know that the speed of light probably does change in certain conditions.
Bahnsen is using basically the same failed argument as your buddy, Sye uses.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Unless we understand that uniformity is [h]is nature."
For him even to have a nature requires that there be a pre-existing uniformity.
"I can answer that [question of source of morality], as you know, how about your worldview?"
Actually, you have demonstrated that you can not. You have given lines of "he would never command that," which shows that you use a morality that does not come from the bible. And you simply believe that your god adheres to that morality. So, while you give an "answer," your actions betray it as a falsehood.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIf you accept that God can turn water into wine, then you can never be sure that the water you are about to drink will remain water, as it could possibly become wine at any moment at the whim of God. Similarly, any seemingly uniform aspect of nature could be altered as part of a miracle, meaning that you have no basis for assuming the uniformity of nature, unless of course you deny the possibility of miracles.
More on this topic here
ReplyDeleteRhiggs: well, as I read it, St. Augustine denies the existence of miracles in the religious sense:
ReplyDeleteMiracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.
Since what we know about nature is science, then something is only a miracle insofar as it does not (yet) have a scientific explanation.
Augustine was a pretty bright chap. I need to read him again.
'Course, he was a Catholic, so I could just wait until I die, and I can talk to him personally.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteContinuing the analogy about measurements. I just read last night something Van Til said.
"the unbeliever's espoused worldview or philosophy cannot make counting or measuring intelligible.
Counting involves and abstract concept of law, or universal, order. This contradicts the unbeliever's view of the universe a a random or chance realm of material particulars.
Unbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting."
Dan say:
ReplyDeleteUnbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting.
zilch say:
Believers can count, and they account for their counting by an Accounter; but they cannot account for the Accounter.
Face it: there's some stuff you just have to accept in order to make any sense of the world whatsoever, even before you get to God. You must have senses that more or less work, and you must have logic that more or less works, before you can say anything about God or the World. If you don't accept perceptions or order, you might as well just sing "la la la". But that's good too.
@Dan
ReplyDeleteAnything that comes after "the unbeliever's espoused worldview or philosophy..." is irrelevant, as there is no such thing as a worldview or philosophy based on a non-belief.
But anyway, the idea is that God (your God of course) must be the source of counting: "Unbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting"
Correct?
Ok then, let's say that I believe in a god named Mathématique (I speak French, sorry), Mathématique transcends our universe, is immaterial, and created what we call the laws of mathematics.
Do you believe in my god? Why not?
We just have to keep asking "Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?"
ReplyDeleteSorry zilch but you are wrong, the Accounter has a name, as I just stated...
ReplyDelete;)
Nice timing by the way!!
@Dan
ReplyDelete"Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?"
I think it makes sense to use universals and laws of logic to acquire knowledge.
Perhaps that's my worldview, I don't know, I never thought of a name for mine personally...
"Can an unbeliever justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things? Once he tries to justify universals and the laws of logic, he steps out of his worldview and into ours. His presuppositions cannot sustain his worldview and cannot account for universals." (Bahnsen)
ReplyDeleteHugo: are you trying to tell me that Dieu is French? C'est incroyable! Yes, funny timing.
ReplyDeleteDan, Dan, Dan: no worldview makes "sense" of everything. Using God to "answer" questions about where logic comes from is the same as sweeping the questions under a frayed Oriental carpet and saying that they're gone, the carpet answers them. But actually, the carpet may hide the questions, it may keep them out of sight, but it doesn't answer them.
Dan: that's why I don't try to "justify" logic: I just use it. It just seems to me, through what I perceive and reason, that we happen, for whatever reason or no reason, to inhabit a Universe which evinces uniformité and logique. All you can say is that it seems to you, through what you perceive and reason, that we happen to inhabit a Universe which evinces uniformity and logic because this Universe was created by a God who happens to evince uniformity and logic.
ReplyDeleteYour explanation doesn't add any information about what we see in the Universe, and it's a lot more complex than mine. See?
I knew the instant I saw the title of this post that Dan was going to head back down the rabbit hole of fractured logic which is presuppositionalism.
ReplyDeleteZilch,
ReplyDeleteI am merely trying to view the world in your shoes.
Can the Laws ,in the natural world, be empirically examined? Are the laws of logic "just the firing of nerve endings in a neural synapse"?
If so then logic differs from person to person and therefore its laws are not laws at all. The "inherent materialism in the modern world cannot account for the laws of logic."
Furthermore, since the laws of logic are universal, invariant, abstract, eternal truths, how do they continually apply in a changing world of experience?
"How do we get those laws from "above" down to the historical process?"
@Dan
ReplyDelete“a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things”
Are concepts material? No. How can we use them to make sense of the universe then if we have, as you claim, a naturalistic view involving only material things...
Without concepts nothing would make sense.
Do you believe the square root of -1 exists? Not in reality of course... but it does exists in our minds, and we use it in math, using a symbol, and it’s very useful actualy! Same thing with infinity and 0 (in some cases).
Got to go... have fun guys!
Dam I had to reply to that before leaving...
ReplyDelete"How do we get those laws from "above" down to the historical process?"
FROM ABOVE DOWN TO... !?
We go the other way around buddy...
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"We go the other way around buddy..."
If so then logic differs from person to person and therefore its laws are not laws at all.
Fail
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I am merely trying to view the world in your shoes."
No, you're not. You are trying to create a strawman. The whole "account for the laws of logic" schtick is a sham from the get-go. Logic must be assumed prior to any accounting of anything. Anyone who claims to be able to account for the laws of logic is either lying or lacking of understanding in the very concept.
@Dan
ReplyDeleteHello again,
You did not understand what I meant, but honestly I think I had not fully understood you either! Surprisingly, my answer is still what I would have said...
We don’t get anything from "above". We start from basic principles and build up. Bottom->Up, not the other way around, that's what I meant.
We (this includes you Dan...) don't question the holy grail of logic to reveal us its secrets. Some believers like revelations but it's just not practical in real life...
- A is A.
- A is not "not A".
- If all As are Bs, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs.
- ...
Do you need to know where that comes from to accept it? to use it? to understand it?
Give a label to that framework if you wish; call it The Accounter, Elvis, God, who cares...
Good luck trying to make a link with anything else... good luck trying to prove that this label you like to name "God" must be a perfect mind...
(anyone else heard TAG coming? :-)
By the way, as I asked in my first post here, are you even trying to justify your beliefs, or are you really just trying to "debunk" Atheism by pointing out flaws in its "worldview"?
Atheism does NOT equal believing the claim "there is no God"... I hope you are not wasting your time trying to prove that statement wrong...
Hugo:
ReplyDelete"Atheism does NOT equal believing the claim 'there is no [g]od.'"
Actually, it does. Oh, I know that there are groups of atheists who say "no, it's just a 'lack of belief'" so they can include infants and vegetables. But that is just dishonest.
a⋅the⋅ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use atheism in a Sentence
See web results for atheism
See images of atheism
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. [from www.dictionary.com]
I prefer Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteAtheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.
AND its sources! See below.
But before that, this means that it's not surprising to have examples, definition, videos, whatever source, saying that atheists believe there is no god. Of course many of them do!! What's the point?
Agnostic are still A-Teists, NON-Theists.
FINE PRINTS:
Theism is used here in its most general sense, that is belief in one or more deities. This would then define atheism as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, regardless of whether the further conclusion is drawn that deities do not exist.
* Nielsen, Kai (2009). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism. Retrieved 2009-08-23. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)...".
* Edwards, Paul (1967). "Atheism". The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1. Collier-MacMillan. p. 175. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion.".
Hugo:
ReplyDeleteIn actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god. (Personally, I prefer Webster's myself, but dictionary.com is easier to link to.) Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest.
Sorry, Pvblivs, you're just being weird again. In the first place, what's "dishonest" about defining a word to mean what you want it to mean? If you are in a small minority, and especially if you don't make it clear what you mean, then you are in danger of being misunderstood. But how is that "dishonest" in any way?
ReplyDeleteAnd I haven't taken a poll, so I would be hesitant to claim that "in actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god." In my experience, most atheists I know would not say this, but rather that atheism (for them) means simply lacking a belief in god. It's mostly Christians who claim that atheists must mean the positive claim that there is no god.
So believe what you want about the "true" meaning of "atheist". Just so you know: when I say "atheist" without any qualification, then I mean "someone who lacks belief in gods". Don't be surprised if I'm not the only atheist to define the word so. And sorry, I don't feel the least bit dishonest.
Account for logic
ReplyDeleteOnce again I post a link to an account for logic that requires no deity.
Either refute the account or admit that the "impossibility of the contrary" is meaningless rhetoric.
You cannot account for anything from within the inherently subjective Christian worldview so you borrow the concepts from atheist worldviews and then deny their origins.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDelete"Can an unbeliever justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things?
Uh, "Doctor"...even unbelievers know and accept abstract conceptual ideas like love, justice, etc.. Don't make strawmen of your opponents please.
Once he tries to justify universals and the laws of logic, he steps out of his worldview and into ours. His presuppositions cannot sustain his worldview and cannot account for universals." (Bahnsen)
And just what does "Dr." Bahnsen have to justify that idiocy? I remember in a previous post I asked you to give the bible verses that laid out the laws of logic and you tried (and failed) to do so.
As far as I'm concerned, its the ancient Greeks who could turn around and ask the xians that question.
Bahnsen is, though "presuppositionalism" trying to claim victory for his supersition right off the bat, without having to give any actual evidence for it, by claiming that his religion is the basis for the laws of logic in the first place.
I could always refer you back to Stephen Law's blog, couldn't I?
Zilch:
ReplyDelete"[W]hat's 'dishonest' about defining a word to mean what you want it to mean?"
In this case, Hugo took a word that Dan used and insisted that it did not mean what Dan was using it to mean -- even though that is the most common usage. ("Atheism does NOT equal believing the claim 'there is no God.'") It is quite clear that he knows how Dan is using the term and is insisting that he can't use it that way.
"And I haven't taken a poll, so I would be hesitant to claim that 'in actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god.' In my experience, most atheists I know would not say this, but rather that atheism (for them) means simply lacking a belief in god."
My experience has been that people identify themselves as atheists because they believe there is no god. I have met several atheists over the years and even they have used the term to mean believing there is no god. It's not as though it's an embarrassing proposition. I have also seen (on blogs like this) people slip up on the "lack of belief" claim. They will sometimes assert that atheism is a rational conclusion (for example.) But a lack of belief is not a conclusion at all; a belief of lack, however, is.
Now, you will note that I used the dictionary as a reference. Dictionaries are composed to reflect common usage. The composers collect hundreds of actual uses of the term. Now, you might suggest that such data are skewed as a catch-all term (being useless to discussion) will just not see much use, either spoken or in print. But that is my other point in how such insistance on broadening the category is dishonest. It is useful to talk about people who believe there is no god as a group. The definition you wish people to use only makes it cumbersome to speak of such a group.
"Sorry, Pvblivs, you're just being weird again."
If dishonesty is the norm, the pursuit of integrity is, indeed weird. I'm sorry if that is your assesment of humanity.
No, I don't think you are the only one who does this. I have already said there are groups of people who want to make sure that any term meaning someone who believes there are no gods is too cumbersome to specify.
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"Do you need to know where that comes from to accept it? to use it? to understand it?"
In order to understand and make logic of YOUR worldview I certainly do.
So can you tell me how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, and eternal laws of logic?
"Some believers like revelations but it's just not practical in real life..."
What a complete cop out. So you cannot justify logically your worldview yet you think somehow mine must be wrong?? Christianity is the only logical and reasonable worldview. You lose the debate
"Atheism does NOT equal believing the claim "there is no God""
Again we are not here to debunk AtheiSM, we are here to debunk AtheiSTS. Get it?
Dead Fred,
ReplyDelete"Once again I post a link to an account for logic that requires no deity. "
No you didn't, that link basically said "Sye, you have the ball. " with nothing to point to your view of logic.
In the comments you divert the question until Sye gave up on you.
Address the post please.
"Can an Atheist justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things?"
Once you try to justify universals and the laws of logic, you step out of your worldview and into ours.
Your presuppositions cannot sustain your worldview and cannot account for universals. Agree?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"I could always refer you back to Stephen Law's blog, couldn't I? "
Certainly not to help me understand your worldview. Even you have done far better then Stephen in explaining things.
Stephen is hung up on proof but is not understanding the question.
The question:
Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?
He, as well as you, have miserably failed to answer. You have at least tried instead of divert. But since you are now diverting to Stephen....
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"But a lack of belief is not a conclusion at all"
I am glad you said that again. I think out of all of us Pvb's has a very sound "pursuit of integrity", imho.
Believing there is no God, I am sure you all will admit, is more honest then the "lack of belief" claim. Otherwise your own 'pursuit of integrity' would be suspect. Folded arms rejecting all evidence is not logical or reasonable. Pvb is absolutely right, there is no neutrality here, we all pick sides.
Post worthy Pvb. Nice.
Although there is a nagging curiosity as to what Pvb's worldview looks like, but that is for another time.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"'Do you need to know where [fundamental logic] comes from to accept it? to use it? to understand it?'
"In order to understand and make logic of YOUR worldview I certainly do."
All worldviews simply assume fundamental logic. No worldview accounts for logic, because logic must come first. You are just being dishonest here.
"Christianity is the only logical and reasonable worldview. You lose the debate."
