Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 1 of 297 (415758)
08-11-2007 11:03 PM


In a previous thread, Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") we did drift off into a relevant issue; that of the uncaused nature of God as many, such as myself, maintain. I think the questions surrounding the issue are worthy of discussion. Mark24 as well as PaulK had some questions and assertions: Particularly whether there can be an infinite regress of causes.
Mark24 writes: http://EvC Forum: Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") -->EvC Forum: Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
God can't be the ultimate reality, he must've been designed. And so begins the infinate regression.
This is your problem, you can't be consistent about your own design inference, it must therefore be rejected.
Mark, the folowing is from Merriam-Websters: God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
Reality in total is all that can be. Even if it is infinite and eternal, there is still nothing larger than everything (I do not mean everything in the pantheist sense. And that's really another topic if there is such a thing).
Everything which has a beginning has a cause. God did not have a beginning, therefore He does not need a cause.
Everything designed has a designer. God was not designed, therfore He does not need a designer.
He is the Alpha and the Omega; both beginning and end.
Unless I am mistaken, if there is one distinction between the pantheist view and the Christian, it is that reality is living and conscious (ie. God); a sentient and sovereign being as opposed to a simply material or natural existence that is void of any feeling or conscious thinking capacity.
I don't know if this is the proper forum for this discussion...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by pbee, posted 08-12-2007 12:32 AM Rob has replied
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 08-12-2007 1:05 AM Rob has replied
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2007 1:52 PM Rob has replied
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 08-14-2007 12:58 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 5 of 297 (415775)
08-12-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
08-12-2007 1:05 AM


Sidelined:
How can something that had no beginning be said to exist? Since you claim God never began then the obvious consequence is that he does not exist for the simple fact that by this definition {no beginning} he never began to exist.
It, or He, always was...
...and that is the point of the 'alpha and omega' sections of scripture. IThey ring more of transcending time entirely, than of being inside of it, and under it's laws.
In fact, a very great difficulty I had in grasping the logic of the Biblical message for many years, was because of my oww propensity to examine the details through the lens of time.
You ask how something that had no begining can exist, but let's ask the same thing in spacial terms (rather than in terms of time) about our material universe.
Where is it's beginning?
Since it has none, it does not exist.
It simpy doesn't follow...
Eternity is really not that difficult a thing to grasp in terms of time. It is no different than infinity in terms of space.
What you are asking is akin to asking 'what is outside of the universe'?
The question is nonsense in material terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 08-12-2007 1:05 AM sidelined has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 6 of 297 (415776)
08-12-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by pbee
08-12-2007 12:32 AM


pbee:
'an infinite regression of causes?'
Yes, I suppose so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by pbee, posted 08-12-2007 12:32 AM pbee has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 9 of 297 (415862)
08-12-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
08-12-2007 1:52 PM


infinite regression of causes illogical...
Mike the wiz:
I suppose if there's no God, there could be infinite regression, but why? Isn't it a contradiction in terms? If everything needs a cause, then how can it be infinite?
Well... Hmm... Ummm... Yes, I think your point is valid. Somehow I missed that...
If only that which has a beginning (finite) needs a cause, then yes, that which has no beginning (or end) does not by definition. So an infinite regression of causes is by default a mute and self destructive concept. As you said, it is a contradiction in terms.
It's another example of how important the meaning of words is. by their very definition, we make sense out of otherwise metaphysical gibberish.
That's why your a wiz Mike, in spite of your humility . Face it man... you've got the gift.
Some of these things are easy to miss if we're not careful...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2007 1:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 08-13-2007 9:30 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 14 of 297 (416005)
08-13-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals
08-12-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Why we keep coming back to this question.
AIG:
One familiar object that has no beginning or end is a circle.
A circle is a finite geometrical shape.
