Answers magazine alerted me to an article named:Humans may be primed to believe in creation
The article is a study of how people think about nature in relation to the Bible claims. (Romans 1:20)
"Researchers showed people a series of statements about nature and asked if they agree or disagreed.
Each statement implied a beneficial purpose behind what we see. As an example "The earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV rays."
People tend to agree. But if nature has no Creator, then these statements would be false. If the ozone layer, for example, resulted from natural processes, then the earth's features could not be designed to protect it(us)."
Bonus points: See if you can find all the presuppositional statements in the "primed to believe" article, from the writer Ewen Callaway.
As an example, a claim of the "primed to believe" article states. "It might turn out that if you put Richard Dawkins or Einstein or whomever [to the test], no matter how expert or educated they are, they might still make these mistakes." (emphasis added)
Certainly it isn't a mistake, unless you have presuppositions of an atheistic evolutionary materialism worldview. The creation of the world are clearly seen, it is just natural to view things with designed purpose. You would have to be indoctrinated and and brainwashed to think a different, unnatural way. Keep in mind that even Dawkins claimed that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
I suspect the article may be a bullhorn to the Scientific community to alert them of future studies by Kelemen. They do not want to be embarrassed by any results that confer with the original findings.
The article said, "Indeed, Kelemen is running similar experiments on volunteers with stronger science backgrounds to see if they, too, fall back on such childlike reasoning." (emphasis added)In other words, Hey, they will be doing the same test on some of us. Alert, alert!! Make the results fit what we believe!!
Forced or skewed results are indeed, unnatural. Dad would call it "creative accounting." The ironic thing is that this type of bias is from a writer from New Scientist. Such irony in this type of zero neutrality reporting.
Maybe "biased" is the new Scientist. So much for objectivity. Shame on you Ewen Callaway, you get to wear the hat for today.
Update: For the record this Ewen Callaway douche presupposes eliminative materialism or, in other words, reductionism-or unjustified imperialism.
bit.ly/Romans120
Wait wait wait... are you trying to tell us that you just realized why you are wrong?
ReplyDeleteThat's what I understand from this article! It clearly explains why believers are wrong but think they are right!
The idea is simply that, by default, humans tend to believe the WRONG idea that natural things were designed.
Plus I cannot even say that you did not read the article since you quoted a passage that was at the very end. Really weird...
I liked this part:
Kelemen has documented the same kind of erroneous thinking - called promiscuous teleology - in young children. Seven and eight-year olds agree with teleological statements such as "Rocks are jagged so animals can scratch themselves" and "Birds exist to make nice music". These mistakes diminish as kids take more science classes and learn causal explanations for natural events.
Well I guess you're like a 7 or 8 year old kid Dan! Time to catch up! Read more of the New Scientist, less of Answers from Genesis!
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"Wait wait wait... are you trying to tell us that you just realized why you are wrong?"
nope. Did you even read, or comprehend, my post?
Silly Hugo. Do I really need to explain it better to you or are you just being difficult?
"It clearly explains why believers are wrong but think they are right!"
Sure from the perspective of an atheistic evolutionary materialism worldview. Get it?
"The idea is simply that, by default, humans tend to believe the WRONG idea that natural things were designed."
Your bias is showing. You might want to cover that up.
Wrong? According to whom? Oh that's right your god Darwin said so.
"Well I guess you're like a 7 or 8 year old kid Dan!"
Sure according to the biased writer. But hey, that's OK with me.(Matthew 18:10)
"Time to catch up! Read more of the New Scientist, less of Answers from Genesis!"
No thank you.
Hehehe, of course I read your post before reading the article :) but I guess I should not have written so many sarcastic sentences; sorry, I forgot that I was talking with a kid.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the quote, I read the chapter and really liked 18.6.
(But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.)
Jesus is such a lovely character!
Jesus is such a lovely character!
ReplyDeleteSorry, I meant the opposite, sarcasm again... OK?
Hey, by the way, did you decide to drop the -account for logic- discussion?
ReplyDeleteWe use this method
ReplyDelete(sarcasm)Hugo sure knows his logic(/sarcasm)
Thanks for the Matthew 18:6 quote, I had forgotten that one.
Wow, am I offend by your statements. I feel so hurt. Get him Jesus(/sarcasm)
Interesting! I don't pretend to know logic better than you do however :)
ReplyDeleteI just don't need to refer to an imaginary friend to account for it...
So, is there anything else beside Christianity that can give an account to logic or not?
You forgot to open your sarcasm tag by the way, your comment would not compile if it were a computer program, lol
ReplyDeleteHugo,
ReplyDelete"I just don't need to refer to an imaginary friend to account for it (logic)..."
Well then...
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI have been joking all along in this thread but, seriously, I am still waiting for you to react to the account for logic Darrin presented, especially since I tried to simplify for you, at your request.
Are you ever going to address that or not?
You can simply say that you admit you did not know it was possible to account for logic in another way you know... it won't make you a bad Christian or anything like that, lol
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"especially since I tried to simplify for you, at your request."
Oops. Did I miss something? Please point me to it or restate it and I will address it.
Oh, sure, no problem, there are so many posts that it can be hard to follow!
ReplyDeleteIt was simply the last comment that I have posted on the other thread. I will copy/paste it here but the bold will be lost because I am too lazy to redo them ;)
********************
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.
Hugo,
ReplyDeleteI do remember that but I passed right by it. I apologize. I like to grease the "squeaky wheels" so thanks for repeating it and for your patience.
I will have to think about it some more to see if I missed something here but I believe it all has been addressed before by Sye when he 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."
So I guess that is the next questions for now. Is it possible that there are invalid axioms?
How do you know the reasoning, with which you reason about axioms, is itself valid?
Where is the certainty coming from? Is it empirical?
Oops. Did I miss something? Please point me to it or restate it and I will address it.
ReplyDeleteHugo, this is a waste of time, you know. Dan's felch-mate Sye failed to answer Darrin's 'account,' too, and very pathetically tucked his tail and ran away in shame and embarrassment in their debate. Sye's excuse was that he couldn't understand Darrin's account. Since Sye's IQ is likely in the low nineties, and Dan's IQ is no more than a third of Sye's, what makes you think he'll ever understand it?
Really, trying to "dumb down" an 'account' for logic, so that Dan can understand it, is like trying to simplify Quantum Mechanics so that Trig Palin can understand it.
As to this particular post of Dan's, it's just as retarded. It has not once been demonstrated that humans can reliably detect design, and has many times over been shown that the converse is true -- humans have a tendency to infer design, pattern, or purpose where none exists. Ironic though it is, it is not at all surprising that people of all walks would react as this study has shown. More ironic, then, is the fact that the Hamions feel that this sort of study somehow helps their cause...
Human intuition is a marvelous tool, but it has been shown time and again that intuition can just as easily bite us in our collective ass. To have Ham and his mentally challenged crew embrace this, then, just shows how much they want to be duped -- they don't give a rat's ass that the conclusion hurts their cause, as they're blissfully and willfully ignorant of its implication.
Oh, well... As I recently told a real-life creotard I engage weekly:
I don't mind if you think you have a relationship with god -- if it works for you, that's great, I guess. Please, though, whatever you do, don't ever do anything god tells you to do, without at the very least considering yourself whether it's a good idea.
It's when people take action based on what their god tells them that things truly get frightening. Go ahead, Dan, and pretend your 'account' for logic is useful, or that the 'evidence' for creation is overwhelming, or that you're not, generally speaking, a dumbass. It doesn't matter. Just do everyone a favor and refuse to follow any instructions you hear, unless and until those 'instructions' make sense, and sound like truly good ideas.
--
Stan
@DAN
ReplyDeleteFirst, I've read Sye's replies and I did not see any rebuttals; he just asked a few times for simplified explanation until he walked away, somewhat like what you seem to be doing right now unfortunately :-\
Second, axioms are valid as long as we agree that they are valid. Are you challenging any of the axioms? I did not present the proofs because I felt like the axioms were self-evident... but Darrin did provide proofs, so please look at the details if you don't agree with an axiom.
Either you agree with them, or not. Your call!
@STAN
ReplyDelete"Really, trying to "dumb down" an 'account' for logic, so that Dan can understand it, is like trying to simplify Quantum Mechanics so that Trig Palin can understand it."