Here, you present another falsehood and call upon it to be treated as a premise. If christianity claims one must account for logic, it is illogical and unreasonable. Not all christians, however, pretend that there is an accounting for logic. For that matter, you didn't until you learned of Sye's deceptive practices.
"In the comments you [Fred] divert the question until Sye gave up on you."
Strange, that is usually Sye's tactic -- well that and repeating "and how do you account for that" ad nauseum.
"Pvb is absolutely right, there is no neutrality here, we all pick sides."
Careful now, I don't say that there is no neutrality. Indeed, I objected to placing all neutrals under the banner of "atheism." I am undecided on whether there exists some unknown god; so I am not an atheist. I do, however, reject the christian god as inconsistent with the observable world.
HUGO: Some believers like revelations but it's just not practical in real life...
ReplyDeleteDAN: What a complete cop out. So you cannot justify logically your worldview yet you think somehow mine must be wrong?? Christianity is the only logical and reasonable worldview.
HUGO: Thanks for making that point; you definitely got the burden of proof. Why don’t you rename your blog?
DAN: You lose the debate
HUGO: lol, concerning what? The fact that I can’t (don’t want to) answer one of your questions?
HUGO: "Atheism does NOT equal believing the claim "there is no God""
DAN: Again we are not here to debunk AtheiSM, we are here to debunk AtheiSTS. Get it?
HUGO: No I don’t get it. How you can debunk people? You "debunk" a group of people because the only thing they share is a non-belief in a god?
Even if we were to say that they all believe the claim "There is no God", what does it tell you?
It tells you that they can’t account for some things you decided were only addressed by Christianity, right?
But freddies_dead did post an explanation answering your main question... You did not say why it’s flawed, just that it is because it does not answer the question. Point flaws please.
Note to Pvblivs, see, that’s why I try to make the distinction between non-believers in general (what I call Atheists, sorry if that’s wrong for you) and people who believe the claim "there is no god". I understand your objections, but I am not dishonest, Dan is... He tries to shift the burden of proof. I don’t feel the need to justify the claim "God does not exist", as I don’t even feel the need to say if I believe it or not.
It’s a pointless vague statement, in my own opinion, since there are too many definitions out there for what God could be or not... so am I am still an Atheist? How should I call myself then!? And while I was writing this, you posted this:
DAN: Pvb is absolutely right, there is no neutrality here, we all pick sides.
PVBLIVS: [...] I am undecided on whether there exists some unknown god; so I am not an atheist. I do, however, reject the christian god as inconsistent with the observable world."
HUGO: Ok, now I am confused honestly, we have more or less the same "worldview" as Dan likes to say, correct?
How do we label ourselves when talking to a Christian then?
We can’t use Atheist because he will want us to justify the claim "There is no God", but we can’t say Atheist in the sense of non-believers because that’s too large, and we can’t say Non-Believers because that’s unclear/unused in common language...
Pvb,
ReplyDelete"I am undecided on whether there exists some unknown god; so I am not an atheist. I do, however, reject the christian god as inconsistent with the observable world."
Sounds like you have picked a side to me. Zero neutrality example, yet again.
For the record and clarity, if someone has rejected God and believes in x, (the flying spaghetti monster), had indeed picked a side. To me there are two sides right or wrong. One of us has picked the right one. As Rush said so poetically, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
Inconsistent with the observable world? Interesting. I would like to explore that one more. Examples?
So you are fully willing to believe in an "unknown god" but not the known God of the Universe as revealed to us through collective natural and special revelation?
OK on to logic
ReplyDeletePvb,
"All worldviews simply assume fundamental logic. No worldview accounts for logic, because logic must come first. You are just being dishonest here."
Aw come on I am not being dishonest. It is reasoning which worldview makes sense. Like it or not Bahnsen, et al, make a fantastic point.
I am trying to weigh which worldview has the answers as to where the abstract and eternal "logic" came from.
Christianity is logical, Atheism is not.
Logically an eternal, abstract, universal, invariant God could explain the eternal, abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic.
ReplyDeleteAgree?
DAN:
ReplyDelete"Logically an eternal, abstract, universal, invariant God could explain the eternal, abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic.
Agree?"
Personally, I agree! Especially since you say ABSTRACT.
And for now it's just a label, so, please, go on... we'll see.
OK Hugo I'll bite,
ReplyDeleteCan the inherent materialism in the world account for logic? Can the nonbelievers, that are devoted to the scientific empirical method, talk of concepts or universals?
DAN:
ReplyDelete"Can the inherent materialism in the world account for logic?"
No
(btw, I am never sure what you, not others, mean by "account for logic", can you explain to make sure...?)
"Can the nonbelievers, that are devoted to the scientific empirical method, talk of concepts or universals?"
Is that a joke or what?
Ugh. Let the blog alone for a couple days and all hell breaks loose...
ReplyDelete:: sigh ::
Where to begin? I suppose I'll start by saying I will not argue physics with a guy who thinks that the inverse of a sum of discrete terms is equivalent to the sum of the inverse of the discrete terms. If Dan wants to argue about the [apparent] uniformity in the universe (never mind this is not exactly the case), he'll have to learn some basic mathematics -- in his case, understanding the definition of 'pi' would be a good start, but better still would be a demonstrated ability to take a derivative.
Until then, talking physics with him is like... Hmm... the available metaphors are far less contemptuously descriptive of Dan than merely calling him an imbecile. That's unfortunate, as I enjoy such metaphors...
Anyway... Mixed up in the discussion is some argument over definitions, and some sloppy use of the 'dishonest' label. It is never dishonest to seek to clarify one's terms, and as Pvbivs has noted, dictionaries don't define words, they report how words are generally used. When we have a debate/discussion, then, it is imperative that we provide stipulative definitions of the key words and concepts we seek to discuss. Insofar as 'dictionary.com' defines 'atheism' as Pvblivs has noted, other dictionaries report its definition differently, and even the one provided leaves room for the 'lack of belief in any god(s)' definition -- what else does disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings mean?
More to the point, if we take the definition from 'dictionary.com' for Christian, we get the following [relevant definitions]:
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
Is Dan bound to any of these? Do we not allow him to more or less arbitrarily define "Christian" to mean something more specific than the common use of the term?
Clearly, some room is granted a person in defining his terms, and this room must just as well be afforded or denied the professing 'atheist' as it is the professing 'Christian.' Closer still to the point, if you insist on defining 'atheism' in this manner, I must therefore insist that I have a right to restate my position such that it is more in keeping with my actual views. While I may describe myself as a 'weak atheist' and a 'strong anti-theist,' if these terms mean something so different to you that any characterization on your part of my position results in a straw man, then one or both of us must take care to explicitly define our terms.
Enough of the wordplay.
Dan said to someone:
ReplyDeleteSo can you tell me how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, and eternal laws of logic?
This is Dan gargling Sye's semen. Dan refuses to admit the fact that he, like everybody else, accepts logic, regardless of any 'accounting' for it, and then he, like everyone else, uses it (although in his case much less successfully) to conclude the thing he proclaims to be 'presupposed.'
Dan also said:
For the record and clarity, if someone has rejected God and believes in x, (the flying spaghetti monster), had indeed picked a side.
In spite of your punctuation and grammar fail, I agree with what you're trying to say, except that 'God' is left unspecified. I suppose it doesn't matter, though, for in the simple case of rejecting a notion, one has taken sides with respect to that notion.
To me there are two sides right or wrong.
In the simplistic view, this is true, but it is far more complex than you're letting on. In fact, you're setting up a false dichotomy -- knowing you, it's probably unwitting.
One of us has picked the right one.
This does not follow. While 'right' and 'wrong' may indeed be mutually exclusive, and may comprise an exhaustive set of possibilities, your 'side' and my 'side' needn't necessarily be found in opposite bins. There are thousands of explicitly proposed gods which easily satisfy the nonsensical requirement you have of 'accounting' for logic, etc., and the set of possible gods which would satisfy your requirement must be approaching infinity in number. Far more likely is that neither of us has picked the 'right' side, and if we isolate the likelihood of any god(s) at all, we find that the likelihood of any of them being the 'right' one is vanishingly small -- to the point that a lack of belief in any god(s) is far more likely to be true than an expressed belief in any particular possible god.
Dan later said:
Aw come on I am not being dishonest. It is reasoning which worldview makes sense. Like it or not Bahnsen, et al, make a fantastic point.
Blahnsen did not make any 'fantastic point' (based on my limited exposure to the man), but instead erects a castle made of imagination. He's the emperor's tailor, and the emperor is nude. Only the simple-minded or the deliberately deceptive embrace his nonsense. Blahnsen is quite unable to honestly identify his conclusion as anything else -- it is something to which reason (however flawed) and logic (however misunderstood) have already been applied.
Likewise, Blahnsen is unable to distinguish between his own position and that of an Andrea Yates-like delusional. El Dani, as a prime example, was certain of his status as prophet, but he was quite incorrect. Every single claim made by Blahnsen or yourself, and which you back up by citing personal or general revelation, is just as possible to be a simple delusion of complex magnitude.
Dan then said:
I am trying to weigh which worldview has the answers as to where the abstract and eternal "logic" came from.
You're full of shit; you're doing nothing of the sort. Rather, you've concluded long ago that you have all the answers you need, and from that point you've applied selection bias to seek out only that information -- no matter how devoid of value -- that supports your conclusion. Blahnsen pitched for Sye, and now you catch for Sye, but the only reason you embraced it (apart, I suppose, from your unconscious desire to be dominated) is because it seemed to fit with what you already thought, and it was so dazzling when you were first exposed to it that you were sure it was gold. Alas, though, it is only iron pyrite, so I suppose to you it really is gold...
Is infanticide always wrong?
Spit or swallow, Sye's man-seed won't help you wiggle out of that, and even if you reject my position, if infanticide is a problem for you, you should consider rejecting your own position, no matter your view of mine.
Lastly, Pvblivs said the following, which Dan rather enjoyed:
ReplyDeleteBut a lack of belief is not a conclusion at all; a belief of lack, however, is.
This is true, and I don't think it's disputed. When Pvblivs notes that 'atheists' describe their position as a rational conclusion, he misses the point. A lack of belief in any god(s) is the default human condition. Some of us are indoctrinated into a particular religion, and learn to believe in a god, whereas others of us somehow conclude that there is a god. Eventually, some of either of these latter two groups may conclude that there are probably no gods, reverting to the default position, but this is quite different than a "slip up on the 'lack of belief' claim." I happily agree that "a lack of belief is not a conclusion at all"; this helps not Dan, but me. I also agree that I have concluded that there probably are no gods. In my case, then, I began at the default, endured indoctrination such that I believed there was a god (specifically, Dan's god), and through application of reason and logic I was able to conclude that my subconsciously default position was in fact the most appropriate. Atheism -- my atheism -- is therefore both not a conclusion, and a conclusion.
Pvblivs' point in this respect is unaffected, I'd say -- at the least, it survives with minor adjustment. Dan's use of it, however, lies in a crumpled heap, in a like pile of Dan's excrement, which curiously contains a large quantity of Sye's ejaculate.
--
Stan
Hugo,
ReplyDeleteLook, all I am asking is which system makes human experience intelligible?
Oops wait Stan is back...
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Enough of the wordplay."
Wait, is there such a category as a dick atheist?
You know to help better define a person that is.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteJust because you are curious of Sye's sweet, sweet nectar of truth, you don't have to get all frantic about it. You are like the guy that beats up gays because of his latent homosexuality. Might want to look into that.
Anyway...
Which system makes human experience intelligible?
For the sake of argument, I grant you your system with whatever foundations that you have adopted in order to see if it can justify its truth claims.
But then you will have to grant me mine, for sake of argument, to see if I can justify my truth claims.
And just because you earned a feather for the infanticide point don't keep bringing old things up like a bitter wife. You win that one, now how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, and eternal laws of logic?
Which system makes human experience intelligible?
ReplyDeleteFew of us, if any of us, has, or ever will, or is even capable of fully outlining his 'system,' so the subject here is both ambiguous and impractical. Which, indeed?
What, too, is meant by 'intelligible'? Do you mean that it has meaning? Do you mean that it can be understood in a 'true' context? Do you mean that it can be quantified? The modifier here is likewise ambiguous.
Of course, this is beside the point, for you beg the question by assuming that human experience can be 'intelligible' -- whatever is meant by the modifier. Until that is established, including disambiguation of the term, the question itself is invalid.
In practical terms, however, the question has a simple answer: all of them. If a human can function at any level, then irrespective of his 'system,' his experience is on some level or another 'intelligible.'
Did you have a point?
For the sake of argument, I grant you your system with whatever foundations that you have adopted in order to see if it can justify its truth claims.
Excellent. My 'system' makes no truth claims apart from those which are made by definition. Would you have me justify that which I define?
But then you will have to grant me mine, for sake of argument, to see if I can justify my truth claims.
Heh. Okay... Before we continue, however, even if one or both of us proposes a 'system' which "can justify its truth claims," does that justification tell us anything about the 'truth' value of the system? Is any system which "can justify its truth claims" true? Is a system which cannot "justify its truth claims" necessarily false?
I mean, if we're going to circle-jerk, is at least one of us going to climax?
[N]ow how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, and eternal laws of logic?