AIG:
What if time were a giant circle? We are only consciously aware of existing at one point on that circle and have a memory (whatever that might be physiologically) of only a very small arc of that circle. God, on the other hand, exists at all points of that circle and is always consciously aware of all those points. This gets us away from having to worry about infinities, regressions, causes, and basically looking like we no ideal what we are trying to say. From our point of view, he seems to exist out of time simply because he exists at all time.
Your phrase, 'all time'... seems to put eternity in a box (or circle as you say).
It's a good way to hint at an answer and may help us to understand God, but it cannot be the actual answer.
God existed before time, and will exist after time. I think it would be right to say that time is the illusion, not eternity.
Time is relative, eternity is absolute. I think God gives us time so that we may have the choice to live in the real eternal sense.
What is being 'relatively alive' worth anyway? We all have that now, and it isn't very inspiring or satisfying. This life only hints at the real thing.
C.S. Lewis gave a simmilar illustration to yours, but not about time but God himself. He said that if our life is a line on a sheet, then God would be the whole page. But even then he cautiously reminds us that it is only meant to help, it cannot capture the infinite nature of God. God is not a page, He is a book. And even then we're dealing with only one chapter of His reality that relates to this particular part of the story as he relates to us. In the end, there is no end.
So the solution is not finality of any kind in terms of God, but only in the concept of hell. So, hell may be circular, but not God.
AIG:
The real challenge of this concept is who do we support and supply arms to when ethnic war breaks out between the circularismists and the ellipsismists.
Very funny

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-12-2007 5:51 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2007 10:45 AM Rob has replied
 Message 197 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2007 2:42 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 17 of 297 (416026)
08-13-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
08-13-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Why we keep coming back to this question.
ICANT:
Hi Rob,
Let me give this circle a go.
Draw a circle on a piece of paper, name the circle eternity.
At 9:00 put a mark and name it beginning of time as we know it.
At 9:05 put another mark and name it the end of time as we know it.
Time is just a little space in eternity that man exists in.
Time is controled by day and night.
Before time as we know it there was only day.
After time as we know it there will be only day.
As far as God is concerned the entire circle all of eternity is just one great big now.
I hope I didn't muddy the water too much.
You did fine... perhpas I am the one confusing the issue. Yours and AIG's are useful illustrations. As C.S. Lewis' said (and very wisely)I only ask that we remember than an illustration is not the actual picture of reality.
I addressed this issue privately a while back with my own thoughts. It is written in article form and not a reply to another post. I do believe it is good theology, but it is not essential to understand the simple point you have so aptly summarized. It does however summarize the difficulty between the perception of being limited by the finite, and how that is bridged by eternity within a relationship with the Eternal and uncaused God.
It's a bit long, but I offer it to explain my position. Any comments are welcome since I have not reviewed it in some time, and it may need ammending.
Infinite perfection
By Robert S. Lockett
Psalm 119; 96 To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless (NIV).
Many perceive the idea of an absolute reality or divine way as limiting the options of existence and thereby harming objectivity. Law is seen as a confine rather than a cohesive fabric. This is a misconception that I wish to dissolve if I am able. It is the perfect law which manifests freedom from conflict and the resulting decay. It is a perfect system yet never imposed.
When one imagines a perfect system, it is common to notice the limit to its horizon. It is natural for finite beings to do so, but that is a rather incomplete analysis if we stop there. Take a circle for example, it is perfect by definition and yet limited by its circumference. What about squares and triangles etc.? Does the perfect circle leave them out of the picture? We often fail to realize that perfection can be added to without end, as long as the whole system remains in harmony. Imagine a geometric pattern with an endless variety of circles, as well as other shapes added, so long as they fit the overall theme or nature. That nature is inevitably illustrated by the law of non-contradiction. So perfection is essentially that law, and not only one expression of it.
In a computer program, the information available as well as its function is limited only by time, space, and energy of the programmer, etc. As long as the end result is without error, the program will operate as designed. However, if an error does occur; if some component of the whole system misses its mark, then the system breaks down either slightly or completely and outside correction is required. In either dysfunction, the result is the same, as the perfect unity of the system is lost.