Not very nice but... what a GREAT COMMENT :D
Dan +†+ said... to Hugo,
ReplyDeleteI will have to think about it some more to see if I missed something here but I believe it all has been addressed before by Sye when he 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."
I understand that you accept the Law(s of logic) as originating from God, but that tells us nothing about what actually is. You assume God 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 God is itself valid. Surely you would grant that there are invalid deities, 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.
So I guess that is the next questions for now. Is it possible that there are invalid axioms?
Red herring. It's not whether there are invalid axioms it's whether the ones described by Darrin are themselves invalid - either refute them or stop with the misdirection.
How do you know the reasoning, with which you reason about axioms, is itself valid?
How do you know the reasoning, with which you reason about God, is itself valid?
and anticipating the response "Revelation"
How do you know the reasoning, with which you reason about revelation, is itself valid?
Where is the certainty coming from? Is it empirical?
Right back atcha...
Dan: that we have a tendency to see purpose and design everywhere is not really news- this is part of what Daniel Dennett calls "folk psychology". The three viewpoints of folk psychology are the "physical stance", the "intentional stance", and the "design stance".
ReplyDeleteWe adopt the physical stance when considering how non-living matter behaves: if we throw a rock in the air, we expect it to go up and then come down.
The intentional stance is used for "agents", or living things: if we throw a bird in the air, we expect it to fly away, deciding for itself in which direction.
The design stance is applied to designed artifacts: if we throw a paper airplane into the air, we expect it to perform as it was intended or designed to do: circle to the left or right, say.
It's no secret that we tend to use the design and intentional stances a lot, starting very young. If children are asked what clouds are "for", they readily answer "to make rain".
I imagine you will agree with all of this, Dan. But do you really think that because we tend to see things this way, that shows that things really are the way we think? If that were so, you would also have to say that pareidolia, our tendency to see faces everywhere, means that there really is a carved Elvis on Mars, and that the Virgin Mary really appeared in a melted cheese sandwich.
Dennett hypothesizes, and I think it's plausible, that we tend to go overboard in attributing intention and design where they are not present, because it's been so important in our history for us to recognize them when they are present. If we are convinced that we see a face in the trees, or hear something creeping past, it's better to be wrong several times, and be frightened of nothing, then to miss the face of the enemy, or the creeping beast once, and be killed or eaten.
A similar argument applies to the hotly contested hypothesis that we are genetically predisposed (somehow) to be religious- which of course is not unrelated to our propensity to see intention. The idea is that believing in some god or gods gives people additional fitness in some way: either they are braver in battle, or better at building societies that hold together, or whatever. There is no direct evidence for this, however, and it's hard to separate from culturally evolved fitness.
In any case, though, it would be another phenomenon where it has been of survival value to believe in a way which is not necessarily true. Natural selection has given us models of how the world works, and these models work pretty well; but they should not be taken to perfectly represent the way things really are.
I said:
ReplyDeleteReally, trying to "dumb down" an 'account' for logic, so that Dan can understand it, is like trying to simplify Quantum Mechanics so that Trig Palin can understand it.
But I may have cast my net a little wide... This should be more appropriate (or more inappropriate, if one prefers):
Really, trying to "dumb down" an 'account' for logic, so that Dan can understand it, is like trying to simplify basic colors and shapes so that Trig Palin can understand them.
Fixed.
--
Stan
Stan, I sent you a PM at SMRT.
ReplyDeleteI have a coupel questions for you when you have a moment.
Dale -- I have all day, but I don't see a PM... Try again, or see the thread I started in Free Frawl?
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"Second, axioms are valid as long as we agree that they are valid. Are you challenging any of the axioms? I did not present the proofs because I felt like the axioms were self-evident... but Darrin did provide proofs, so please look at the details if you don't agree with an axiom."
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God could reveal (natural and special) things to us. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Really, trying to "dumb down" an 'account' for logic, so that Dan can understand it, is like trying to simplify basic colors and shapes so that Trig Palin can understand them."
First, much better. Second, Yeah, buddy yern know yer stuff- weez all get tings compidicatered in deez parts- iz go chillaxin now.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you sensible comment. The others can learn something from you, if they are teachable that is.
Folk psychology is an interesting theory as I haven't herd of it until now. What is also interesting though is that "Folk psychology" is also called "Common Sense psychology" Do you find that ironic at all? Insert Occam's razor here.
If there is a God, and I want to know Him, He would reveal Himself to me, ceteris paribus.
If there is a God, and I was searching for Him, I would find him, ceteris paribus.
Insert cartoon here.
Of course we get introduced to the dreaded "eliminative materialism" viewpoint also. Deny, deny, deny!
eliminative taken from "eliminate", To take out or take away, and materialists, meaning only worldly.
In other words "eliminate God". Yet they cannot reason why things have laws and uniformity in their chance system. From wiki, "It (eliminative materialism) is self refuting, since it "supposes that in order to assert something one must believe it."
But hey, thanks for the additional reading avenues.
Zilch what I found funny is that some call eliminative materialism as
ReplyDeletereductionism or unjustified imperialism.
Sounds right to me. Thanks for the new post "Atheists are reductionists- or unjustified imperialism."
Bwahahahahhaha
Thanks to Zilch we have clarity.
ReplyDeleteFor the record this Ewen Callaway douche presupposes eliminative materialism or in other words reductionism- or unjustified imperialism.
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God could reveal (natural and special) things to us. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
ReplyDeleteYes, this is true. So, however, are all of the following:
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God could reveal (natural and special) things to us such that we are certain of their truth, in spite of the fact that we have been misled. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
It is self-evident that a deluded being with virtually unlimited power could reveal (natural and special) things to us believing itself that what it had revealed was true, when in fact it was not, in such a way that we also believe them to be true. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God might allow us to be deluded into believing we had received revelation (natural and special). If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
It is self-evident that with or without the existence of an all knowing, all powerful God, a human being could delude himself into believing an all knowing, all powerful God has revealed (natural and special) things to us. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
It is self-evident that there are people who believe they have received certain revelation from an all knowing, all powerful God, when in fact they have not, as the God they imagine does not exist. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
Pointless.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAll those pointless, and yes, bare assertions missed many points.
"It is self-evident that a deluded being with virtually unlimited power could reveal (natural and special) things to us believing itself that what it had revealed was true, when in fact it was not, in such a way that we also believe them to be true."
Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x).
"It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God might allow us to be deluded into believing we had received revelation (natural and special)."
Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x).
"It is self-evident that there are people who believe they have received certain revelation from an all knowing, all powerful God, when in fact they have not, as the God they imagine does not exist."
That would be possible if it we had not received revelation (natural and special). Since we have, then your point is moot.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the cartoon to which you link shows a non-response. If I am at your door and ask you to give me a signal to show that you are there, and I see only things that might equally be there if you were not, you have not responded. And that is the (unwitting?) point of the cartoon. Man asks for a sign, and the world just keeps on spinning the way it always has. Now, if the stars spelled out "you asked for a sign <questioner's name>," that would be a sign -- because they don't normally do that.
"It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful [g]od could reveal (natural and special) things to us. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours."
ReplyDelete"Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x)."
Which brings us to Stan's apparent point. There is no way to distinguish his alternatives from your preferred belief. They all give the same observables.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteThat is just it. There is indeed adequate justification for God because of the natural and special revelations to us. IT is logical and sensible that there is indeed a God that governs the Laws and uniformity of this universe. It is common sense that gets us there. No need for reductionism-or unjustified imperialism.
Also that the Bible's evidence shows that it is a supernatural revelation.
It is only without a Creator that we need to go through mental gymnastics to figure out laws and uniformity, etc. A God makes those explanations simple and sensible. Not just any god either. The best explained God is the one of the Bible. No other "system" makes sense.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteI must be giving you too much credit for your intelligence if you do not understand that cartoon.
The mere fact that "the world just keeps on spinning the way it always has" is evidence or a "sign" in itself.
Remember the mathematical probability of us arriving to the point we are at in this universe?
Let alone by introducing the possibility of chance makes it a completely obnoxious number. One of the reasons we need a calculations like Gogol, Gogol plex, or "infinity".
"At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the 50th blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order" (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, p. 527,)
Note the skeptics call it the "Hoyle fallacy" much like the "Big Bang" was coined sarcastically.
You are taking for granted the existence of yourself already, which is the whole point of the cartoon.