I do not. I do not presume to know that the laws of logic, as defined by humans, apply universally. Clearly they are abstract, so they are only eternal in that any abstract notion is eternal (such an attribute is essentially meaningless). To say they are invariant begs the question just as much as saying they are universal. Thus, any 'account' given is necessarily dishonest -- that is, if it claims to be the 'account,' and claims that any other 'account' is invalid. As I am not dishonest, and I strive not to question-beg, I will provide no 'account' other than to say that based on the presumption of my ability to reason, the 'laws of logic' seem to hold. I conclude that logic is useful.
Now, riddle me this:
How do you account for the immaterial, universal, unchanging nature of absolute morality, including the fact that it is immaterially, universally, unchangingly, and absolutely morally wrong to refuse to commit infanticide in certain cases?
If you balk at that question, I understand, so perhaps the following question is more to your taste:
Ptolemy provided an account for the apparent motion of the sun, moon, stars, and planets. Does having an 'account' for something make it true, does it make it false, or does it have no bearing on the truth?
--
Stan
I am the basis of logic.
ReplyDeleteBy the impossibility of the contrary.
Only by assuming this fact can any worldview make sense.
If you try to use logic to attempt to prove this fact wrong (you won't be able to), you have ALREADY assumed my worldview.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"Hugo,
Look, all I am asking is which system makes human experience intelligible?
Oops wait Stan is back... "
Wow, yes, I guess. When Stan is back, you fail miserably. He clearly knows more about you than the few people who wrote here the last few days...
Thanks Stan! I work all day in front of a computer so I needed some rest tonight. Your words are like the words or God, lol ;)
Just reading this made my day:
"in his [Dan] case, understanding the definition of 'pi' would be a good start, but better still would be a demonstrated ability to take a derivative"
"It is never dishonest to seek to clarify one's terms, and as Pvbivs has noted, dictionaries don't define words, they report how words are generally used"
It reminded me of an important fact: "There are only 10 types of people in the world —
those who understand binary, and those who don't"
I have nothing to say, Stan said it all already really...
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteDead Fred,
"Once again I post a link to an account for logic that requires no deity. "
No you didn't, that link basically said "Sye, you have the ball. " with nothing to point to your view of logic.
Which goes to show your complete lack of comprehension. I didn't give the account, Darrin Rasberry did. You should actually try reading the posts fully, Darrin gives a full account for logic, defining his terms very precisely. I can see why this gave you some trouble.
In the comments you divert the question until Sye gave up on you.
As I've pointed out, the comments aren't mine, they're Darrin's and Sye ran away because he couldn't refute Darrin's account with his usual bullshit rhetoric. I note you can't either which says everything I need to know about your position i.e. that it's untenable.
Address the post please.
I did, it's not my fault if you cannot comprehend the reply.
"Can an Atheist justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things?"
Yes, Darrin did in the link I gave you - read it properly.
Once you try to justify universals and the laws of logic, you step out of your worldview and into ours.
Lol, there's only one person here committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. Hint: it's you.
Your presuppositions cannot sustain your worldview and cannot account for universals. Agree?
No, now refute Darrin's account or accept you have no basis for your 'argument'.
Pvb said:
ReplyDeleteAll worldviews simply assume fundamental logic. No worldview accounts for logic, because logic must come first. You are just being dishonest here.
and Stan said:
This is Dan gargling Sye's semen. Dan refuses to admit the fact that he, like everybody else, accepts logic, regardless of any 'accounting' for it, and then he, like everyone else, uses it (although in his case much less successfully) to conclude the thing he proclaims to be 'presupposed.'
Nail. Head. Hit.
The presupper claims that their foremost presupposition is that God exists and is the source of truth, knowledge, logic, etc...
But where does the presupper get this claim from? How can they account for it?
In order to make such a claim, the presupper must first presuppose the existence of the very same things that God is supposedly the source of - truth, knowledge and logic
- The presupper presupposes truth as they already accept their claim to be true.
- The presupper presupposes knowledge as the very act of making the claim is itself a knowledge claim.
- The presupper presupposes logic as they use logic to arrive at their claim.
So the original presuppositions being made are actually that truth, knowledge and logic exist. Therefore it isn't necessary to claim that a magical being accounts for these concepts, since they are already being presupposed in order to make such a claim. Essentially, if a presupper is honest they would be forced to admit that they are in the same position as any other person with regards the origin of concepts such as truth, knowledge and logic - they don't know.
More here.
Gorth Satana,
ReplyDeleteI am the basis of logic.
By the impossibility of the contrary.
Only by assuming this fact can any worldview make sense.
If you try to use logic to attempt to prove this fact wrong (you won't be able to), you have ALREADY assumed my worldview.
Shit man. This was so devastating I can only stare in amazement.
G.E.
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"There are only 10 types of people in the world —
those who understand binary, and those who don't"
WWV0IHlvdSBjYW5ub3QgcmVhc29uIHdoaWNoIHN5c3RlbSBtYWtlcyBodW1hbiBleHBlcmllbmNlIGludGVsbGlnaWJsZS4gDQoNClN0YW4sIGFuZCBoaXMgbGF0ZW50IHJlZmVyZW5jZXMsIHdpbGwgcmVmdXNlIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlc2UgdHJhbnNjZW5kZW50YWwgaXNzdWVzLiAiVGhlIHdheSBvZiBhIGZvb2wgaXMgcmlnaHQgaW4gaGlzIG93biBleWVzOiBidXQgaGUgdGhhdCBoZWFya2VuZXRoIHVudG8gY291bnNlbCBpcyB3aXNlLiIgKFByb3ZlcmJzIDEyOjE1KQ==
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete"I didn't give the account, Darrin Rasberry did. "
I apologize, I was under my assumption that Darrin was you.
You were pointing to his blog so much I didn't think you would religiously count on others for your arguments. I will not make that mistake again since I know that is your modus operandi now.
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteI will find time to read your post about presup. Admittedly I haven't read any of them but I am curious as to what you say. I will comment later.
I have Stan to work on first, I will do my best to give him that "happy ending" he is looking for, but form that circular sign I might be able to address some of your points by answering Stan.
At least you linked to your own post.
G.E. (incognito)
ReplyDeleteMissed you, welcome back. Now it's a party!
DAN:
ReplyDeleteWWV0IHlvdSBjYW5ub3QgcmVhc29uIHdoaWNoIHN5c3RlbSBtYWtlcyBodW1hbiBleHBlcmllbmNlIGludGVsbGlnaWJsZS4gDQoNClN0YW4sIGFuZCBoaXMgbGF0ZW50IHJlZmVyZW5jZXMsIHdpbGwgcmVmdXNlIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlc2UgdHJhbnNjZW5kZW50YWwgaXNzdWVzLiAiVGhlIHdheSBvZiBhIGZvb2wgaXMgcmlnaHQgaW4gaGlzIG93biBleWVzOiBidXQgaGUgdGhhdCBoZWFya2VuZXRoIHVudG8gY291bnNlbCBpcyB3aXNlLiIgKFByb3ZlcmJzIDEyOjE1KQ
Yeah! a puzzle! Can we have any clues? This certainly has nothing to do with my joke on binary numbers though, am I suppose to see a connection?
By the way, still waiting for a quick reply on this...
DAN:
"Can the nonbelievers, that are devoted to the scientific empirical method, talk of concepts or universals?"
HUGO:
Is that a joke or what?
You did not mean that I hope; I mean I don't agree with many of the things you say, but I don't think you are stupid or completly ignorant of what concepts are...
Stanly,
ReplyDelete"Few of us, if any of us, has, or ever will, or is even capable of fully outlining his 'system,' so the subject here is both ambiguous and impractical."
Interesting, insert Occam's razor? Your convoluted worldview might need some ironing out before you want to come here with the adults. Student. I understand that you cannot articulate your thoughts and reason. :7)
"What, too, is meant by 'intelligible'? Do you mean that it has meaning? Do you mean that it can be understood in a 'true' context? Do you mean that it can be quantified? The modifier here is likewise ambiguous."
What happened to your "Enough of the wordplay." Hypocrite much?
Yes, capable of being apprehended or understood with common sense and reason. How do I put myself into your shoes to understand your worldview in relation to how things make sense, to account for the things such as universal laws, morality, uniformity of nature in a rational way.
Plus, the only thing here that is ambiguous is your gayness with all these references to Sye.
Moving on
DAN:
ReplyDelete[...] How do I put myself into your shoes to understand your worldview [...]
You seem to like to say that a lot. I cannot talk for the others but my answer to you would be this: If you really try to put yourself into my shoes, there is a very simple way to do so: just forget all that you know, everything, and try to learn everything again.
Start with basic principles as, how do you know you exists? do other things/people exists? What differenciate something that exists from something that does not? How can you verify the truthness of a claim? etc...
I wonder at what point you'll find the need to insert a claim like "I don't know where this came from, therefore there must be something intelligent behind it", but I am sure you'll find a way, as you probably won't be able to completely forget your pre-suppositions...
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"Yeah! a puzzle! Can we have any clues?"
Sorry was that over your head? That was [base 64]
Here it is in binary:
01011001 01100101 01110100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01110011 01101111 01101110 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101001 01100011 01101000 00100000 01110011 01111001 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100101 01111000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01101001 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01101001 01100010 01101100 01100101 00101110 00100000 00001101 00001010 00001101 00001010 01010011 01110100 01100001 01101110 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101100 01100001 01110100 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100110 01100101 01110010 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110011 00101100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100110 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01110011 01110100 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101110 01110011 01100011 01100101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101001 01110011 01110011 01110101 01100101 01110011 00101110 00100000 00100010 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110111 01100001 01111001 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100110 01101111 01101111 01101100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110010 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101111 01110111 01101110 00100000 01100101 01111001 01100101 01110011 00111010 00100000 01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101000 01100101 01100001 01110010 01101011 01100101 01101110 01100101 01110100 01101000 00100000 01110101 01101110 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100011 01101111 01110101 01101110 01110011 01100101 01101100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110011 01100101 00101110 00100010 00100000 00101000 01010000 01110010 01101111 01110110 01100101 01110010 01100010 01110011 00100000 00110001 00110010 00111010 00110001 00110101 00101001
DAN:
ReplyDeleteSorry was that over your head?
Yes of course, what are a random set of characters suppose to mean if you don't have any context at all? (Unlike the short joke I posted...)
Ok so now you posted a long series of binary numbers, composed of 8 digits each, what am I suppose to be looking for?
decipher it?
ReplyDeleteI thought you knew binary. You don't Sp33k code?
Oh I see, ya now I could try to read it I guess, or find a L337 translator...
ReplyDeleteTranslating in binary makes it lose its meaning though, I don't get why you did that?
Forget it, I was merely showing my leetspeak skills. Moving on and let me address Stan some more.
ReplyDeleteYa, you should even erase these comments I guess as we polluted the discussion...
ReplyDeleteStanly (con't)
ReplyDelete"Of course, this is beside the point, for you beg the question by assuming that human experience can be 'intelligible' -- whatever is meant by the modifier. Until that is established, including disambiguation of the term, the question itself is invalid."
*sigh
Dude,all systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning. How else can you argue legitimacy of logic without employing logic?
Christianity is not circular, because we appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. With that my argument is not circular, the Bible is my ultimate authority. That too is not circular,
* (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)
* (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout.
* (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God.
* (4, from 2 and 3) Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so God must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)
* (5) If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)
* (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.
* (7, from 2 and 5) Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.
* (8, from 7) This someone is God.
What we see here is not an instance of circular reasoning, but two different arguments, only partly deductive, for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings in question.
Besides, (begging the question) is formally logical, and in fact logically valid – that is, the conclusion does follow from the premise – they are tautological.
(forgot source, wiki?)
Moving on?
Stanly (con't)
ReplyDeleteThe question was Now how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, and eternal laws of logic?
You responded "I do not."
OK thanks for playing along. I guess you wish not to enter the "for the sake of argument" arena. I fully understand.
"I do not presume to know that the laws of logic, as defined by humans, apply universally."
Great, then I cannot make your worldview intelligible. I will stick with the one that is most reasonable that can "account" for such things from that old ancient, often called "irrelevant", book from 2000 years ago. Boy, from an evolution standpoint, people are not getting more intelligent as the years go on. Some old book can make things intelligible, but your education level at this point with all these modern tools to understand life renders you mute.
...tbc
Stanly (con't)
ReplyDelete"As I am not dishonest, and I strive not to question-beg, I will provide no 'account' other than to say that based on the presumption of my ability to reason, the 'laws of logic' seem to hold."
Now you are lying? Remember I just said that all systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning. How else can you argue legitimacy of logic without employing logic?
Stanly (con't),
ReplyDeleteHow do you account for the immaterial, universal, unchanging nature of absolute morality, including the fact that it is immaterially, universally, unchangingly, and absolutely morally wrong to refuse to commit infanticide in certain cases?
infanticide is always wrong from the human perspective. From a Creator that can take or give souls it is not wrong because this body is not the final and ultimate destination. God can rip apart bodies while preserving souls, something we cannot do so it is always wrong to abort babies in any stage including infanticide.
I thought you knew binary. You don't Sp33k code?
ReplyDeleteAs if you can. You just typed your little message into a translator and pasted the result. If you think you're so bad-ass, try to decode the following:
This message is poorly encrypted.