Since every system in this universe is chained to the entropic reality of the second law of thermodynamics, my illustration is obviously just an analogy. A computer and its software are not absolute (ultimately perfect). My thesis is for illustrating the common practice of denying the possibility of a stable-entropic reality that founds our existence. The key to such a reality is a power that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and altogether unfailing.
Far from limiting humanity, the harmonious reality expressed in the Biblical Word of God and fulfilled by Jesus Christ opens the door to observe a truth at work that transcends runaway entropy, our finite universe, and unites all things into a divine order that has no limit.
For simplicity, imagine again the geometric pattern that only gets richer and richer. The building of layers and dimension are as infinite conceptually as our conceptions of the infinite in any other area such as ”space’. As long as the components are doing what they were designed to do, there is no limit to the additions of any sort provided they are achieved in unity with the whole. This denotes proper placement and order of things, not the demise or limitation of them. Clearly, the richness of our universe from the sub-atomic to the galactic reflects the incalculable potential for order to be expressed to an extent that transcends simple mathematical equations.
In such a system, time would evaporate as the process of decay may well not exist and the end would not threaten the individual parts. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that time would be transcended by eternity (a much different sort of measure). With proper (perfect) discipline, I see no reason to exclude any legitimate purpose or pleasure that exists in life within the parameters of such selflessness and commitment to order.
In light of that, our only danger (as we presently witness) would be to assume control of the whole, of which we are only part. There is no need to desire such control other than to bring glory to an individual part that belongs to another, or the whole. In fact, the only ”real’ glory of any one dimension or part of a perfect system is in the fact that its proper place is realized and fulfilled. Then the part would actually be in concert with, and contributing to the divine wonder of the ever expanding horizons of being. Being perfect (real), it would not be possible for the part not to exist. Each part becomes essential and meaningful to the whole of existence. In Psalm 119; 96 king David delights in the boundless nature of the law of God and I believe we can understand the nature of the truth and its source that he is worshipping.
God is whole and complete and wills us to live in His reality that we were designed for. We were designed for perfection. We set our bar far too low without Him. Without Him, we cannot conceive of what is ultimately His vision (we wouldn’t expect to). We are commanded to be perfect and He intends to make us whole again if we let Him (He will not give us less). Only He is capable of that. We are so far removed from this reality of His that we do not even desire to attain such an existence. He only asks that we believe in His perfection and turn (repent) from expecting less. We must accept His offer and choose it by humbling ourselves. Fortunately, He has the ability to give us the strength to endure the transition. One only need ask Him for it. We can trust that our faith is well placed, as nothing can replace or outdo perfection. It is simply more real than anything else.
As a Christian, I believe based on empirical, rational, and personal experiential evidence, that we can see that reality even now ”as through a glass’ by way of a personal relationship with Christ. The truth reveals itself and it’s opposition, and sets us free from any deception. As finite natural creatures, we miss the mark, but God does not. We need not have faith in ourselves, when we can have faith in the perfect one. It is in the pre-natural or super-natural that the answers are found; the infinite nature of the God’s truth.
His perfection is the reality we are so feeble to find on our own within our finite selves. What is reality? As G.K. Chesterton said, the only philosophy is the philosophy that is eternal (paraphrased). It is the absolute truth; the will of God. As Jesus said, ”my kingdom is not of this world’, but He did in fact create it. He is the uncaused I/you relationship who said, ”Let us create man in our image’. In Him, all things consist. We may very well discover, on the other side of this life that the invisible anti-matter theorized by so many physicists, is in fact the mighty hand of God. He spoke the universe into being, so that ”being’ would not be limited to Himself or His glory. God did not choose to stay ”in perfection’ as He always was in His triune nature, so being love, He chose to create ”infinite perfection’.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : made some new ammedments...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2007 10:45 AM ICANT has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 18 of 297 (416055)
08-13-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
08-13-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Why we keep coming back to this question.
After reviewing my old article... I... um... er...
Well.... it may be good theology, but it's bad communication and even childish...