That is just it. There is indeed adequate justification for God because of the natural and special revelations to us. IT is logical and sensible that there is indeed a God that governs the Laws and uniformity of this universe. It is common sense that gets us there. No need for reductionism-or unjustified imperialism.
ReplyDeleteAlso that the Bible's evidence shows that it is a supernatural revelation.
It is only without a Creator that we need to go through mental gymnastics to figure out laws and uniformity, etc. A God makes those explanations simple and sensible. Not just any god either. The best explained God is the one of the Bible. No other "system" makes sense. (emphasis Dan's)
After this, I feel compelled to apologize to Trig Palin. He's way less retarded than Dan. Dan, before you start bandying about newly encountered terms such as 'reductionism,' 'eliminative materialism,' or 'unjustified imperialism' -- noting that the last is not a view so much as a very descriptive criticism of the former two -- you should actually learn what they mean, and learn something, anything, about the subjects you so blissfully denounce.
You don't know the first goddamned thing about physics, chemistry, mathematics (beyond a grade school level, apparently), philosophy, logic, biology, or any number of fields relevant to your stated goal of "Debunking Atheists." Until you do, you come off as one of the least informed and most retarded would-be "apologists" I've ever encountered. It's been real, and it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun.
Your bullshit embracing of presuppositionalism, your inability to make a single cogent argument, your inability to recognize devastating corollaries, and your refusal to admit error when it is most obvious all conspire to render any meaningful communication with you a complete waste of time.
I may lurk, and I may peek in from time to time, but you've slid into so much douchebaggery that even I can no longer stand to comment -- it's been nothing short of headdesk, facepalm, repeat, for the past month or so.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou don't know the first thing about God. Please try. Your unjustified imperialism will fail as it always has.
Run if you are scared, I understand, just don't let the keyboard hit you on your way out.
Wow, so much stuff can be said in just one day...
ReplyDelete@DAN
As I was reading through your comments here, I was noting down the claims I wanted to address. They started to pile up so quickly that I thought I would never have the patience to go through them. Thankfully, others addressed most of them already... and you just deny the answers so I am glad I did not waste any time on that. Thanks to them for their patience.
However, I guess I should reply to the one that you addressed to me directly, concerning our discussion on the account for logic:
HUGO: axioms are valid as long as we agree that they are valid. Are you challenging any of the axioms? I did not present the proofs because I felt like the axioms were self-evident... but Darrin did provide proofs, so please look at the details if you don't agree with an axiom.
DAN: It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God could reveal (natural and special) things to us. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
You did not answer the question! I thought you were willing to try to understand and address the issue?
But I will respond to your claim anyway... Yes, it is self-evident that a everything-you-want type of god could reveal things to us, as others already mentioned... But I think no one mentioned that one of the problems is that this is a concept that you have in your mind. You need to justify the existence of such concept in order for other people to accept the existence of what the concept points to in the common reality that we share.
And Yes, I know that you already mentioned some "evidence" for God right here in this comment section, but you failed miserably in doing so as you resorted to nothing but revelations, the Bible, and the fact that YOU don't understand other viewpoints, thus dismissing them... You never start on a common premise to give evidence for your god, you go straight to your conclusion. That does not work.
If you were to start an argument with "God exists", we would have to stop right there, because you would need to justify that claim. That's why I ask you to answer the question above. We need to go step by step. You just tried to change the subject...
*****
Here's a challenge for you Dan. What do you think of this kind of logical argument:
Person A has a concept of X in his mind.
Person B has a concept of X in his mind.
Conclusion: X exists.
Would you say that this logical model
a) is always valid.
b) can be valid.
c) is never valid.
?
Silence please! no answer from other people!! ;-)
*****
So I am waiting for TWO answers Dan. One from the question concerning the Axiom of Darrin's account for logic, and one concerning the logical model presented here. Thanks...
@STAN
ReplyDeleteThanks for your time. Your patience impresses me.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI am quite aware that you consider everything to be a sign. I do not. Now, I have given examples of what I would take as signs. And if there is an all-powerful god, he could certainly meet those conditions. I must conclude that there is no god, he is not all-powerful, or he doesn't particularly want me to believe he exists.
"Remember the mathematical probability of us arriving to the point we are at in this universe?"
That is analogous to shuffling a deck of cards, noting the sequence at which they arrived, and talking about how improbable that particular sequence is. I am unimpressed. Some sequence must show up.
"There is indeed adequate justification for God because of the natural and special revelations to us."
No there isn't. All "revelations" have, in fact, come from people.
"A [g]od makes those explanations simple and sensible. Not just any god either. The best explained [g]od is the one of the [b]ible."
Those are some more bare assertions. And they aren't even reasonable. While it is simple for a theist to say "godidit" to every question, it shows an absence of thought. It doesn't explain anything. That, and you are engaging in special pleading for your particular concept of god.
Hugo,
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind here that I am not trying to be a dick to you but get you to think about what you are claiming. So if I keep asking you questions, like accounting for things, it is to help you understand where things originate from.
"Yes, it is self-evident that a everything-you-want type of god could reveal things to us, as others already mentioned... But I think no one mentioned that one of the problems is that this is a concept that you have in your mind."
Is that a bare assertion now on your part? God is a concept? Are you claiming that our God, the Creator of all things, is merely our imagination? Let me ask if you believe the car you drive to work is a concept? There are concept cars but is your car, the one you drive all the time, a concept? God is tangible and real, shown true by the plethora of evidence given to us. If you reject ALL the evidence, like the car in your driveway, then I can see why you think God is merely a concept. Is your own Dad merely a concept? If not then how could you claim God a concept?
I don't follow your logic and I will take it as an assumption that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at by my questioning. Hopefully you will not claim, again, that I am not answering your question.
Back to your original question that you believe I didn't answer "Are you challenging any of the axioms?" (axioms are valid as long as we agree that they are valid.)
I am not challenging that you are a sane rational man, in that your axioms are valid. They are because you live in God's universe and are created in His image and able to rationalize logically. Understand?
Bahnsen posed questions like, can you tell me how the Big Bang explains a flower? Can you explain, within your worldview, induction? Can you explain a flower's conception which requires logic in order to even talk about flowers, in that it requires the universals of "flowerness" and "dirtness." Can you explain values? Can you account for value judgments about flowers? Can you account for aesthetic or ethical values? Do you understand yet? Not by answering the questions but by understand the point by the questions being asked? Can you explain adaptation? ... We are self-conscious, the flower is not. How is this so if we are merely mater in motion. How do you explain our consciousness of flowers.
Your worldview is irrational with these questions, Christianity alone is rational. Van Till would say that we can compare our worldview with the "preconditions of intelligibility". Bahnsen said "We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc., provide and outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense"
You are focusing on counting, using numbers, but Van Til in a bigger picture is claiming that you cannot account for counting.
Oh and I cannot answer your "challenge" because of the vagueness of the question. It might help me by plugging in some figures.
Person (Stan) has a concept of (love) in his mind. (little boys)
Person (Froggie) has a concept of (love) in his mind. (animals)
Conclusion: (love) exists.
"Would you say that this logical model
a) is always valid.
b) can be valid.
c) is never valid."
So my answer to your "challenge" is a) but the different viewpoint of (x) would be varied and different. Moral relativism. There is no standard from which to follow. Your point?
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that I am engaging in special pleading for my particular concept of God when there is a standard for all to follow called the Bible. How is it possible that the Bible special pleading?
These are not my concepts but His.(Standard)
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou are engaging in special pleading because you are seeking a more lax standard for your claims than that by which you judge all others. For example, you reject all other holy books, but expect us to accept the bible as true on its own claims. Indeed, calling the bible a "standard for all to follow" is special pleading.
PART 1/3
ReplyDeleteDan,
I am going to reply to your last comment backward because I need to explain why my "challenge" was relevant to the current discussion.
First of all, no, the question was not vague at all. The idea is that no matter what you assign to "X", the logical argument that would be constructed using the model would always be fallacious; it would NEVER be valid. So the answer was C...
If we take your example, we say that both Stan and Froggie have concepts of love. Is that sufficient to conclude that love exists? No! Does it mean that love does not exist? No! It says absolutely nothing about the existence of love. All it tells us is that both Stan and Froggie have a shared definition of what love is. Actually, what you put in parenthesis, little boys (haha, very funny) and animals, is misleading, because the idea was that both people agree on the concept of "X" that they share. I should have made that clearer... my mistake!