Since decrypting that message is impossible, I'll instead offer one which is possible to decrypt:
C^-&|p-1%&ADY>XBpeAm~R8-aKn"2 :!(Igug,"xN85)zO2ORMiW2 t-aWfpnZbNIQW~$.:2O3M:&.ce89#
The encryption key to the above is Stan.
Whatever. To answer your question, however, human experience is by definition intelligible (as you seem to mean it) in virtually every case. Thus, no matter what system is employed, human experience is intelligible.
I understand that you cannot articulate your thoughts and reason.
Right. If the point sailed right over your head, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You clearly haven't thought out every last detail of your 'system,' as neither have I, and all of us are in the awkward position of defining our 'system' on-the-fly. What you understand, then, is just an illusion generated by your brain's inability to comprehend. It is so with most of what you understand, I'm afraid.
You were pointing to his blog so much I didn't think you would religiously count on others for your arguments. I will not make that mistake again since I know that is your modus operandi now.
That's rich, coming from a guy whose latest musings are nothing short of copied-and-pasted arguments from Blahnsen, including plagiarized comments in the aftermath.
Douche much?
Incidentally, I noticed that you quite obviously ignored both of my questions, so I'll repost them for your convenience:
Question 1: How do you account for the immaterial, universal, unchanging nature of absolute morality, including the fact that it is immaterially, universally, unchangingly, and absolutely morally wrong to refuse to commit infanticide in certain cases?
Question 2: Ptolemy provided an account for the apparent motion of the sun, moon, stars, and planets. Does having an 'account' for something make it true, does it make it false, or does it have no bearing on the truth?
--
Stan
Hey Dan, sorry to come back to that but I still had one of the emails opened and I noticed that:
ReplyDelete"That was [base 64]"
How can you write something in base 64!?
Ah. You're just taking your time. I'll address some of your "points" before I continue with respect to the questions I had asked.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Stanly (con't)
ReplyDeleteDoes having an 'account' for something make it true, does it make it false, or does it have no bearing on the truth?
Wow, Stanly is getting philosophical on us. Nice.
Having an account for something gives us the best explanation to allow our common sense to make things intelligible. If not, then throw science right out the window.
Does it make it false? Garbage in garbage out is my first thoughts. Maybe though.
Does science have a bearing on the truth? Apparently not if the conclusion is evolutionary and materialistic. But science doesn't conclude and evolves itself.
"Epistemological method of science necessarily presupposes metaphysics" though. "The method of knowing depends on the nature of reality.
Bahnsen said "Scientists constantly deal with unseen realities, such as sub atomic particles, gravity, magnetism, radiation, barometric pressure, elasticity, radioactivity, natural laws, names, numbers, past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought, individual identity over time, causation, ans so forth."
For instance, the "whole theory of evolution which controls modern science inquiry is a non-sensory theoretical projection back into time which is held by many to be indisputable fact. Yet no scientist was there to witness it. They have not seen any other universe created or one kind of life evolve into another of a different kind."
But I believe they are mistaken.
An, evolving, chance universe cannot account for absolute, unchanging, universal laws of logic.
"That's rich, coming from a guy whose latest musings are nothing short of copied-and-pasted arguments from Blahnsen, including plagiarized comments in the aftermath.
ReplyDeleteDouche much?"
Touché and fight your own battles. I can dig Freddies Dead a little can't I?
Fine I will wear the hat for the day. Happy?
Dude,all systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the issue, however. You asked which system makes the human system "intelligible," which begs the question. Unless you are prepared to argue that question-begging is no longer an informal fallacy, you should stop right here.
[Dan lists "logical" points which ostensibly show that the bible is true and of god]
This isn’t even challenging:
1. The Unicorn Physiology website is true on all specific points we can verify...
Oh, crap. Everything in your garbage "argument" follows from that first premise, which has already been shown to be absolutely absurd. Don't believe me?
2. Hence, we have good reason to assume that it is completely truthful throughout.
Daaaaaaaaa...
3. The site describes many events that demonstrate the existence of unicorns.
4. Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so unicorns must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)
5. If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)
I'd love to see these "arguments," for there is absolutely zero evidence that any non-human has ever authored any text. If there were such evidence, it would necessarily be a game-changer. Your "argument" fails again here.
6. Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.
...which is preposterous.
7. Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.
Non sequitur.
This someone is a unicorn.
Crass non sequitur. Even if I granted any of the preceding "points," it does not follow that the author(s) of the bible must be god. Since you're already inventing some magical non-lying author, there is nothing to prevent it from being a non-lying Sasquatch living in the Cascade mountains.
What we see here is not an instance of circular reasoning, but two different arguments, only partly deductive, for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings in question.
Heh. First, we see failed reasoning. Not only is that "argument" circular, but it's also awful. Saying it's "only partly deductive" isn't a selling point, by the way -- since you imply it is primarily inductive, you admit that it is necessarily invalid, and probably weak. The claim that the argument supports an "all-knowing higher being" is a bald assertion -- you didn't even attempt to show that this "god" character was "all-knowing," and equally unargued is the claim that "god" must be a "higher being."
Besides, (begging the question) is formally logical, and in fact logically valid – that is, the conclusion does follow from the premise – they are tautological.
You're on crack. I...
...really?
Dan, are you a complete tool on purpose, or is it just an accident?
I went to copy the Wikipedia entry for a simple definition of "Begging the question," but I see that's obviously the direct source of your argument, except that it's been altered to suggest the opposite of what the Wikipedia entry seeks to show. Perhaps this is an unintentional object lesson in why relying on Wikipedia overly much is a problem...
Anyway, I'll instead provide the book definition from my Intro to Logic text:
Begging the question: An informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion -- by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle.
It's an informal fallacy, and you're an idiot. You should take a logic course before you try to get too technical with it.
Since you've no doubt posted since my last, I'll submit this and see where we are...
--
Stan
Remember I just said that all systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThat's what you said, and I've heard it stated similarly before, but it's not technically true. Really, all 'systems' require certain axioms, upon which the rest of the system is built. I hesitate to get too in-depth here, though, as I readily admit I have not fleshed out all of the details to my 'system,' as I expect neither has anyone else. We may or may not have identified key features of our respective 'systems,' but surely some details are undefined.
To your point, then, I maintain that my ability to reason is taken as axiomatic -- it can be no other way, unless I actually think I'm insane. My ability to reason, then, is a simple axiom. From this, I note that the laws of logic seem to hold in every case to which they've been applied. I did not formulate these laws, but I have observed the actual results of their abstract "presence," and thus I tentatively assign them the status of axioms.
Tentatively? Yes. I really only hold my ability to reason as necessarily axiomatic -- logic need not hold in all cases for my ability to reason to remain intact, and I readily admit that there may be cases in which logic does not seem to apply, even if those cases have not to this point been identified or encountered.
Anyway, my foundation is my ability to reason, but here's the interesting thing: if that ability is assumed as axiomatic, it follows that all other sentients likewise assume their individual abilities to reason, which means that you, like me, are guilty of assuming not god, but your ability to reason. In your case, this ability has led you to conclude that there is a god. In mine, not so much. Ignoring the opportunity to insult you here, my position easily accommodates yours.
--
Stan
Stanly,
ReplyDeleteI am getting busy here but I wanted to point out that unicorns do exist.
Have you ever heard of Rhinoceros unicornis?
Folk stories pointed to the Elasmotherium. Look it up.
You logic is flawed again?
Dork. Have a good weekend. :7)
Having an account for something gives us the best explanation to allow our common sense to make things intelligible.
ReplyDeleteThat is not completely true. Having an account for something may give the best explanation, but it is obviously false to say that it does give the best explanation. Ptolemy's model, which I referenced and you probably didn't fathom, was, and is still, an explanation, however bad we might now consider it. More than an explanation is apparently required, yes?
Does [having an account for something] make it false? Garbage in garbage out is my first thoughts. Maybe though.
Your inability to make a definite statement here is telling -- having an account for something, obviously (as with Ptolemy) does not make the something true, and through a similar argument it does not necessarily make the something false.
Does science have a bearing on the truth? Apparently not if the conclusion is evolutionary and materialistic. But science doesn't conclude and evolves itself.
I wonder if it's as obvious to you as it is to me when you've become overwhelmed by an argument. We're talking about accounts for things, remember? Focus.
If science accounts for things, yet in some cases you would deny those accounts, and if in other cases you would accept those accounts, it necessarily follows that having an account -- true or false -- has no bearing on the truth of the thing for which the account has been made.
Given this, the questions you pose concerning "accounts" for logic, etc., are pointless -- even if we succeed, providing an account does not guarantee its accuracy any more than it guarantees its failure. Considering the fact that, in science for example, every account thus far given has been proven to be incorrect in some way, it seems to me the more prudent choice is to refrain from providing an account, but as I have demonstrated -- with your unwitting assistance -- having an account means nothing to the truth of the account.
An, evolving, chance universe cannot account for absolute, unchanging, universal laws of logic.
And here your circular argument returns. The account is irrelevant, even if provided -- we each embrace the laws of logic, for different reasons perhaps, and to each of us they appear immutable.
Touché and fight your own battles. I can dig Freddies Dead a little can't I?
You can, just not honestly. I do like that hat, though.
--
Stan
I am getting busy here but I wanted to point out that unicorns do exist.
ReplyDeleteMy point is made all the stronger!
Dork. Would you prefer that I used the D&D Monster Manual, or the Star Wars Compendium, or anything equally absurd?
"Your" "argument" was doomed from its inception -- it was a calculated example of an invalid argument, and yet you somehow saw fit to claim exactly the opposite.
Alas, I wanted to touch on your response concerning infanticide, but it can wait.
--
Stan
Isn't this just a restatement of the problem of induction with "goddidit" as the solution?
ReplyDeleteI'm not impressed.
OK Stan,
ReplyDelete"if that ability is assumed as axiomatic, it follows that all other sentients likewise assume their individual abilities to reason, which means that you, like me, are guilty of assuming not god, but your ability to reason."
We can get through this if you are willing. If you remember what Sye said "I understand that you accept the Law(s of logic) as an axiom, but that tells us nothing about what actually is. You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true. For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything."
You believe that the ability to reason (using laws of logic) can be counted on. I agree, but the problem is that you just borrowed from my worldview to come to that conclusion.
In a chance universe (your worldview) are facts random events? IF, big if, you think about it, in general, a chance is the opposite of law (which organizes and relates facts).
Now I don't claim to know all the facts, but I do know the pattern, alone they make sense (are connected). We live in a universe, the word universe indicates that we exist in a single, unified, orderly system composed of many diversified parts. Bahnsen said that these parts function together as a whole, rational, predictable system. Uniformity is valid in all places and all times.
Now another question that Bahnsen asks is "Which worldview may reasonable expect that causal connections function uniformly throughout the universe or that the future will be like the past?"
Does a chance (randomness and unpredictability) universe worldview, one that was conceived naturalistically as involving only material things, best explains why things are the way they are?
Bertrand Russell admitted that the principle of induction has no foundation in observation, in sense experience. Therefore it has no "scientific" foundation. Science, and you, assumes uniformity.
Bahnsen also argues that the Christian worldview is perfectly compatible with the uniformity of the universe. The Bible teaches that the sun will continue to measure time for us on earth (Gen 1:14-19, Eccl 1:5, Jer 33:20), that the seasons will come and go uniformly (Gen 8:22, Ps 74:17), that planting and harvests cycles may be expected (Jer 5:24, Mark 4:26-29), and so forth. Because of this God-governed regularity in nature, the scientific enterprise is possible and even fruitful.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Having an account for something may give the best explanation, but it is obviously false to say that it does give the best explanation."
O,rly? Again what happened to your plea, "Enough of the wordplay."
Between our two worldviews Christianity may, and does, give the best explanation. Hands down.
"If science accounts for things, yet in some cases you would deny those accounts, and if in other cases you would accept those accounts, it necessarily follows that having an account -- true or false -- has no bearing on the truth of the thing for which the account has been made."
Addressed and answered in prior comment (see above)
"And here your circular argument returns. The account is irrelevant, even if provided -- we each embrace the laws of logic, for different reasons perhaps, and to each of us they appear immutable."
Addressed and answered in prior comment (see above)
Anything else? I have refitted the hat to fit that large head of yours, you know just in case.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"We can get through this if you are willing. If you remember what Sye said...."
Sye never said anything of merit. He only pulled con games. So, let's forget what Sye said.
"You believe that the ability to reason (using laws of logic) can be counted on. I agree, but the problem is that you just borrowed from my worldview to come to that conclusion."
It's not a conclusion (in any worldview.) It is a premise. Here, it is a shared premise as it is common to both our worldviews. Anyone who claims that the usefulness of logic is a conclusion is either lying or confused.
"Now another question that Bahnsen asks is 'Which worldview may reasonable expect that causal connections function uniformly throughout the universe or that the future will be like the past?'"
The options seem to be a worldview that postulates an orderly univer with nothing outside it or one with a meddling god who may decide to overrule causal connections on a whim. The existence of a god actually weakens the expectation that cause and effect will hold and that the future will behave like the past. The addition of any sentient being lowers the predictability of the universe (though usually not by much.) The addition of a presumably omnipotent being devastates it.
"Between our two worldviews Christianity may, and does, give the best explanation. Hands down."