Even so, I'll leave it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2007 10:45 AM ICANT has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 22 of 297 (416193)
08-14-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mark24
08-14-2007 12:58 PM


Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
The point is that you don't know god did not have a beginning, you merely assert it & attempt to use it as a premise in your argument. Evidentially vacuous premises ultimately lead to evidentially vacuous conclusions that can be discarded.
No... it's not a premise, but a conclusion based upon careful examination of the evidence.
Assuming the existence of God for a moment, what are our options on this issue?
1. God is uncaused
2. God is caused.
Now, you cannot show that God is caused either. You can however make an inference based on material (physical) obsevations. And I think that is part of your position. If so, I understand...
The fact is, the physical dimension is dependant upon causation. But it is not the only dimension.
If confining the emperical 'to the physical and natural' (methodological naturalism) is itself only a philosophical assumption, then by what natural method is it based?
The attempt is being made to escape from philosophy. That is not possible. You cannot get outside of the box to make that stick. It's an asssumption. So who has the flawed premise?
I can quote Kant and Hume and show you the violent contradictions in their thinking. Their ghosts still haunt us...
Philosophy is not material. Philosophy is an assumption, 'that since the physical world is logical, our observations and philsophical models of it's appearence must be as well'. So philsophical coherence is essential as a further test of our observations.
This ties in with the whole 'theo'ry 'theo'logy debate. Though it is true that the root of both words is different, both are rooted in the same belief; that the universe is ordered in an intelligable manner. As Paul Davies points out, that cannot be proven logically. It is a philosophical assumption.
mark24:
But you also apply a design inference to complex things & conclude they were designed. Applying this to god concludes he was designed by another bigger, better god, & so on. In other words using your own logic, the god you assert is everything, isn't.
Either the design inference is valid, or it isn't. If you refuse to apply it to god then you are guilty of special pleading & hypocricy.
Design applies only to 'physical things'. God exists as a Spirit ultimately who caused the arrival of the physical dimension. It is the quantum realm where our physcal laws are not violated, but transcended in some way.
I don't fully understand it either. But the quantum is a reality.
Striking isn't it? That the writers of the Bible could invent 'this God', in such a manner that even modern science thousands of years later would confirm... more than defy?
Mark24:
But to return to your topic title, asking such questions is meaningless until you first demonstrate at least one god exists.
Oh that's actually pretty easy when you think about it. Reality exists, irrespective of it's (or His) nature. Reality is God.
As Descartes showed us long ago, that is the one thing we cannot deny; 'I think, therfore I am'.
Something definitely exists. If nothing else, we can be sure that there is a 'doubter' doing the doubting. So there is a God, we're really only tryting to establish his nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 08-14-2007 12:58 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 08-14-2007 4:22 PM Rob has replied
 Message 196 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2007 2:39 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 24 of 297 (416243)
08-14-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mark24
08-14-2007 4:22 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob:
Reality is God.
mark24: Baseless assertion.
Actually, it is the definition of God. 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality... :God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
That's what God means...
If definitons are baseless, then every word you used is baseless and purely meaningless. Words mean things or they don't. I didn't hink you were a postmodernist. Was I wrong?
mark24:
You have no evidence god exists at all, that's why religions are called faiths. But, knock yourself out & present some, I guarantee logical fallacies.
Fine... what evidence are you willing to accept?
Let me guess... 'Emperical'?
But the appearence, ressurection, and ascension of Christ was not in the flesh and in time? Were the holes in His hands when Thomas touched Him illusions. Thomas didn't think so... he fell to His knees and said, 'My Lord and my God'!
Let me ask you this... would you believe if you witnessed all of the above for yourself? Thomas didn't until he saw Him risen.
Jesus (speaking prophetically) said, 'even if someone was raised from the dead, they still would not believe'.
Mark24:
Whaaaaat? Science has not confirmed the existence of god!
I was equating God with spirit as the Bible says.
You were not aware of the quantum?