So, just to make sure, I will give you two more examples. If "X" is "Apples", we'll agree that we both have a concept in our mind that point to the physical things that we call "Apples". We might think of different kinds of apples but we do agree that apples are fruit that grow on trees. But does it prove that apples exist? No.
If "X" is "Flying unicorns", again we'll agree that we both have a concept of what that kind of beast would be. We would think of unicorns we see in movies for example. Does it prove that flying unicorns exist? No.
So you should understand by now that whether you use an existing thing or non-existing thing as "X", the logical argument remains invalid, as we cannot conclude that because we share a common concept of a thing, that thing must exist. Moral has nothing to do with this by the way...
PART 2/3
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to answering your comment from the top now.
DAN: God is a concept? Are you claiming that our God, the Creator of all things, is merely our imagination?
Yes.
DAN: the car you drive to work is a concept?
No. A car is a physical thing.
DAN: There are concept cars but is your car, the one you drive all the time, a concept?
A concept car is not the same as having a concept of a car in our mind. Actually, it's a good example, because the person who draws the concept car has a concept of the car in her mind, so to show that concept to other people, the designer needs to draw it. Concept is used in two different ways here. I hope I am not teaching you that words can have more than one definition...
DAN: God is tangible and real
Prove it.
DAN: shown true by the plethora of evidence given to us. If you reject ALL the evidence...
What evidence? I don't reject evidence that I am not aware of, and would love to see anything that you might have, but up to now, the only evidence that have been presented to me by Theists are testimonies, ancient books, appeal to emotions, historical accounts and the use of reason and logic to construct flawed argument based on what I just mentioned. None of these techniques are sufficient to prove that your god is anything more than a concept you have in your mind and that other people share. The evidence always point to people who believe the claim "God exists", not to the actual existence of a god.
DAN: I am not challenging that you are a sane rational man, in that your axioms are valid. They are because you live in God's universe and are created in His image and able to rationalize logically. Understand?
No, you still don't answer the question. Why is it so hard for you to say if YOU accept the axioms or not? Is anything wrong with the axioms? They don't mention any god so why do you bring god into the game? You are not able to conclude that you exist without referring to your god?
And yes I understand, what I understand is that
-you just asserted that the axioms are valid because of your god without justification.
-You just asserted that I was created in your god's image without justification.
-You just asserted that I am able to rationalize logically because of your god without justification.
DAN: Bahnsen posed questions like, can you tell me how the Big Bang explains a flower?
Big Bang Theory explaining flowers, are you fucking kidding me? you expect people to answer questions like that?
DAN: ...induction [...] flower's conception [...] logic [...] values [...] judgements [...] aesthetic or ethical values [...] self-conscious...
Everything that you mention in this paragraph is a result of our own existence, processes of the mind. I believe I exist as a physical entity because I have a brain from which arises my self-consciousness. From that point, I have no need to account for anything that my brain is capable of producing, I account for it myself, just like you, or anybody else!
PART 3/3
ReplyDeleteBut what you are really interested in are "universals". We already discussed the laws of logic but you refused to acknowledge that we don't need your god to account for them so what else can I say... Do you have another example of universals? Values are not, "flowerness" is not, ethics are not... You mention counting that but that's irrelevant too as humans simply constructed mathematical rules from observing nature and using logic and reason. Newton invented calculus because he needed some tools that were not available at the time. Did he receive a revelation from The Accounter? I don't think so...
And as we have repeatedly stated before, why do you need to account for universals anyway? You keep on insisting on that point because it's basically telling you that if we cannot account for some things then our worldview is flawed. But let's say for a minute that you are right on the fact that a supernatural being account for "universals", what does it tell us? Why would I suddenly believe that Jesus healed people and rose from the dead for example? I really don't understand why you stick to that. Christianity is not only the belief of an "Accounter" so why are you trying to convince people that their worldview is flawed if they don't have an "Accounter"?
So if you ever want to ask again how my worldview can account for this or that, I will simply say "The Accounter"; are you going to be happy with that? According to you it will now become more rational as I will have something to refer to... And you know what, that's when I can bring the understanding of what a concept is. The Accounter would be a concept that we could agree on. It would represent the source of all abstract universals like logical absolutes. Could you prove me that The Accounter exists in reality? I certainly can't...
Ok, now I am done talking about all this accounting for things stuff. Other people and myself had already explained to you why it's useless to talk about accounting for everything on the other blog post but you keep on pushing it as if it were a deadly weapon against non-christian worldviews.. I just explained why it's not, for different reasons, so I am done.
DAN: Your worldview is irrational with these questions, Christianity alone is rational.
My worldview, even though I never tried to define it, is based on this principle: I think therefore I am. Is that irrational? It does allow me to answer all your questions, and it even allows me to conclude that Christianity is not rational as it relies on faith, which is not synonymous to rational thinking...
DAN: We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc., provide and outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense
Well in my worldview, the important is that logic, science and ethics DO make sense! I accept them.
Ironically, it's Christianity, by including irrational beliefs, who is not even able to conclude that logic, science and ethics ALWAYS make sense, as there is always the possibility of a divine act that would not respect the integrity of one of the 3... God asking to kill people is both unethical and illogical, a virgin giving birth to a child is unscientific... and thousands of other examples could be written down of course...
Stan: if you're really leaving this blog, I'm going to miss you, even if you presuppositioned me on numerous occasions. I've learned lots from your rigor. But-
ReplyDeleteWe'll meet again
Don't know where, don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day.
Dan: you say-
What is also interesting though is that "Folk psychology" is also called "Common Sense psychology" Do you find that ironic at all? Insert Occam's razor here.
Why would I find that ironic? Folk psychology, or common sense, presumably evolved, genetically and culturally, because it works- most of the time. If common sense were all I had to go on, Occam's Razor would tell me (a talking razor!) to go with my gut feeling, because it has a proven record of working pretty well, and there is no better explanation available.
Enter science. If my gut tells me that there are eyes on that Martian rock, before I pick up the phone to the National Inquirer, I can enlist other kinds of knowledge, both from my own experiences and from the experiences of others, and come to this conclusion: Elvis is very unlikely to be on Mars, either in the flesh or in effigy, and what I thought was a face was just that ol' devil pareidolia kicking in again.
As I said, it's not surprising that we tend to overattribute phenomenon to agency: since we often cannot know for sure what's out there, and since agents, in the form of other humans and animals, are critical to our existence, as dangers and opportunities both, it's better (more fit) to err rather on the safe side, and see faces, designs, and intentions everywhere, then to miss something that might mean a meal, a mate, or a murder.
Natural selection has equipped us pretty well for finding out the way things are in the world, but it is not, and cannot be expected to be, perfect. Science is of course also not perfect, but it can help a great deal to extend and correct what nature has given us. And one of those corrections, as Hugo mentions, is the gradual defenestration of promiscuous teleology.
Oh, and P.S. Dan:
ReplyDeleteI'll see your puppy and raise him a cat.
@zilch
ReplyDeleteNice image! And thanks a lot for showing it here. By a nice coincidence, there is a picture on that site that was just perfect to go along with my long comment.
I posted it on my own blog.
It's unicorn related ;)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your time and knowledge here. I have learned a lot and I continue to persue some of the subjects that you have brought up. You have inspired me to learn more.
It seems that Dan has adopted the Pastor Ray Mummert doctrine. During the Dover trial, in an interview with a local reported he exasperately exclaimed:
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
That's the saddest, scariest line of all... "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." What does that say about his opinion of himself, his community, intelligence, and education? As someone on the 'net quipped, "That's so unfair - they are obviously unarmed." I think they were more right than they knew: many people are ill-equipped, either intellectually or emotionally, to understand and accept some of what humans have learned about how the world works. It scares them... they find that the things they thought were certain, fixed, and simple are really illusory, and that the real world is neither certain, nor fixed, nor simple. This scares them, and that fear motivates them to reject or even seek to destroy the information they find disturbing, and even the messengers of that information. It is, in the end, a destructive impulse. The Earth will continue to turn regardless of what we believe, but we will face the consequences of actions motivated by fear or ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete"you reject all other holy books, but expect us to accept the bible as true on its own claims. "
That is not true though. I reject other books because of, or on, their own merit. Certainly you are not suggesting that we accept all books as an equal to the bible. Even my kids children books? No, the claims and evidence must back up the claims. There is no other book on this earth that stands even close to the Bible. If you consider that special pleading then it is you that has a problem, not I. Apples to Apples the saying goes. Please show me another Apple and I will consider it, or reject it based on the evidence and claims. This is not special pleading, it is logical.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Certainly you are not suggesting that we accept all books as an equal to the bible."