Interestingly, only someone who already believes in christianity will agree with that statement. Indeed, if you substitute "the Roman legends" for "christianity" in your statement, you will get one with which you disagree. But the legends also postulate "super-beings" that are "the cause of the order we see." You are engaging only in special pleading for your "super-being."
Stan, don't you have a day job? Just askin'. As usual, you've left pretty slim pickins for the rest of us. All I can do is proffer my slant.
ReplyDeleteDan quoth Sye:
"I understand that you accept the Law(s of logic) as an axiom, but that tells us nothing about what actually is. You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true. For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything."
Dan sayeth himself:
You believe that the ability to reason (using laws of logic) can be counted on. I agree, but the problem is that you just borrowed from my worldview to come to that conclusion.
That's enough to be going on. First off, I will say that I agree with Sye here: accepting logic as an axiom doesn't tell us what is, and it doesn't grant us certainty. But:
- while accepting logic as an axiom does not tell us what "is", it is a powerful, indeed indispensible, tool, in helping us describe the world as well as we can, which is pretty well nowadays, at least in some respects. While our models of the world are never perfect or certain, we can and do, in fact must, risk our lives on them.
- logic is as certain as anything can be within the domain of formal systems such as mathematics: it's never wrong, if used correctly. Based on the definitions of base two Euclidean arithmetic, two plus two is always four. No uncertainty there.
- positing a God doesn't really help you out of the position of simply having to accept some things as axiomatic. As has been argued here many times, you have no way of knowing that God is not tricking you, or that a demon has your brain in a vat: even Sye had no answer to that one.
And Dan: we don't need to "borrow" from the Christian worldview in order to count on logic: counting on logic predates Christianity by a long long time. Ror instance, if counting is logical, then birds are logical and have been for untold ages.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI hope you read the article I posted about the study that shows spanking kids lowers their IQs.
Just a friendly reminder since you never responded to my comment.
Here it is in case you missed it.
It looks like the Debunking Atheists have Dan on the ropes.
ReplyDeleteYou believe that the ability to reason (using laws of logic) can be counted on. I agree, but the problem is that you just borrowed from my worldview to come to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You're daft. I take the validity of my ability to reason as axiomatic, and the laws of logic follow from it. In no way have I "borrowed" from your worldview, but if you want to get technical, it is you who has assumed my axioms -- I would say we all have -- in order to come to your preposterous conclusion regarding "presuppositionalism."
Sye is a moron, and you idolize him (that's breaking the second commandment, by the way); I make no claims to certainty other than that which can be identified by definition. If you really want to pull out Sye's tired bag of trick, answer how you can distinguish yourself from someone who is deluded.
In a chance universe (your worldview) are facts random events? IF, big if, you think about it, in general, a chance is the opposite of law (which organizes and relates facts).
Are you high? Try just a little to work out the thoughts that whiz by that tiny brain of yours, before you let your fingers vomit on your keyboard.
In a chance universe (your worldview) are facts random events? IF, big if, you think about it, in general, a chance is the opposite of law (which organizes and relates facts).
:: Sigh ::
Scientific laws describe what we observe, nothing more. They relate observations, and organize them, but not in any binding way. Kepler's laws of planetary motion were in effect long before he discovered them, and they say nothing to chance events which have nothing to do with planetary motion. The only sort of law which would eliminate chance events would be a GUT, which doesn't exist, and even then, if it included anything remotely resembling Quantum Theory, it would necessarily include chance events -- Quantum Mechanics is all about probability.
A chance is not the opposite of any existing scientific law.
Now I don't claim to know all the facts, but I do know the pattern, alone they make sense (are connected). We live in a universe, the word universe indicates that we exist in a single, unified, orderly system composed of many diversified parts. Bahnsen said that these parts function together as a whole, rational, predictable system. Uniformity is valid in all places and all times.
What, did you give up? This is nothing short of pure assertion, which is ironic considering your opening disclaimer...
Bahnsen also argues that the Christian worldview is perfectly compatible with the uniformity of the universe.
That's wonderful. What do you argue? Clearly, many worldviews are compatible with the apparent uniformity of the universe, but who fucking cares? As I've shown, just because you have an explanation which may even function does not mean it is correct. See Ptolemy's model, including epicycles. The argument over worldviews, which is the only game Blahnsen and Sye play, is pointless.
Again what happened to your plea, "Enough of the wordplay."
ReplyDeleteTool. That "plea" was to stop the bickering over definitions. Here, there's no argument over definition, but clarification due to your persistent use of ambiguity in lame attempts to obfuscate (although in fairness you probably just don't comprehend your error). When you remove my emphasis when you quote me, you are deceptive -- saying that something "may" perform an action is quite different from saying that it "does" perform that action.
Between our two worldviews Christianity may, and does, give the best explanation. Hands down.
1. Blahnsen's presuppositionalism bullshit is not Christianity.
2. It explains nothing.
3. If you insist that something which is not Christianity, which does not give an explanation, is Christianity, and does give an explanation, I will correctly conclude that you are retarded.
Get a new hobby or something.
RE: accounts being impotent
Addressed and answered in prior comment (see above)
You have not once addressed nor answered the fact that having an account says nothing to the truth of the thing the account seeks to explain. Try again.
RE: the fact that you presuppose reason and logic, as do I, and then conclude god
Addressed and answered in prior comment (see above)
Not once have you addressed this, either. Try again.
--
Stan
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhich worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?
He, as well as you, have miserably failed to answer. You have at least tried instead of divert. But since you are now diverting to Stephen...
Bullshit, Dan. Stephen has shot down Sye's and Bahnsen's presuppositionalist bullshit several times.
The atheist worldview is able to make account for the laws of logic just fine, since as others have pointed out to you, those laws are just the results of the observations of the universe around us.
Why would we need to assume a "god" is responsible for those laws? He doesn't have them listed in his "holy book" and through the use of alleged "miracles" that he does whenever he wants, under your worldview, those "laws" can be overturned at any time.
Not so under athiesm.
As Stan has said:
ReplyDeleteClearly, many worldviews are compatible with the apparent uniformity of the universe, but who fucking cares? As I've shown, just because you have an explanation which may even function does not mean it is correct. See Ptolemy's model, including epicycles. The argument over worldviews, which is the only game Bahnsen and Sye play, is pointless.
You see Dan...if you're going to just blindly assume that the xian worldview is the one that provides the justification for logic, you'd better prove it. As I pointed out in my last post, the deck is stacked against you.
The laws of logic are just derivations of the results of the observations of the universe around us and do not depend on any holy book. If anything, since the Greeks were among the first to formalize the laws of logic, the xian "worldview" has stolen from them.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete" Anyone who claims that the usefulness of logic is a conclusion is either lying or confused."
I was thinking that the "ability to reason using logic" is a valid conclusion made. Besides a premise needs to be made using logic itself. So a premise about logic is not a premise at all. An infinite premise ensues. Now we are even more confused.
"The options seem to be a worldview that postulates an orderly univer with nothing outside it or one with a meddling god who may decide to overrule causal connections on a whim."
Finally someone that has the answers then. Can you please explain to me how it is possible for the various laws in a chance, random, yet orderly, universe? How do you account for uniformity in a random, chance, materialistic, universe?
"The existence of a god actually weakens the expectation that cause and effect will hold and that the future will behave like the past. "
Interestingly, only someone who already believes in an atheistic worldview will agree with that statement...
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"As has been argued here many times, you have no way of knowing that God is not tricking you, or that a demon has your brain in a vat: even Sye had no answer to that one."
Of course he did, "God cannot perform an act which is against his sinless nature."
"counting on logic predates Christianity by a long long time."
Not so fast. Christ has always existed in the Triune God. (Genesis 1:26, Matthew 28:19, John 1:1,14, John 10:30)
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"The atheist worldview is able to make account for the laws of logic just fine, since as others have pointed out to you, those laws are just the results of the observations of the universe around us."
You mean the chance random "universe"?
Chance and randomness don't even describe a universe. The atheistic "chance and random" description does not even mesh with the word "Universe".
Bahnsen: "Universe is derived from unus, Latin word "one" and versus is the Latin "to turn" meaning "to turn into one," i.e., from many parts. That we live in a universe indicates that we exist in a single, unified, orderly system which is composed of many diversified parts. These parts function together as a whole, rational, predictable system."
Doesn't the atheistic system describe a multiverse?
"A multiverse would be a dis-unified, totally fragmented, and random assortment of disconnected and uncorrectable facts. These unconnectable facts would be meaninglessly scattered about in a chaotic disarray and ultimate disorder."
The uniformity of the universe, and science principles, is valid in all places and all times. That is, "the same material causes under the same material conditions will produce the same material results."
The atheists have to find an entirely different system in order to describe, or make sense of, their worldview. I believe that is the main reason to search for evidence of a multiverse. Keep in mind the notion of a multiverse is science fiction. The presupposed notion that the universe is "chance and random" does not make sense in a universe, thus the search for more systems.
Even Sagan said "the universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be" (Cosmos)
Also, note Sagan's metaphysical assumption that the future will be like the past...
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"if you're going to just blindly assume that the xian worldview is the one that provides the justification for logic, you'd better prove it."
Like science, it is the best explanation between the two worldviews. Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic? Certainly not the atheists worldview.
Bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
If that is what your post is about, which I haven't read yet, then I am not missing anything.
@DAN
ReplyDelete"Can you please explain to me how it is possible for the various laws in a chance, random, yet orderly, universe? How do you account for uniformity in a random, chance, materialistic, universe?"
Froggie said:
There is only uniformity in the universe where it is empirically shown to be uniform.
You already had your answer a few days ago...
Let me put it another way.
What laws are you talking about? Where do you see your uniformity?
Equations do not work when you insert infinity in them, agreed?
So, Dan, how can your flawless worldview account for the fact that all the equations we used to justify laws (that you claim to be universal) do not work for black holes, or the beginning of the universe?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang Theory points to a singularity which was infinitely dense and hot. So how does your uniform universe behave under such conditions? Where are your laws?
Look at black holes too, same thing: a point so dense that even light can't escape. But how can we observe and confirm the uniformity of the universe in accordance to our laws if we can't even observe it?
Oh but wait, wasn't the discussion on the uniformity of the laws of logic? Then what does the uniformity of the physical observable universe have to do with that? Is our universe uniform or not? How do you know? How do you know that the laws of logic are the same everywhere in the universe?
That's what a few people here have been giving you explanations for...
DAN:[N]ow how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant, and eternal laws of logic?
STAN: I do not. I do not presume to know that the laws of logic, as defined by humans, apply universally. Clearly they are abstract, so they are only eternal in that any abstract notion is eternal (such an attribute is essentially meaningless). To say they are invariant begs the question just as much as saying they are universal. Thus, any 'account' given is necessarily dishonest -- that is, if it claims to be the 'account,' and claims that any other 'account' is invalid. As I am not dishonest, and I strive not to question-beg, I will provide no 'account' other than to say that based on the presumption of my ability to reason, the 'laws of logic' seem to hold. I conclude that logic is useful.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I was thinking that the 'ability to reason using logic' is a valid conclusion made."
No, it's a premise, because you have to reason, using logic, to draw a conclusion.
"Besides a premise needs to be made using logic itself."
Incorrect, a premise uses nothing. It has "nothing underneath it" so to speak.
"The addition of any sentient being lowers the predictability of the universe (though usually not by much.) The addition of a presumably omnipotent being devastates it."
"Interestingly, only someone who already believes in an atheistic worldview will agree with that statement..."
You doubt (and by extension claim that everyone who has not ruled out all possible gods also doubts) that sentient beings reduce predictability? Something purely mechanical can be predicted from the sheer mechanics of it -- although quantum "weirdness" also reduces predictability. But a mind can always defy expectations. Therefore any mind reduces predictability to the degree that it can affect the events in question. A mind with total control (as you claim your god is) renders predictability impossible. He can do whatever he wants. He could make the sky pink and purple stripes. (All this assumes he exists and does have that power.)
Furthermore, since I made the statement and am not (strictly speaking) an atheist, your claim is false on its face.
"'As has been argued here many times, you have no way of knowing that God is not tricking you, or that a demon has your brain in a vat: even Sye had no answer to that one.'
"Of course he did, 'God cannot perform an act which is against his sinless nature.'"
That is not an answer because you have no way of knowing that he has not tricked you into thinking that he has a "sinless nature" or that him tricking you was actually against it.
"Universe is derived from unus, Latin word 'one' and versus is the Latin 'to turn' meaning 'to turn into one,' i.e., from many parts."
That fails so badly, it hurts. The Latin word verto only means turning as the turning of a wheel or turning to the left or to the right. It cannot be used to mean a transformation.
"Not so fast. Christ has always existed...."
That claim required a reinterpretation of Genesis and otherwise relied entirely on claims made by christianity.
"The presupposed notion that the universe is 'chance and random' does not make sense in a universe, thus the search for more systems."
The notion that the universe is "chance and random" has not, as far as I am aware, been advanced by anyone. Instead, christians lie and say "this is what you believe."
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"I conclude that logic is useful."
Yes but you are missing the point. In this universe you can conclude that but that goes directly against an atheistic evolutionary, chance, random, materialism system. Get it? My point is that Christianity best explains the universe we live in, not the atheistic model
The moment atheists speak of uniformity they are using my worldview and renders their worldview inconsistent.
Dan
ReplyDeleteLike science, it is the best explanation between the two worldviews. Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic? Certainly not the atheists worldview.