Of course not. Some books have merit. The bible does not. But you call for the bible to be treated as though it had merit "because it's the bible."
"No, the claims and evidence must back up the claims. There is no other book on this earth that stands even close to the [b]ible."
Other "holy books" have just as much evidence for their claims as the bible has for its -- none. And their followers interpret nature as "evidence" for their gods.
"Please show me another Apple and I will consider it, or reject it based on the evidence and claims. This is not special pleading, it is logical."
If you were not engaging in special pleading, you would have rejected the bible along with the other "holy books" and for the same reasons you reject those others.
Lunch over back to work.
ReplyDeleteHugo,
I hope you didn't mind me finding a weakness of your logical model and having a little fun.
"I hope I am not teaching you that words can have more than one definition..."
Nope just being difficult at times to make sure you understand what you are saying. To help you hone, and commit, to your points.I hate wishy washy claims.
DAN: God is tangible and real
"Prove it."
Really? That is easy. The Bible.(John 1:1,14) Now you cannot claim the Bible is a concept in someone's mind, I am sure you agree that it has a physical form and is physical evidence of our Creator. I am sure you would agree that the Universe, and all the elements in it, exists. God of the Bible and all of Creation, shows us why we can trust the Him, and His claims in that Book.
Logic says the Bible is Supernatural with all of the prophetic evidence to show the validity of its claims of it being Divine.
That is our evidence. No other book can make such prophetic claims of more then 300+ prophecies and no other book has claimed adequate evidence as to the Creation of the universe and all its inhabitants. Written some 5000 years ago that is still very, very, relevant today. I would say even more relevant today since the prophetic words are being revealed to us during these times so we understand better chapters such as Daniel and Revelation. We now understand the Bible today more then ever before in the past.
The Bible is actually becoming more believable, and relevant, as the days go on into the future. It is a glimpse into our past, present, and future. Try that with any other book. School books? Nope, they get outdated as man finds out more about the worlds truth, they get revised. Science, peer reviewed, papers? Nope, same thing they get revised with newer evidence. So even peer reviewed papers become outdated. Moby Dick? Nope, the whaling industry has changed quite a bit since the book was written. It is a glimpse of the past.
The Bible is absolutely relevant today as it ever has been, even more so. No man made book could ever have such longevity.
Not as an appeal to authority but more circumstantial evidence towards the claim we have. Our current dating system says how many years I was born after Christ. Even the Qur'an, the second largest religion on this planet, claims that Jesus is the Messiah. Also, we have many Hostile non-Biblical pagan witnesses to Christ, like Thallus (52AD), Pliny the Younger (61-113AD), Suetonius (69-140AD), Tacitus (56-120AD), Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD), Phlegon (80-140AD), Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.), Celsus (175AD) (pleaseconvinceme.com)
This is all with a very short active ministry of Jesus (Three Years). Let me guess all this is mass hysteria?
TBC
Hugo (con't),
ReplyDelete"I believe I exist as a physical entity because I have a brain from which arises my self-consciousness"
How do you account for self-consciousness? If it is all merely mater in motion how is it that a flower has no self-consciousness? We are, according to your worldview, related to flowers. Again your worldview appears to be absurd and illogical. You cannot even answer simple questions.
DAN : "I hope you didn't mind me finding a weakness of your logical model and having a little fun."
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to the fact that I had forgotten to mention that in the fallacy model Person A and Person B have the same concept of "X" in their mind?
DAN : "God is tangible and real"
HUGO: "Prove it."
DAN: Really? That is easy. The Bible.(John 1:1,14) Now you cannot claim the Bible is a concept in someone's mind, I am sure you agree that it has a physical form and is physical evidence of our Creator. I am sure you would agree that the Universe, and all the elements in it, exists. God of the Bible and all of Creation, shows us why we can trust the Him, and His claims in that Book.
Perhaps THE shortest circular argument I have ever seen…
Why didn't you just write: The Bible is the proof God exists because the Bible is the word of God.
DAN : "How do you account for self-consciousness?
I think therefore I am. QED.
I try to be as short as possible because I am still waiting for answers anyway.
Hugo (con't again)
ReplyDelete"You mention counting that but that's irrelevant too as humans simply constructed mathematical rules from observing nature and using logic and reason."
Observing nature and using logic and reason? You mean those eternal, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
You are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain.
"You keep on insisting on that point because it's basically telling you that if we cannot account for some things then our worldview is flawed. But let's say for a minute that you are right on the fact that a supernatural being account for "universals", what does it tell us? Why would I suddenly believe that Jesus healed people and rose from the dead for example? I really don't understand why you stick to that."
As I said, all the evidence points to the Creator revealing Himself in His Word and as a physical being. It would be impossible as to any other system explanation.
"Christianity is not only the belief of an "Accounter" so why are you trying to convince people that their worldview is flawed if they don't have an "Accounter"?"
Christianity is the only system that makes logical sense. Van Til said "'proof' of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of 'proving' anything at all." And C.S Lewis put it: "There is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes"
Christianity is the only precondition of intelligibility. You affirm a position which is contrary to your better knowledge. You are intellectually schizophrenic.
"So if you ever want to ask again how my worldview can account for this or that, I will simply say "The Accounter"; are you going to be happy with that?"
As long as the "accounter" is to represent the Creator of the universe and our Lord Jesus Christ then sure go for it. :7)
"My worldview, even though I never tried to define it, is based on this principle: I think therefore I am. "
Talk about circular reasoning... SO as yourself "How can I think that I am?", precondition of intelligibility, and you will get closer to the worldview that is valid for logic. Maybe a good lecture about worldviews would help you understand more.
"Well in my worldview, the important is that logic, science and ethics DO make sense! I accept them."
That is fantastic news to know that you hold Christianity as your worldview now!!!
Exactly! Any other worldview cannot account for logic, the uniformity that is necessary for science, and objective ethics. Whew, you had me worried for a moment.
Like Sye said "As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science."
Welcome home.
"Ironically, it's Christianity, by including irrational beliefs, who is not even able to conclude that logic, science and ethics ALWAYS make sense, as there is always the possibility of a divine act that would not respect the integrity of one of the 3..."
Aw darn we were so close. Back to the intellectually schizophrenic.
Hugo snickered, "Perhaps THE shortest circular argument I have ever seen…
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't you just write: The Bible is the proof God exists because the Bible is the word of God."
The Bible is not circular logic as I said in the past.
* (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.
So it (begging the question) is formally logical, and in fact logically valid – that is, the conclusion does follow from the premise – they are tautological.
Dan says "god is real and tangible [able to be touched.]"
ReplyDeleteHugo says "prove it." (For anyone following along that would mean "prove that this god of yours can be touched." Now, anything other than a demonstration fails.
What does Dan do? He throws out some bible verses. He has already failed. But he continues and says that logic dictates that the bible is supernatural. And he gives a link to his own invalid reasoning. In the link, he claims that "a wicked man would never write such a book." But it's just not true. A shrewd wicked man would write such a book as it deflects attention and he can call his own wickedness the "commands" of a "perfect" being.
* (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.) [There is very little that we can actually verify. Some claims of the bible like the sun rising, setting, and hastening to its starting point are actually known to be false; but believers will reinterpret. At any rate, a con man is not going to lie about the things he expects you to check. He will lie about points that either you can't check or he deems you unlikely to check.]
* (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout. [Even if (1) held, this would be a hasty generalization.]
* (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God. [Other "holy books" do the same thing. Dan rejects those.]
* (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.) [No, those descriptions do not have to be truthful. More importantly, Dan is supposedly trying to convince people that don't believe the claims of the bible.]
* (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.) [Again, very little can actually be verified. What can, could very well have been deduced by humans.]
* (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man. [This would follow from (1) and (5). But I grant neither premise.]
* (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. [Again, the good reason does not exist.]
* (8, from 7) This someone is God. [And this is a complete non sequitur.]
A claim that what I wrote is a non sequitur is a non sequitur in itself.
ReplyDeleteThank to Pvblivs for pointing out the logical flaws in Dan's "circular logic"!!
ReplyDeleteDAN: not an instance of circular reasoning [...] for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings
How can someone be dishonest enough to claim that a "higher being" wrote the Bible? You don't even have any physical evidence for the evidence of your god, so could you at least admit that the Bible was written by men?
Let's go back to your answer to my recent "long answer"...
First of all, you have yet to answer to the account for logic presented to you before. Do you accept the axioms that are the basis of the proof or not?
Second, there is another question you did not answer. When you said "I hope you didn't mind me finding a weakness of your logical model ", what were you referring to exactly?
Moving on, but don't forget to answer the above FIRST
DAN: Logic says the Bible is Supernatural with all of the prophetic evidence to show the validity of its claims of it being Divine
Using logic you conclude that a BOOK is SUPERNATURAL?
I was going to discuss the Bible and all its bullshit, but you know what, I won't, because it's freaking useless. Let me just make one point clear. The Bible is nothing more than a book. I don't care what you think; I don't care if millions of people think it's the word of their god, it's still just a book. End of the story.
But just to tease you, let me give you one example of a prophecy that was not fulfilled, as it is enough to prove that it's not a "Devine" book, or a "No man made book", right? How can it be the word of God if it's not perfect?
Read Matthew chapter 24, especially verse 9:
"Alors on vous livrera aux tourments, et l'on vous fera mourir; et vous serez haïs de toutes les nations, à cause de mon nom."
What Jesus is referring to in this chapter has yet to occur, and since Christianity is currently the most popular religion, I don't see any signs of all nations hating Christians... Any rationalization for that?
DAN: The Bible is actually becoming more believable, and relevant, as the days go on into the future
You went to comment how school books get outdated and how science always change. That is just another example of these very ironic comments that you make, because yes, you are right, science always change, but that's what makes it GOOD, and USEFUL.
If we had stick with the ridiculous ideas like "Earth is the centre of the universe", we would not be able to write to each other right using the Internet right now...
Oh and you named "Moby Dick" along with your complains against school books and science. That's so funny as it gives the impression that you put novels and scientific papers on the same level of veracity... LOL
Part 2 of Dan's reply...
HUGO: "You mention counting that but that's irrelevant..."
DAN: "Observing nature and using logic and reason? You mean those eternal, universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?"
With all due respect... FUCK YOU. That's why you need to read the account for logic FIRST. I don't need to prove that the laws of logic are universals each time I want to use them. Will you ever understand this? No. Because you pre-suppose that your imaginary friend called God exist, and because of that you just can't accept the fact that other people do not have this pre-supposition.
HUGO: My worldview [...] is based on this principle: I think therefore I am
DAN: Talk about circular reasoning...
If you TRULY think that this is circular reasoning, you have a big big problem my friend... seriously... and I mean it. Seek mental health as soon as possible if you believe that "God exists" comes BEFORE "I think therefore I am" !
Hugo, you quote:
ReplyDelete"Alors on vous livrera aux tourments, et l'on vous fera mourir; et vous serez haïs de toutes les nations, à cause de mon nom."
You can't fool us: everyone knows that Matthew, like Jesus, spoke English.
And I don't like your, or Dan's, badmouthing Moby Dick either. Captain Ahab reasons at least as shrewdly as Pope Urban II:
Granting that the White Whale fully incites the hearts of this my savage crew, and playing round their savageness even breeds a certain generous knight-errantism in them, still, while for the love of it they give chase to Moby Dick, they must also have food for their more common, daily appetites. For even the high lifted and chivalric Crusaders of old times were not content to traverse two thousand miles of land to fight for their holy sepulchre, without committing burglaries, picking pockets, and gaining other pious perquisites by the way. Had they been strictly held to their one final and romantic object - that final and romantic object, too many would have turned from in disgust.
Hugo,
ReplyDelete"Do you accept the axioms that are the basis of the proof or not?"
I accept that you rely on these, what you call, axioms but that doesn't address what was said earlier. Remember this nugget?
"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."
"Using logic you conclude that a BOOK is SUPERNATURAL?"
Did you even look at the post? Yes! God is logical. Psst, if you didn't know the Bible is God. (John 1:1,14)
"What Jesus is referring to in this chapter has yet to occur, and since Christianity is currently the most popular religion, I don't see any signs of all nations hating Christians... Any rationalization for that?"
All I have to say about Matthew 24:9 is you ain't seen nothing yet.
As for your comment, don't see any signs? Really? Just look what Jesus and the apostles went through including but not limited to hung on crosses, beheading, hung on crosses upside down, burned, imprisoned, attacked, flogged on and on.
250 million Christians in 2007 were persecuted for their beliefs. Abuses suffered by Christians include kidnapping, forced conversion, imprisonment, church destruction, torture, rape and execution. You are completely high to think otherwise.
"If we had stick with the ridiculous ideas like "Earth is the centre of the universe", we would not be able to write to each other right using the Internet right now..."
Yawn, been there...catch up. (bit.ly/flatearth)
"Seek mental health as soon as possible if you believe that "God exists" comes BEFORE "I think therefore I am" ! "
""Problem is, “I think, therefore I am" is question begging. Look at your argument:
P1. I think
P2.To think, I have to exist
C. Therefore I exist
Problem is, your conclusion is presupposed in P1. To avoid question begging, P1 should be: “thinking is going on,” and I’d really like to see how you get from THAT to “I exist.”
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteIn response to Hugo,
""Problem is, “I think, therefore I am" is question begging. Look at your argument:
P1. I think
P2.To think, I have to exist
C. Therefore I exist
Problem is, your conclusion is presupposed in P1. To avoid question begging, P1 should be: “thinking is going on,” and I’d really like to see how you get from THAT to “I exist.”
Even if Descartes 'argument' is question begging how on Earth do you reason to the existence of external entities before establishing your own existence first?
There is evidence to suggest Descartes didn't even see the cogito as an argument, indeed he later drops the ergo so it becomes "I think, I am" - which is basically a rational intuition i.e. the property of thinking presupposes the existence of an entity.
Darrin actually covered this problem with Axioms 2 and 3 of his account:
"A (Axiom) 2. (My) Sense-perception exists.
Proof. If I were to offer a disproof, I perceive the disproof. QED.
Axiom A3. I exist.
Proof. Any proof I were to offer would contradict A2, since it presupposes consciousness by definition. But A2 is axiomatic. Therefore, consciousness, meaning I, exist. QED
Cor. Solipsism is false.
Proof. My consciousness is not included in my sense perceptions. Therefore an independent entity apart from sense perception exists, refuting solipsism absolutely."
freddies_dead, you quote Darrin:
ReplyDeleteCor. Solipsism is false.
Proof. My consciousness is not included in my sense perceptions. Therefore an independent entity apart from sense perception exists, refuting solipsism absolutely."
While I tend to agree that solipsism is false, I don't see how you can prove that it's false. Darrin asserts that his consciousness is an independent entity from his sense perception, but offers no evidence for this: it's simply a bald assertion. Without some sort of consciousness, I don't see how sense perception can be said to exist; thus, sense perception is part of consciousness.
While I can't prove that all of you, and the rest of the Universe, aren't simply figments of My Imagination, and that I am the only Entity That Exists, I think it unlikely, because it's simpler to assume that the Universe, with its apparent multiple entities, is more or less as it appears. So you guys are off the hook: you don't have to prove to me that you exist.
zilch - I believe Darrin addresses just this issue here --> solipsism
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead: thanks for the link. I don't think Darrin has succeeded in disproving solipsism, though. His very first premise contains an unwarranted assumption:
ReplyDelete1. If solipsism is true, then everything that begins to exist has a cause, and this cause must be my perceptions or by an internal faculty able to cause perceptions.
Not so. For all I know, it might be the case that my existence as the solitary consciousness that imagines the Universe has no cause. Something has to exist without a cause- why not me?
I hasten to add that I reject solipsism, for the same reason I reject the brain in the vat scenario, and the God hypothesis as well: they are more complex than simply assuming a material Universe. But I can't prove, and Darrin hasn't proven, imho, that it's logically impossible.
HUGO: "Do you accept the axioms that are the basis of the proof or not?"
ReplyDeleteDAN: "I accept that you rely on these, what you call, axioms but that doesn't address what was said earlier."
Ok, I will grant you that one because I had not realized that you don't even accept the very first axiom especially! I thought you were always just dismissing them as a whole...