Our "worldview" is just as good as yours, or the Greeks. The bible gives no indication that its authours knew of the laws of logic.
By the way, why do you keep assuming that atheists can't account for universals? What does any worldview have to do with the universal laws of nature? Your worldview sure can't do it, after all, your god keeps overturning those universal laws whenever he does a "miracle".
The universal laws of nature can be discovered by anyone of any worldview who just cares to observe and figure them out.
As for "accounting" for them, all that any worldview can do is basically say: "That's just the way it is", really.
Xians just reword that phrase into something like "that's how GOD made it". In the end, it's not any more of an accounting than that provided by any other world view.
Bahnsen et al just have to assume your god's existence in the first place and THEN try to use your god as the "basis" for logic etc, all in an effort to show that your religion is the "correct" one in the first bloody place!
Presuppositionalism is just a long-winded form of circulare reasoning.
Dan
ReplyDeleteBear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
So all those creationists who claim that science "proves" a young earth or that science "proves" the existence of a god also don't understand the scientific method?
Besides that, all the available evidence we've got so far supports an old earth and evolution. Scientists are the first ones to give examples of what it would take to disprove evolution...ex)fossilized vertebrates in the pre-cambrian rock layers.
It's like atomic theory...the evidence and the successful tests that the theory has been used are so strong that evolution is accepted as factual until and unless some other theory comes along that does a better job of explaining things.
Good luck with that.
If that is what your post is about, which I haven't read yet, then I am not missing anything.
If you haven't read it yet, then why in hell are you commenting on it?
All you do is assert without any evidence that christianity "accounts" for "universals" and the "laws of logic", never mind the fact that I repeatedly noted that none of the laws of logic that you claim xianity "accounts for" are in the bible in the first place. The one time you tried to post to a place that you claimed to have that, you got shot down badly since that site didn't do what you thought it did.
Yes but you are missing the point. In this universe you can conclude that but that goes directly against an atheistic evolutionary, chance, random, materialism system. Get it?
Wrong. Why do you assume that under the "atheistic" view, there can't be any universal laws? You, Sye and "doctor" Bahnsen seem to have made a strawman view of atheism here.
Probably because none of you berks can back up your claim that xianity alone "accounts" for the laws of logic et al.
My point is that Christianity best explains the universe we live in, not the atheistic model
Assertion without evidence.
ANY "worldview" can "account" for the laws of logic since they're just abstractions of thought devised by man to explain the universe around us. As I keep saying, the Greeks are the ones who first formulized them...perhaps it's the Greek religion that "accounts" for the laws of logic, not xianity.
The moment atheists speak of uniformity they are using my worldview and renders their worldview inconsistent.
The ancient Greeks would like to have a word with you.
And in another exhcange:
"'As has been argued here many times, you have no way of knowing that God is not tricking you, or that a demon has your brain in a vat: even Sye had no answer to that one.'
"Of course he did, 'God cannot perform an act which is against his sinless nature.'"
So when a human abortionist kills a fetus it's a "sin", but God can kill pregnant women and babies which is obviously fucking worse, yet you say that God can't do anything against his "sinless nature"?
If killing pregnant women and babies is not a sin, then what the christ fuck IS??
BTW, I know of all the rationaliztions that people like Sarfati, Holding et al use for that shit, but all it amounts to in the end is situational ethics on the part of your "sinless" god.
I can't believe that after you "apologists" contradict yourselves like this that you go on to claim credit for the "laws of logic"???
The moment atheists speak of uniformity they are using my worldview and renders their worldview inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteDan, you're just wanking off here. As I've demonstrated quite clearly, having an explanatory worldview speaks nothing to the truth of either the explanation or the worldview itself. Even were this not the case, however, the simple fact is that your model explicitly denies uniformity. Virtually every commenter here has shown you in numerous ways that your whole stupid regurgitation of Blahnsen's nonsense is pure rubbish, yet you truck on as though nothing has happened.
Until you actually address the following facts, you're doing nothing more than masturbating:
1. Proposing a specific worldview as being "the best" explanation has no bearing on the validity of either the worldview or the explanation.
2. Claiming that you presuppose something which is itself a conclusion is blatant dishonesty.
3. The claim that an "atheistic evolutionary, chance, random, materialism system" cannot withstand uniformity is both asinine and intentionally misrepresenting your opposition.
I imagine there are plenty of other points which have been made, but with over a hundred comments to go through, the above will suffice for the moment.
...they are using my worldview...
This pathetic claim is probably the biggest bitch-move you've yet pulled. Sye has pulled it too, and I don't believe I've yet called him out on it, but what you and he do here is require that we explain something, and when we do, you complain that we've "borrowed" from your worldview, which you say nullifies our explanation. Your tactic here is like playing a game with a poor sport who changes the rules whenever he's about to lose. Just like that kid got his ass kicked on the playground, you're getting your ass kicked on your blog. Stop jerking off, and either address the points, concede the points, or, far more likely, obfuscate by posting something new (and then claim victory when you link to this thread).
--
Stan
My model of the basis of logic best describes the universe. Christianity is arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteThe moment Christians speak of uniformity they are using my worldview and renders their worldview inconsistent.
I am the basis of logic.
By the impossibility of the contrary.
Only by assuming this fact can any worldview make sense.
If you try to use logic to attempt to prove this fact wrong (you won't be able to), you have ALREADY assumed my worldview.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete"Incorrect, a premise uses nothing. It has "nothing underneath it" so to speak."
Wrong, take an inference for example:
1. Identical twins often have different IQ scores.
2. Identical twins inherit the same genes.
3. So environment must play some part in determine IQ.
The third is the conclusion and one and two are the premises, but one and two could not be formulated without using, some form of, reason and logic.
Observations require logic.
"He can do whatever he wants. He could make the sky pink and purple stripes. (All this assumes he exists and does have that power.)"
I have seen the sky that way during sunsets. We sailors had a saying for it "red sky at night..." He is an amazing God.
" Furthermore, since I made the statement and am not (strictly speaking) an atheist, your claim is false on its face."
Your fence sitting is annoying me. :7)
New Rule:
Whenever I say atheist or atheism you personally are to translate it, for yourself, as "unbeliever" or unbelieving worldview, since you do not believe in the Biblical God our Creator.
Since you do not champion atheism nor evolution, you are the rare exception to the rule here.
We might want to view things, for argument sake, as if they were on a line with atheists on one end and Christians at the other. You, and some others, are somewhere in the middle. Can I call you a moderate Atheist? Do you have a term for your, different, worldview? You, and possible WEM, are the exceptions here. Are you a deist like WEM?
Keep in mind there is no such line and of you do not believe in the Triune God as our Savior then you are placed in the category umbrella "unbeliever" on Judgment Day.
Moving on.
'God cannot perform an act which is against his sinless nature.'
"That is not an answer because you have no way of knowing that he has not tricked you into thinking that he has a "sinless nature" or that him tricking you was actually against it."
The basis is the very character of God, they are based on His unchanging character. Lying is wrong because God does not lie.
An atheist, or yourself as an unbeliever, cannot explain why lying is wrong. In fact many say lying is justified yet their body gives tell tale signs that in fact they are lying.
I remember saying to Andrew, No matter what culture in any part of the world, It's (been shown) that ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies.
Pvb (con't)
ReplyDeleteSIDE BAR: This discussion just reminded me of something I pointed out a while ago about "Frank". I digress.
I concluded, "Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture."
Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically, but rationally.
"Not so fast. Christ has always existed...."
"That claim required a reinterpretation of Genesis and otherwise relied entirely on claims made by christianity.(sic)"
I fully admit that I presuppose the Biblical God and Christianity for my Worldview, but that is the point of the entire blog and subsequent posts.
"The notion that the universe is "chance and random" has not, as far as I am aware, been advanced by anyone. Instead, christians(sic) lie and say "this is what you believe.""
O,rly. Now I am completely confused as to what you mean. Are you claiming the universe was supposed to be?! The multiverse theory is not a lie either, Dude. Look it up before you call us, me, lairs.
OK Tell us your version of the universe. Maybe the "Big Bang" is yet another thing that you don't believe.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Whenever I say atheist or atheism you personally are to translate it, for yourself, as 'unbeliever' or unbelieving worldview...."
No, I will not translate "atheist" to mean "anyone who isn't a christian."
"We might want to view things, for argument sake, as if they were on a line with atheists on one end and [c]hristians at the other."
You might. You seem to want to divide the world into "christians" and "everyone else." In reality, people's views are more diverse. To use a map analogy, it would be like trying to put Montana on the line between California and Florida.
"The basis is the very character of God, they are based on His unchanging character. Lying is wrong because God does not lie."
Perhaps, he lied to you when he told you that. Or, more accurately, perhaps the humans who wrote the "word of god" lied in the process.
"I fully admit that I presuppose the [b]iblical [g]od and [c]hristianity for my [w]orldview, but that is the point of the entire blog and subsequent posts."
If your goal is to "debunk" those who do not share your position, you cannot assume "facts" in dispute. All you are showing is the non=christian beliefs are incompatible with christianity.
"O,rly. Now I am completely confused as to what you mean."
I mean just what I say. I have seen no one endorse a "chance, random" universe. Even the big bang model (which is endorsed by people) is neither chance nor random. It follows predictable laws of motion. You are deliberately using a strawman.
You wanted a new rule. Here's one. Every time you say that non-christians suppose a "chance, random" universe, I will interpret it to mean "I [Dan] am lying because the biblical god lies."
"The multiverse theory is not a lie either, Dude."
I did not say that no one advanced the concept of a multiverse. Some people believe our universe is one of many. I said the claim of "chance" and "random" was a misrepresentation.
"OK Tell us your version of the universe."
What would be the point? When I have told you what I believe in the past, you have ignored me.
Dan quoting someone else:
ReplyDelete'God cannot perform an act which is against his sinless nature.' <---Dan
the reply to Dan:
"That is not an answer because you have no way of knowing that he has not tricked you into thinking that he has a "sinless nature" or that him tricking you was actually against it."
Dan's reply:
The basis is the very character of God, they are based on His unchanging character. Lying is wrong because God does not lie.
Wrong.
1 Kings 22:22 (New International Version)
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
Then, God told Samuel to lie about where he was going when he was going to see David's family. (he was going to anoint someone from there to be the new "kind" of Isreal) in 1 Samuel 16...this is a lie of omission/misdirection that he was told to do. He was to give the impression that he was just going to do a sacrifice, not anointing a replacement.
So, god does lie.
If the "Lord" thinks that lying is always wrong, then if the Nazis asked someone who was hiding Jews in their house if there were any Jews there, they'd have to tell the truth then, and let them die? Remember that "less evil" stuff won't work. With your god, a sin is a sin is a sin.
Lying is not always wrong. Generally it is because it fucks up the flow of useful information that people use to get along in this world.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
"I didn't give the account, Darrin Rasberry did. "
I apologize, I was under my assumption that Darrin was you.
Apology accepted.
You were pointing to his blog so much I didn't think you would religiously count on others for your arguments.
I merely kept pointing you to a non-divine account for abstract, universal, invariant laws of logic as you kept asking for one. Had I realised you intended to religiously ignore any such account I probably wouldn't have bothered, my fault for assuming your inquiry was made honestly.
I will not make that mistake again since I know that is your modus operandi now.
Speaking of MO's, are you likely to address Darrin's account or continue to ignore it in the desperate hope it goes away?
The third is the conclusion and one and two are the premises, but one and two could not be formulated without using, some form of, reason and logic.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Dan... You seem to pull it off all the time.
While the two premises you offer may well be logical inferences, they need not be. A premise is merely a condition stated as fact -- an asserted proposition -- which, if true, ostensibly supports a conclusion. Premises themselves need not be based on logical inference, or any other logical conclusion. Consider:
P1. All Zorgs are Bants.
P2. Some Bants are Kutterns.
.: C. Some Zorgs are Kutterns.
P1 and P2 are premises, pure and simple. Since in this case they don't even refer to actual things, they cannot be observations, and you will have to argue uncharacteristically well to get anyone to agree that they "could not be formulated without using, some form of, reason and logic." Even though the conclusion in this example does not necessarily follow, the premises are premises, and are not inferred from anything -- unless you know what Zorgs, Bants, and Kutterns are (I don't, and I made up the example).
They are nothing more than abstract categorical propositions.
I have seen the sky [with pink and purple stripes] during sunsets.
I highly doubt it. Certainly, not in the way Pvblivs means, and you know it. Would you rather he'd said god could make the sky plaid? Would you likewise link to an unrelated picture? Would you actually address the point?
Lying is wrong because God does not lie.
.: Infanticide is not wrong because god commits infanticide.
.: Abolition is wrong because god does not support abolition.
.: Calling Dan a douche is not wrong because Dan is a douche.
Question, Dan: Does god give money to the Red Cross?
No?
.: Giving money to the Red Cross is wrong because god does not give money to the Red Cross.
I remember saying to Andrew, No matter what culture in any part of the world, It's (been shown) that ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies. [sic]
Hmmm. Yes, I remember. I also remember that Adam Nardoli said:
Okay, you said it was a "proven fact" that "all" people experience these things. Both your links say _some_ people. One link says the polygraph studies came up with a average success rate of 60% measuring these things. I doubt you even read the second link.