Anyway, the problem is that by doing so (dismissing Axiom 1 of the argument) you basically say that you are unsure of whether the laws of logic are always true or not, i.e. you refuse to say that they are "epistemologically valid axiomatically".
That's quite ironic coming from a person who asks, quote:
how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
So Dan, how do YOU know?
If your answer is that Christianity presupposes logic, know that you are wrong, as we can also say that an Atheistic worldview presupposes logic. I think I remember other people here writing the precise same thing in your comment section, trying to explain you that idea... but here we go again... actually, I will quote something interesting I read on the bus today!
===============================
From infidels.org:
If Bahnsen is correct that logic, science and objective moral reasoning presuppose the TAG Christian worldview, does this show that the Christian worldview--let alone the TAG Christian worldview--is true? No, it does not.
To put what Bahnsen meant by "presuppose" in terms often used by him: To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true. For example, if I am trying to communicate to an audience by speaking to them in English, my action makes no sense unless they understand English. But it does not follow that they do. They might only understand Chinese. Scientists listening to radio signals from outer space in order to make contact with extraterrestrial life presuppose that such life is possible. But it does not follow that it is. Similarly, if, as Bahnsen claimed, the Christian worldview is presupposed by science, logic, and objective ethics, it does not follow that the Christian worldview is true. It might be the case that science, logic, and ethics are impossible and should be rejected. TAG would not establish the truth of the Christian worldview but only the inconsistency of atheists who presuppose science, logic and objective ethics.
Furthermore, it is clear that TAG assumes particular interpretations of science, logic, and ethics. For example, Bahnsen assumed an inductive interpretation of science, a metaphysical view of logic, and an objective construction of ethics such that any denial of objectivity would be moral anarchy. However, other interpretations of science, logic, and ethics are possible. So even if TAG is valid, science, logic, and ethics conceived in other ways are not ruled out. In particular, science can be conceived in non-inductive ways, for instance as the putting forth of bold speculative theories and the refutation of them by rigorous empirical tests (Popper, 1959). Logic conceived in metaphysical terms may indeed be problematic and be better thought of in different terms. Perhaps, for example, the principles of logic should be considered as instruments. However, so construed they need not be arbitrary since they are adopted for certain purposes (Nagel, 1964). Objective ethics might be impossible, but this does not mean that ethics conceived in others ways is impossible. Moreover, a subjective based ethics need not entail moral anarchy or nihilism for human beings can have good prudential reasons to create moral systems with prohibitions against murder, stealing, and so on (Mackie, 1977).
HUGO: "Using logic you conclude that a BOOK is SUPERNATURAL?"
ReplyDeleteDAN: Did you even look at the post? Yes! God is logical. Psst, if you didn't know the Bible is God. (John 1:1,14)
Yes, I read your pointless post that claims that this book is supernatural, but it does not change the fact that it was written by men; hence nothing supernatural contributed to it. End of story. Plus, we all know that the Bible is far from being perfect, and that it's only by presupposing the existence of God that the Bible can barely make sense. Try pretending that you know nothing about Christianity and read the Bible again Dan.
Actually, could you do that seriously? After all, you do have a blog called "Debunking Atheists", so it would make sense to try to read the Bible from an Atheist point of view.
Finally, the the icing on the cake...
DAN:
Look at your argument:
P1. I think
P2.To think, I have to exist
C. Therefore I exist
Problem is, your conclusion is presupposed in P1. To avoid question begging, P1 should be: "thinking is going on," and I’d really like to see how you get from THAT to "I exist."
Well Dan, apparently you are unsure of your own existence, so I am not sure it's even worth discussing with someone who might be non-existent...
Anyway, how do we get from "thinking is going on" to "I exists"? Well first of all, no, you can't rephrase it this way. Second, the point is that if you ask yourself "Do I exists?", you already proved the existence of the "I", therefore "I" exits. And of course, as freddies_dead pointed out, it's not MY argument at all... and his summart was better than what I just wrote: "the property of thinking presupposes the existence of an entity"
So, I'll repeat, just to tease you again
Seek mental health as soon as possible if you believe that "God exists" comes BEFORE "I think therefore I am" !
I also had other comments concerning the fact that the Bible is not perfect at all, but that's a side note I guess, a long one but anyway...
ReplyDeleteIt's concerning the single example I provided, the fact that Christians are not hated by all nations, and you failed miserably...
You claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and yet you can't even admit that it is, at best, partly true. It's not ALL nations that hate Christians, look at the map from release international - the voice of persecuted christians, come on! Even the statistic you showed, (from the Christian Post, how cute...), says that 250M people were persecuted. That's only 10% of the Christian population... but at the same time... What the fuck!?
Where do they get these numbers!? 250M Christians being persecuted!? I guess that to get such a high number they must include you in these numbers Dan, because you are being "persecuted" here on your own blog, lol.
Anyway, the article you quoted does not give any numbers except the huge total, does not quote any other articles with sub-total, and I could not find anything on release international's website. They did not even release a press note in January 2007, the month that The Christian Post realeased their article (nothing between 07-11-2006 and 14-03-2007) ...
If you do find more detail, it could be interesting to read about it... I am not saying that's it's impossible, especially since some countries are completely anti-Christianity so I guess they must include all the Christians of such countries, but anyway, it still gives a good idea on how you get your information Dan...
Now, concerning your comment on science in the infallible Bible. Let me point out that I was saying that it's GOOD to change facts when new ones contradict the older, while you claimed that the Bible is reliable because No man made book could ever have such longevity, which is precisely what makes it BAD in my opinion.
Plus, I could answer you the same about your so-called "examples of scientific truths in the Bible": Yawnnnn, been there.... What? do you think you're the first Christian I ever read? I went to read your post on the issue and I did not even need to go check the verses you quoted as examples in your post because I remember reading all of them before, and realizing how ignorant you needed to be to think that those were examples of scientific facts discovered in advance.
My favorite is the one saying that all stars are different:
"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."
The Sun IS a freaking star!!! lol Oh, but of course, they must have know that right? the verse is so clear about that too... it must be my Atheist misinterpretation...
@zilch
ReplyDeleteSomething has to exist without a cause
Just curious... why?
I know that this is usually said to prevent going into infinite regress, but at the same time if we say that everything has a cause, we can't argue that something has no cause.
Personally I don't have any problem with saying that everything has a cause, until proven otherwise, as all that we can observe around us has a cause.
(The "can" is very important as we cannot observe something like a timeless massless singularity of infinite energy...)
Hugo: exactly. At some point the buck has to stop: either the Universe, or God, started without a cause, or something else is going on that we cannot fathom. Or perhaps there's nothing wrong with an infinite regress. In any case, we cannot see past the initial singularity, and I hesitate to extrapolate my temporally-spatially evolved reason to try to explain matters of which I know nothing.
ReplyDeletezilch said...
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead: thanks for the link. I don't think Darrin has succeeded in disproving solipsism, though. His very first premise contains an unwarranted assumption:
1. If solipsism is true, then everything that begins to exist has a cause, and this cause must be my perceptions or by an internal faculty able to cause perceptions.
Not so. For all I know, it might be the case that my existence as the solitary consciousness that imagines the Universe has no cause. Something has to exist without a cause- why not me?
I haven't gone through Darrin's argument in much detail but I believe he explains the assumption with his discussion of A-Time and B-Time theory - he contends that if Solipsism is true then A-Time theory is also true:
"since the fact that we perceive a progression of events means that this is exactly the case, due to no other outside point of perception being at all possible. Therefore, all of our perceptions began to exist."
It is A-Time theory that states everything that begins to exist must have a cause and that leads Darrin to his conclusion.
I hasten to add that I reject solipsism, for the same reason I reject the brain in the vat scenario, and the God hypothesis as well: they are more complex than simply assuming a material Universe. But I can't prove, and Darrin hasn't proven, imho, that it's logically impossible.
I think he has - if you accept his definitions.
Of course it's the refusal to accept others definitions that keeps philosophy going ;-)
freddies_dead quotes Darrin:
ReplyDelete"since the fact that we perceive a progression of events means that this is exactly the case, due to no other outside point of perception being at all possible. Therefore, all of our perceptions began to exist."
I don't agree. Just being the only consciousness in existence doesn't guarantee that your perception of chronology is unified. If I (the only consciousness) think it's one o'clock, and the clock says two o'clock, then there are two different times both in my consciousness. The same might be true of my perception of events being in a progression. After all, even we (presumably) non-creators of the Universe humans are often of two or more minds within ourselves- why couldn't it be similar for solipsists?
zilch said...
ReplyDeleteI don't agree. Just being the only consciousness in existence doesn't guarantee that your perception of chronology is unified.
Do you perceive time to be a progression of events? Do you, in effect perceive time as A-time? one event after another and with only the present being perceivable?
I think this is what Darrin is getting at i.e. I perceive time as A-time, therefore, if solipsism was true then A-time would be true. A-time requires causes, that requires the solipsist to cause itself which is logically impossible so solipsism is false.
The argument then rests around whether you accept Darrin's contention that we perceive time as A-time.
If I (the only consciousness) think it's one o'clock, and the clock says two o'clock, then there are two different times both in my consciousness. The same might be true of my perception of events being in a progression. After all, even we (presumably) non-creators of the Universe humans are often of two or more minds within ourselves- why couldn't it be similar for solipsists?
The example could be reconciled quite simply IMO, the clock is broken or running fast - this of course assumes that clocks in the solipsist universe follow the same principle they do in this one, which, if I am the solipsist, is true.
The point isn't that your thought and the clock disagree it's the perception of time as a whole. For the solipsist experiencing things in A-time the thought "it's one o'clock" is followed by seeing the clock report a different time which is followed by the reconciling of the difference - in other words a progression of events.
Obviously if the solipsist perceives time differently, say as B-time instead, then the argument is clearly moot.
Hugo said...
ReplyDelete@zilch
Something has to exist without a cause
Just curious... why?
I know that this is usually said to prevent going into infinite regress, but at the same time if we say that everything has a cause, we can't argue that something has no cause.
Think of it this way: causation is a function of temporal mechanics. However, time is a construct of the universe, so functions that reside outside of time, such as the formation of time itself, is not governed by causation.
This is one of the great stumbling block of creationists IMHO: imagining a spacetime-less environment.
Beyond the origin of the Universe, quantum mechanics gives many examples of effects without causes such as radioactive decay.
In any case, we know that something exists, so absolute nothingness is only a hypothetical concept. We can also conclude that things exist outside of time such as the Universe as a whole (which only contains space and time). The In other words, the universe's very existence is not dependent upon temporal or spacial dimensions, it's the other way around.
Therefore things exist outside of time and therefore are not subject to cause and effect.
Kaitlyn: indeed. In the absence of time, everything we know breaks down: causality is just the first casualty. What does logic or perception or logic mean, without time? Zilch.
ReplyDeleteI like the conversation that is going on about causation. The mental gymnastics to explain away such things is amazing. Denial can become a very strong habit.
ReplyDeleteSee if anyone notices something here.
>>such as the formation of time itself, is not governed by causation.
>>>This is one of the great stumbling block of creationists IMHO: imagining a spacetime-less environment.
*snicker
Thanks struggling atheists you make me laugh. How come our "explanation" just makes so much more sense?
Cause and effect would indeed make a good post.
Sometimes one cause has many effects. Take God for instance... :7)
Here, this is for Kaitlyn
Or several causes (atheists collaborating to explain away cause and effect) may lead to one effect (hell)
ReplyDelete@Dan
ReplyDeleteYa it must be funny to see people discussing issues, sharing ideas, THINKING, etc...
Did you find a way to prove your own existence by the way? I was afraid I might have made you disappear by pointing that out... nothing is impossible in a miracle-prone world!
Hugo,
ReplyDelete>>Did you find a way to prove your own existence by the way?
I thought I answered that exhaustively already.
It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain.
Now I ask you for one thing that you know for certain, and how you know it?
Your eyes relay the information to your brain but how do you know that your vision is reliable? Your brain interprets the data and separates it into statements but how do you know that your reasoning is reliable? How do you know that past observations, or your memory and your reasoning about it are valid? What is the standard by which you ascertain ‘truth’ or ‘value?’
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I thought I answered that exhaustively already."
You were mistaken. You haven't actually answered it at all.
"It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason."
FAIL. The "natural revalation" requires first that you assume your senses are reliable. And when people talk about "special revelation" they have, in my experience, always their preferred "holy book." That, too, requires the preliminary assumption of the validity of the senses and the further assumption (which I reject) that their preferred "holy book" has merit.
Since the validity of your senses must be assumed prior to any "revelation," such "revelation" is useless to the task of justifying those senses.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>That, too, requires the preliminary assumption of the validity of the senses and the further assumption (which I reject) that their preferred "holy book" has merit.
Doesn't matter what YOU reject now does it. If I reject the notion of gravity, will I fly?
>>Since the validity of your senses must be assumed prior to any "revelation," such "revelation" is useless to the task of justifying those senses.
Not so, all forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Why are your senses valid?
It has been explained already though,
* (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.
So Pvb, did you find a way to prove your own existence?
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteLet me try some more to hit this home.
Since we cannot finalize an argument engaged in infinite regress, we must stop at some self-validating, self-attesting authority. You have none.
Bahnsen says that the Christian system has a self-attesting authority. My epistemology is grounded in the all-interpreting presupposition of the personal, infinite, eternal, self-contained, self-revealing Creator of all facts and laws.
God is my ultimate reference point, and He alone is self-validating.
Now all systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning. For instance again, from Bahnsen, when you argue for the legitimacy of the laws of logic, you must employ the laws of logic. How else can you justify the laws of logic? This is a transcendental issue, an issue that lies outside of the temporal, changing realm of sense experience.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Not so, all forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Why are your senses valid?"
Actually, all forms of reason are based on axioms which cannot themselves be justified, but are simply accepted as axiomatic.
"It has been explained already though."
I have already addressed that faulty "explanation" above.
"Since we cannot finalize an argument engaged in infinite regress, we must stop at some self-validating, self-attesting authority. You have none."
Ah, but I have listed things as foundational (axiomatic) in my reasoning. And that is all that is really required. You are the one saying that nothing is allowed to be axiomatic, except (by special pleading) the christian god.
"Doesn't matter what YOU reject now does it. If I reject the notion of gravity, will I fly?"
No, you won't fly. You will have a demonstration of gravity. Interestingly, I have experienced no demonstrations of the accuracy of your "holy book." I have experienced many people telling me just to believe.
"How else can you justify the laws of logic?"
One does not justify the laws of logic. They must be assumed before you can attempt to justify anything.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>Actually, all forms of reason are based on axioms which cannot themselves be justified, but are simply accepted as axiomatic.
Is there such a thing as an invalid axiom to you?
>>You are the one saying that nothing is allowed to be axiomatic, except (by special pleading) the christian god.
Ah, but 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.
>>Interestingly, I have experienced no demonstrations of the accuracy of your "holy book."
No demonstrations? None? You do not see the Bible as a historical narrative at all? There is not one single thing historically accurate in that Bible? How can I argue against such presuppositions?
>> One does not justify the laws of logic. They must be assumed before you can attempt to justify anything.
OK how do know your assumptions will be the same in the future as the past future? How are you certain of that?
"Is there such a thing as an invalid axiom to you?"
ReplyDeleteThis can be interpreted in a couple different ways, with differing answers for differing interpretations. I expect the vagueness is deliberate. In one interpretation, one could take an axiom as invalid if it contradicts our observations. In a different interpretation, all axioms describe some world, so any axiom is a valid description of some world (not necessarily ours.)
"No demonstrations? None? You do not see the Bible as a historical narrative at all? There is not one single thing historically accurate in that Bible? How can I argue against such presuppositions?"
Here we have a dishonest twist. A demonstration of the accuracy of the bible would need to demonstrate the miracles. Fictional works do not become accurate just because they include a bit of history to add to the realism.
"OK how do know your assumptions will be the same in the future as the past future?"
Ah, but my assumptions do change. It's called "learning." When empirical observations contradict my existing beliefs. I have to revise my beliefs. It would appear you take a different tactic, instead denying the observations. It's the only way you could ever claim "certainty" as a virtue.
DAN:
ReplyDelete"I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything"
That's the main problem. You, Dan, cannot be sure about anything either as you cannot even justify your own existence... you tried, but failed, as pointed out by Pvblivs.
Nothing more for now... as you mentioned on the most recent post that you will be busy, for good reasons!
cheers