I also read the conclusion of the technical memorandum titled Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation, and it says:
ReplyDeleteIn sum, OTA concluded that there is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing. Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance (when using the control question technique in specific-incident criminal investigations), significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.
Also on that page, the memorandum made the following statement:
The instrument cannot itself detect deception.
If the instrument cannot detect deception, the 'telltale signs' must not be universal, or detectable.
It also said (under the heading "Polygraph Theory"):
The basic theory of polygraph testing is only partially developed and researched. The most commonly accepted theory at present is that, when the person being examined fears detection, that fear produces a measurable physiological reaction when the person responds deceptively.
To go from this to your unsupported claim that "ALL people, across all genders and races, [exhibit] the consequences / telltales of when a person lies" is absurd.
The first of the two links you provided in that thread said only the following regarding actual figures:
...90 per cent of lies are accompanied by tells which, like a criminal's fingerprints, leave behind traces of deception.
This is obviously not "ALL people, across all genders and races." Even if it were, however, that extract takes care to note that not every symptom of deception is present in every case. Of course, I deny the veracity of that particular article on its face -- none of its sources are offered in the extract provided.
Even if all of this is ignored, however, we still get this bit of Dan-like wisdom, when you quoted yourself:
Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.
Let's try that again, my way:
[Infanticide] is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. [Infanticide] is [a delight to] God. When His creations [commit infanticide], He is [happy with] His creation and simply [fuses] Himself [with his creation]. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.
Right? Isn't that how it works?
I fully admit that I presuppose the Biblical God and Christianity for my Worldview, but that is the point of the entire blog and subsequent posts.
That "admission" is a lie. Do you not also admit that you were once a non-Christian? When you became a Christian, is it because you 'presupposed' there was a god, or did you conclude that there was a god?
--
Stan
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteThe basis is the very character of God, they are based on His unchanging character. Lying is wrong because God does not lie.
"Wrong.
1 Kings 22:222"
Valid point, but like Thessalonians 2:8-11 God uses things to make change for His plan. We only have to look at Job to see what God does. It was horrible to treat Job that way, but it wasn't God, it was the Devil. Not to cop out of anything because it was under God's watch. So yes, God allows lying spirits to happen. Evolution theory is a fine example.
But it ALL is for His purpose. The difference here is I trust God to reveal to me the reasons why the things are the way they are at a later date. Until then I trust the Lord to do the right thing.
Is it right for me to tell my child not to drive the car while I am driving? Yes. Driving is wrong for children and lying is wrong for the children of God.
That is how I am rectifying those type of verses...trust.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes though. You make me feel like a little ballerina sometimes...I like that.
DAN:"God allows lying spirits to happen. Evolution theory is a fine example."
ReplyDeleteYou mean Evolution theory is a lie?
DAN:"I trust God to reveal to me the reasons why the things are the way they are at a later date
What makes you think that people here who take some time to reply to you are not the ones trying to open your eyes to the truth?
One thing you might answer to that of course is this:
"The Fool Hath Said In His Heart, "There Is No God""
But thinkg about this, we (at least I do...) do insist that it IS foolish to say There is No God...
Oh but I do deny the holy spirit though, dam... too bad, at least I tried :P
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete"Speaking of MO's, are you likely to address Darrin's account or continue to ignore it in the desperate hope it goes away? "
OK fine, I will. First let me ask if you are talking about this comment as the explanation?
Of so, I have no clue for that mess. Can you simplify it for me a little? My publicly educated mind can only grasp so much of all that.
I do remember addressing the basic TAG issue though in a past post.
1) If God does not exist, X cannot exist.
2) X exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.
But that doesn't mean that God is contingent on x.
Y (space-time) is evidence of the existence of x (God) and contingent but x existence is not necessarily contingent on y.
y (cars) are evidence of the existence of x (man) and contingent on x's existence, but x (man) existence is not necessarily contingent on y's (cars) existence.
Am I even close?? Help me understand it better. Maybe you can dumb it down for me. Simplify the premise.
@Dan
ReplyDeleteThere is a ligther version if you scroll down the comments. It starts with this:
-Sense perception exists as an absolute. (Proof above, it's an axiom, or that which must be used in its disproof)
-But the sense perceptions are sound, sight, etc. which lead to the statement: "There is something, of which I am aware."
-"There is something" means something exists, i.e. in this case the sense perceptions. Another absolute axiom.
-"Of which I am aware" means consciousness exists inherent to that statement as well. Another absolute axiom.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality (whatever its nature). We have the following epistemological derivations from the particular of our sense perceptions, call it p:
-It corresponds to reality that p is p, i.e. the contents of sense perceptions are the content of sense perceptions. This is identity's account for the particular p. It is epistemologically axiomatic.
-Since we start with the sense perceptions, and recognize we are conscious, and cannot perceive this consciousness, something exists outside of sense perceptions. Therefore, an objective reality exists.
At this point, you should already be able to say if you accept the axioms or not. (I don't see how you could refuse them, but just in case...)
If you accept them, they can be used as premises for any logical arguments.
You can then go take a look at the logical argument presented by Darrin to account for logic.
Oops for got one...
ReplyDeleteFroggie,
"I hope you read the article I posted about the study that shows spanking kids lowers their IQs."
I did hear about that. Even if it were true, which I highly doubt, that does not mean we stop doing so. God said if you hate your child you will spare the rod. Maybe many atheistic parents do not spank their kids and the kids grow up to be fine intellectuals only to perish in hell forever. What was the benefit of higher IQ in those cases?
Here is a fine example. I was never spanked, so by your "statistics" I have a very high IQ.
Were you spanked? That would at least explain some of your logic, or lack there of. :)
You cannot lump such a thing together. There are other factors that were not addressed in that study. Too many variables, i.e. were they religious verses atheistic homes? How many were home schooled, verses publicly educated, verses private schools. How much of genetics play a part of that? How were the spankings administered? Were they unfair spankings to discourage the children? Did they only spank if the commandments were broken? Did their parent drink or do drugs before,during, or after pregnancy. Did the parents fight excessively?
Yada yada yada too many variables to be concrete data.
But I am sure you will trust fallible man in whatever verifies your presuppositions. Your faith is confirmed with data like that. Maybe that is what the devil wanted you to believe to keep away from God. If so then you were fooled by the devil, how foolish of you not to be smart enough to catch that.
I know that this is off topic, but good grief!
ReplyDeleteThe Conservapedia people are re-writing the bible.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"What? You're daft."
And your a punk. Maybe we can be a team and make music together... "one more time"
"I take the validity of my ability to reason as axiomatic, and the laws of logic follow from it."
And yet they ministerially are there for you to use and they are eternal in, according to you, this chance and random universe. Imagine that. How convenient!
"Sye is a moron, and you idolize him"
You are wrong on two points, Sye is not a moron in my opinion, and I agree with him, not idolize him. So no commandments broken here. Speaking of borrowing my worldview yet again, why is it wrong to break a commandment? According to your worldview why is it "wrong" to do anything for that matter?
Besides it isn't Sye's logic. We need to give Van Til the credit for it. Are you claiming that Van Til is a moron, or just everyone that disagrees with you?
If that is the case then Duhhhhhhhh, yupppfftt.
"The argument over worldviews, which is the only game Blahnsen and Sye play, is pointless. "
Not if we are trying to find out which worldview makes the most sense it isn't. Run away with your absurd worldview.
Opps he is still here.
ReplyDeleteStanly,
"1. Blahnsen's presuppositionalism bullshit is not Christianity."
Not true at all (Proverbs 26:4-5, Psalm 19:1-2)
The entire Bible is presuppositionalism apologetics. Just read how Paul spoke in Acts 17 to see it in action.
"2. It explains nothing."
Wrong, it explains twofold, that your worldview is absurd and Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense. I completely understand why you hate it though. Sucks to be you man as Jim Brewer said in Half Baked.
"3. If you insist that something which is not Christianity, which does not give an explanation, is Christianity, and does give an explanation, I will correctly conclude that you are retarded."
That's why mummy makes me wear a helmet. Spfffft, I drink pickle juice.
"Try again."
You are just being difficult. You do indeed have a worldview even though you cannot currently, or coherently, identify it. Unless you are brain dead, then I would understand. Since we are indeed engaged in conversation I presuppose that you are not. And if you assume that I am restarted then why are you asking me questions? Also, if you are asking a retarded person questions what lower form does that make you?
"RE: the fact that you presuppose reason and logic, as do I, and then conclude god"
OK what do you conclude? (asked the retarded man)
Emptiness?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"The atheist worldview is able to make account for the laws of logic just fine, since as others have pointed out to you, those laws are just the results of the observations of the universe around us."
Result of observations, OK then, you believe that the universe is uniform and that it is not a chance or random system that there indeed is something that transcends logic?
If so you are very close.
Love transcends logic, I digress.
Dan
ReplyDeleteValid point, but like Thessalonians 2:8-11 God uses things to make change for His plan.
So? Does god lie or doesn't he? Remember, that's what you were using as the basis for why it's "wrong" to lie in the first place, was that you thought that your god did not lie, period.
Everyone who lies, does it for their own bloody plan! Even those who were only trying to save the lives of the Jews they were hiding.
We only have to look at Job to see what God does. It was horrible to treat Job that way, but it wasn't God, it was the Devil. Not to cop out of anything because it was under God's watch.
It was all done with god's PERMISSION! That's more than "under his watch" which implies that he just didn't catch it!
So yes, God allows lying spirits to happen.
Or as in the case I've shown earlier, he commands it. For whatever reason it was done, your statement that "god does not lie" is wrong. So therefore, so is your reasoning as to why it's morally wrong (ie. god doesn't do it).
What are you left with then?
Evolution theory is a fine example.
Oh please. Your ignorance of evolution has been shown on this blog before. There's all sorts of evidence for it, and you have to consider: How could hundreds of thousands of scientists all coordinate such a huge fucking lie in multiple fields of science for over 100 years??
But it ALL is for His purpose. The difference here is I trust God to reveal to me the reasons why the things are the way they are at a later date. Until then I trust the Lord to do the right thing.
Is it right for me to tell my child not to drive the car while I am driving? Yes. Driving is wrong for children and lying is wrong for the children of God.
That is how I am rectifying those type of verses...trust.
Or in other words, presuppostionalism, and defeating the "logic" that you used in your earlier post. God had said once to be perfect just as he is perfect, but he doesn't act like it.
As for your driving analogy, it's only about time and training. There's nothing morally wrong about the act of driving itself. On the other hand, it's strongly implied that killing pregnant women and babies is immoral, except when your god does it.
Dan
ReplyDeleteResult of observations, OK then, you believe that the universe is uniform and that it is not a chance or random system
The system includes randomness, there's also natural selection and constraints provided by the physical laws of nature.
that there indeed is something that transcends logic?
Not at all even relevent to origins theories.
Love transcends logic, I digress.
"Transcends" or just has nothing to do with logic? What do you mean by "transcends"?
In the end, you still have to show how your god exists in the first place, much less is the "basis" for the "laws of logic" and a "uniform" universe. Why couldn't the universe be "uniform" without a god? Why couldn't a god who is shown to be lying in his own holy book (previous posts) not make a universe that is not entirely uniform?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"If anything, since the Greeks were among the first to formalize the laws of logic, the xian "worldview" has stolen from them. "
Greeks did not provide logic, they observed it. So what? You are not postulating that Newton invented gravity are you?
Pvb,
ReplyDelete"The existence of a god actually weakens the expectation that cause and effect will hold and that the future will behave like the past."
The principle of causality states that every effect needs a cause. If you added up the universe you would have a pile of effects, you would still need a cause. Even the Big Bang is an effect. It still needs a cause.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIf you are to take your reasoning at face value, your god is also an effect and needs a cause. Or are you just engaging in special pleading for your god again? In any event, you didn't even make a passing semblance of addressing my point. A "miracle performing" being defies cause and effect and makes the principle unreliable.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
"If anything, since the Greeks were among the first to formalize the laws of logic, the xian "worldview" has stolen from them. "
Greeks did not provide logic, they observed it.
Yes...They observed it. That's what I've been saying! The laws of logic can be figured out by anyone who just looks around and figures things out, no matter what their worldview is.
That's what I'm trying to say: Your worldview has no more justification for taking credit for the laws of logic than anyone else's.
We are NOT "borrowing" from your worldview when we use logic.
In fact, since the bible itself doesn't explain what the laws of logic are, it seems apparent that the Judeo-xian worldview has no right to claim that their worldview is the only one that can "justify" the laws of logic. It seems that they didn't even observe or figure them out like the Greeks did.
So what? You are not postulating that Newton invented gravity are you?
And here, you completely miss the point that I was trying to make. Oh well, I just repeated it above.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
"Speaking of MO's, are you likely to address Darrin's account or continue to ignore it in the desperate hope it goes away? "
OK fine, I will. First let me ask if you are talking about this comment as the explanation?
It is.
Of so, I have no clue for that mess. Can you simplify it for me a little? My publicly educated mind can only grasp so much of all that.
That 'little mess', as you call it, is the way you should set out your argument - defining your terms and showing your working along the way.
As Hugo points out, Darrin simplifies it further down - if you still don't understand it then there's not much I can help you with.
I do remember addressing the basic TAG issue though in a past post.
1) If God does not exist, X cannot exist.
2) X exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.
But that doesn't mean that God is contingent on x.
Y (space-time) is evidence of the existence of x (God) and contingent but x existence is not necessarily contingent on y.
y (cars) are evidence of the existence of x (man) and contingent on x's existence, but x (man) existence is not necessarily contingent on y's (cars) existence.
Irrelevant I'd afraid.
Am I even close??
Close to what?
Help me understand it better. Maybe you can dumb it down for me. Simplify the premise.
Here it is in a nutshell. This particular TAG argument which relies on the "impossibility of the contrary" has been refuted. Darrin's account is the "contrary" which you claim does not exist. God is not the necessary precondition for logic.
N.B. This is no way refutes the existence of God.
"I'd" should be "I'm"
ReplyDeleteYou guys still at it? What's the point? At the end of the day it's still:
ReplyDeleteDan and clan: The Word makes the World.
Best of the rest: The World makes the words.
Everytime lately that I open my journal and see the link to this site I get this mental image of Stan hammering Dan into the ground with a sledge hammer and Dan is emjoying it.......
ReplyDeleteDan,
By the way, thanks for responding to my link on the spanking issue.
I dare not say what I'm thinking, so I shall be moot as a coutesy to you.
Cheers!
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"That's what I'm trying to say: Your worldview has no more justification for taking credit for the laws of logic than anyone else's."
Are you claiming that "I don't know" is an equal answer to a Creator, the cause to all effects?
Your worldview may have people that observed Logic. My worldview describes where it came from. Certainly you cannot claim them to be on an equal plain.
Which one makes more sense to account for logic? Christianity, by the impossibility of the contrary. If you care to demonstrate how logic, truth, knowledge, and reasoning are possible according to your worldview, the floor is yours.
"In fact, since the bible itself doesn't explain what the laws of logic are,..."
In fact you are wrong yet again.
Law of Identity (Ex 3:14, John 6:35,41,51 8:58, 10:7,11,14:6,15:1)
Law of Non-Contradiction (James 5:12, Matt 12:33,1 Cor 14:33, Heb 6:18)
Law of Excluded Middle (Matt 12:30, Mark 9:40) There is no middle ground according to Christ Himself.
"It seems that they didn't even observe or figure them out like the Greeks did."
Jesus used logic (Matt 21:24-27) and Paul reasoned with the Greeks (Acts 17:17,18:4) and don't forget that we are to "give an answer" to those who ask (1 Pet 3:15)
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete"Darrin's account is the "contrary" which you claim does not exist. "
This is the explanation that I asked for? A bare assertion?
Remember I said, Help me understand it better.(Darrin's account) Maybe you can dumb it down for me.(Darrin's account) Simplify the premise.(Darrin's account)
And then you just asserted Darrin's account? Can you even make sense of "Darrin's account"? If so please explain it to me in a simplified manner.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"You guys still at it?"
Yup no one can account for logic still. Oh wait you are trying...
"The World makes the words."
Oh, so logic is subjective then?
And around we go. Wheeee!
Dan:
ReplyDelete"This is the explanation that I asked for? A bare assertion?"
That is the type of explanation that you gave for your position -- a bare assertion.
Dan quoting me:
ReplyDelete"In fact, since the bible itself doesn't explain what the laws of logic are,..."
In fact you are wrong yet again.
"yet again"? Hah.
Well, let's just look at each of those rules and see how you've shoehorned the bible verses into them.
Law of Identity (Ex 3:14, John 6:35,41,51 8:58, 10:7,11,14:6,15:1)
Law of Identity:
'Everything is what it is and not another thing', or (where 'P' is any proposition) 'If P then P'.
Guess what? Every religion in the world who worships any god has made use of that! All one has to do is say that "I am (something)", even of those religions that predate xianity.
The first neanderthal or cro-magnon man has thought of that "I am me" thing too.
None of those verses are making a general statement about a logical law here...they're just making a particular, individual claim: saying that God is God. One of those verses goes as far to say that "before Abraham was", Jesus was. (ignoring the fact that Jesus is not mentioned at all in the OT--check out MessiahTruth.com)
Law of Non-Contradiction (James 5:12, Matt 12:33,1 Cor 14:33, Heb 6:18)
Law of non-contradiction:
Variously formulated as saying that no proposition can be both true and not true; or that nothing can be - without qualification - the case and not the case at the same time; or that nothing can -without qualification - both have and lack a given property at the same time
Ever hear of the Trinity? Or Jesus being baptized and god's voice from heaven talking about him? Yet you people claim that he IS god. Your religion breaks that law, it doesn't establish it!
Now, for some of those verses: James 5:12 is just saying to not make any elaborate oaths when one makes a promise, but just to say yes or no...That's got nothing to do with the law of non-contradiction!
1 Cor 14:33 says that "god is not the author of confusion"? Right! Tower of Babel anyone?
How's about all the hundreds of denominations or the different interpretations of things like "the rapture"...some believe it won't happen at all, some believe it'll happen before the christ's kingdom is established, some claim it'll happen after, etc.
Law of Excluded Middle (Matt 12:30, Mark 9:40) There is no middle ground according to Christ Himself.
Sure there is...how's about those who have never heard of him? For instance, anyone in the New World at the time Jesus was supposed to be in the Middle East?
Seems there's a little trouble with the application of that law in this case.
"It seems that they didn't even observe or figure them out like the Greeks did."
Jesus used logic (Matt 21:24-27)
The question isn't about using logic, it's about establishing the rules of logic in the first place!
Even people who've never heard of Christ or the Greeks have used logical rules at some point.
and Paul reasoned with the Greeks (Acts 17:17,18:4)
Did Paul give them the rules of logic and say something like "this is the foundation for these rules", or did they already have the rules of logic?
Again, it's not about just making use of the rules, it's about figuring them out as general principles and realizing what they are.
At most, your bible verses are just examples of people using some of those laws...NOT deriving them and realizig that they're general rules used in epistemology in the first place!
As I said, anyone, even primitives can use them, I'm talking about realizing the general rules in the first place!
Dan:
ReplyDeleteAre you claiming that "I don't know" is an equal answer to a Creator, the cause to all effects?
Where did I say "I don't know"?
Your worldview may have people that observed Logic.
Your worldview has nothing different.
My worldview describes where it came from.
No it doesn't Dan...your worldview (ie. Genesis) only describes the creation of the physical world. The laws of logic are concepts, not physical things that can be "created".
As I keep saying, the bible does not lay out the Laws of Logic like the Greeks did, you just picked out some verses that supposedly made use of them, without the writers acting as if they knew that their statements could be used as general rules to describe reality as opposed to just making individual claim statements.
Certainly you cannot claim them to be on an equal plain.
What's your evidence that you have any right to be on any plain?
4 quotes from Dan:
ReplyDelete- Which one makes more sense to account for logic? Christianity, by the impossibility of the contrary. If you care to demonstrate how logic, truth, knowledge, and reasoning are possible according to your worldview, the floor is yours.
- Remember I said, Help me understand it better.(Darrin's account) Maybe you can dumb it down for me.(Darrin's account) Simplify the premise.(Darrin's account)
- And then you just asserted Darrin's account? Can you even make sense of "Darrin's account"? If so please explain it to me in a simplified manner.
- ...no one can account for logic still...
Now, I am really not the best person to write logical arguments but let's try this:
P1 - Dan does not understand Darrin's explanation due to a lack of education and/or intellectual skills.
P2 - Dan understands how God can account for logic (In Dan's worldview, God created everything, including abstract concepts in our minds)
C - Dan's God is the only possible account for logic in Dan's worldview.
... by the impossibility of the contrary?
To be fair with Dan, I tried to re-write Darrin's account for logic. I removed the proofs so that it's much quicker to go through it, and I stopped where we conclude that we accounted for the laws of logic simply based on the fact that we exist. Darrin continues to explain how it accounts for logic in metaphysics in general but I will leave that for later/others...
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if you spot mistakes!
AXIOM 1:
The laws of logic are epistemologically valid axiomatically
Please note that a use of the Laws of Logic is not circular in this case, for, one must not confuse *the* laws of logic with an *account* for the laws of logic.
Corollary:
The laws of logic are time independent
AXIOM 2:
Sense-perception exists.
AXIOM 3:
My consciousness exists; I exists, apart from my own sense-perception.
Corollary:
Solipsism is false. An independent entity apart from sense perception exists.
AXIOM 4:
Something exists (my consciousness).
At this point, we can already account for 3 laws of logic:
My sense perceptions are --> Identity.
My sense perceptions are or are not --> Excluded Middle.
My sense perceptions cannot be and not be at the same time --> Non-Contradiction.
The other laws of logic require the existence of other entities
AXIOM 5:
A (limited) existent other than the basic identity "existence of sense perceptions" exists according to my sense perception. I.e. Particulars, other entities, exist.
Since more than one particular (entity) exists, the other laws of logic are meaningful and can be similarly tied to existence. We have an account of the laws of logic.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
"Darrin's account is the "contrary" which you claim does not exist. "
This is the explanation that I asked for? A bare assertion?
Hugo already pointed you to the more concise simplified version. I pointed you to that version. No surprise to me that you ignored it.
Remember I said, Help me understand it better.(Darrin's account) Maybe you can dumb it down for me.(Darrin's account) Simplify the premise.(Darrin's account)
Remember Hugo said "There is a ligther version if you scroll down the comments. It starts with this:" well the bits after that were a more concise, simplified version and I did say that if you still struggled with that then there wasn't much I could do - further simplification would mean losing required information and it no longer remains a fully supported account.
And then you just asserted Darrin's account?
Where did I do that? I pointed you to Darrin's argument - you claimed not to understand it. Hugo pointed you to Darrin's own simplification - you ignored him and continued to claim ignorance.
You wanted it in the simplest terms I could come up with. So I did.
Can you even make sense of "Darrin's account"?
Yes thanks.
If so please explain it to me in a simplified manner.
I think you'll find Hugo has already attempted to do that - maybe you could read it this time instead of doing your usual Christian handwaving trick and then go back to claiming we haven't done so.
Having done that you should probably note that any questions you ask regarding the simplified response from Hugo will probably be answered using the more complicated reasoning used by Darrin. We will quite quickly come back to you needing to understand Darrin's full argument before you can actually think about making a counter-argument.
I understand the structure may seem quite forbidding but at it's core it's a relatively simple accounting - go back, read it, check Darrin's definitions, look up the terms you're unfamiliar with.
At the end of the day there's no point you demanding an account for logic if you're not prepared to even try and understand that which you have been given.
Dan said (a while back):
ReplyDelete"Lying is wrong because God does not lie."
-And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie-
2 Thessalonians 2:11 (King James Version)
So according to the bible, God does lie.
It doesn't matter how you try and spin it....God lies
Perhaps all of your revelations have been lies, just like several of us have pointed out in the past. You can't refute this because, if it is true, you wouldn't know any different...
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteI thought of you when I saw this.
Lower IQ? Meh, not so bad.
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of IQ. I thought you might like to hear about our city's IQ.
Speaking of IQ. I thought you might like to hear about our city's IQ.
ReplyDeleteHeh. What are the odds, right?
Of course, it should come as no surprise, considering the evident intelligence of the author of that story:
TheDailyBeast.Com based it's [sic] findings on...
Mayor Ashley Swearingen says, [sic] the study...
Even the researchers who conducted the study admit it's flawed, but say, [sic] the facts...
The first error is obvious. The next two involve unnecessary commas -- something Dan here does all the time -- with the last compounding the error with a missing pronoun (though the missing pronoun is not particularly egregious).
Amusing and telling, all at once, eh?
Back to the topic, however, I am still waiting for each of the following:
1. For you to admit that having an explanation is worse than admitting of no explanation, if the explanation offered is wrong.
2. For you to admit that having an explanation is a far cry from having the right explanation.
3. For you to admit that presuppositionalism can apply equally well (or poorly, as it were) to any number of real, imagined, or undiscovered religions -- including a "religion" which merely assumed logic, etc., as universally applicable axioms.
4. For you to admit that Blahnsen's presuppositionalism says nothing at all to the veracity of Christianity -- he asserts that there must be a god "by the impossibility of the contrary," but even were that assertion granted, he cannot get from it to the Christian god without some combination of special pleading and question begging.
*Crickets*
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"he cannot get from it to the Christian god without some combination of special pleading and question begging."
The Bible is presupposed as the "special" revelation. Along with the "general" revelation (Creation) we, admittedly, view this as the right and only explanation for eternal laws, uniformity, and love.
We are still waiting for each of the following from you:
1. For you to admit that admitting of no explanation is worse than having an explanation, if the explanation offered is possible/plausible.
2. For you to admit that having an explanation is a far closer to having the right explanation then no explanation.
3. For you to admit that presuppositionalism can be tested to any number of real, imagined, or undiscovered religions. The evidence presented will show if things make sense.
4. For you to admit that Blahnsen's presuppositionalism says the veracity of Christianity -- he asserts that there must be a God "by the impossibility of the contrary," but even were that assertion granted, he can get from it to the Christian god with some combination of special pleading and not question begging.
@Dan
ReplyDelete1) Correct. That does not contradict Stan.
2) Incorrect. Having an invalid explanation could lead you to stick to it and never find the real one. It's not necessarily the case of course, but your point is false because of that one example.
3) Not sure about the meaning of this one; no comment.
4) "...he can get from it to the Christian god with some combination of special pleading and..."
Ok so you do admit that Christianity is a kind of special pleading...