I know it's still up in the air. Not implying everyone sees the same implications. But you might read John Polkinghorne's book 'One World'. He says the dimension of the transcendant can no longer be ignored. John is professor of quantum at Cambridge. You cannot be certain of anything at this point in terms of physicality. But why can I be certain of that?
We are forced to rely upon our inferences and logic. And that's not science (because of the definition of science currently). Words mean things.
You keep saying, 'Baseless assertion'!
Well, tell me mark24, what is the difference between a baseless assertion and one with a base? Is it not called 'cause and effect' which is dependent itself on the 'ground consequent' and vice versa?
Logic is our only tool Mark. And it transcends cause and effect, and inevitably is only as good as our individual associations and inferences based upon incomplete information. But good theoretical philosophy (which is what theology is) must be assumed to be valid, since otherwise nothing is valid. And that is a philsophical position whether you are a naturalist or not.
So, philsophical coherence is where all the answers ultimately lie. They are consequently grounded on the belief that logic illutrates and sheds light on reality.
We live in a culture that has by and large abandoned philosophy as meaningless. Don't they understand that their's is a philsophical position? And... it is immediately contradictory!
'We cannot have it both ways, and no sneers at the limitations of logic...amend the dilemma.' (I.A. Richards /Priciples of Literary Criticism, chap. xxv.)
mark24:
nothing you have said has made any difference to the FACT that you do not know that god had a beginning, or not.
Baseless assertion!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 08-14-2007 4:22 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 3:51 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 32 of 297 (416358)
08-15-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mark24
08-15-2007 3:51 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
Yes, that's right. Otherwise I have to accept all gods & goddesses regardles of whether they are mutually contradictory, or not.
No you don't... that's where logic comes in thank you very much...
A logically contradictory statement cannot be true. That is logic. It's the law of non-contradiction. And everyone believes in it.
So when other religion's great philosophers and expounders, trip all over themselves with logical contradiction upon logical contradiction, we can be certain they are false.
You keep saying that I am illogical. You even said that anyone can peruse my posts. Yet you give not one example in this thread mark24...
mark24:
None of your posts have provided evidence for your position. The EVIDENCE is your previous posts available for the perusal of all, ergo, my statement is an assertion with an evidential basis. You should try it.
And that is where you are wrong... You don't understand philosophy. Truth is essentially the quality of our propositions.
My evidence is in the revealed Word itself (the law of non-contradiction / logic). Because I am being logical (philosophically coherent) then my philosophical construct must be true.
If the evidence of contradiction is in my posts, then provide that evidence and I will be happy to retract it.
I think you have bought into a philosophical contradiction. And it began in earnest with a man named David Hume back in the 18th century. It was at about this time that science began to be defined as seperate from philosophy. And it took a clever sophist named Hume to do it. But it is what people wanted to believe (as you accuse me of being).
Let's examine Humes mind shall we? And I'll show you how to give evidence of logical contradiction.
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)
Hume's statement is a violent contradiction because His own statement (a baseless assertion) does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.
How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?
You see mark? Hume was a philosopher, as are you, as are we all.
There is no dichotomy between science and philosophy. To say so, or otherwise, is ultimately a philsophical construct. And philosophy is really just our religion, specifically the theoretical theology we use to explain it.
mark24:
Rob mate, you're a waste of time, & you have the balls to tell me how important logic is. Embarrassing.
Well mark, I am joyful that I do not feel the frustration that you do. I don't think your a waste of time at all. We've actually a great deal to discuss if you'll stay calm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 3:51 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 11:44 AM Rob has replied
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 1:51 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 34 of 297 (416371)
08-15-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)
mike the wiz:
"..for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
These particular words you quote, dispose of what epistemology tells us.
Yes, and that is the contradiction.
In his book 'Miracles', C.S. Lewis lays some important groundwork before moving on in defense of the 'miraculous'. In Chapter 3, 'The Cardianl Difficulty of Naturalism' he marvelously captures this problem. One cannot give a quote and do justice a whole chapter, but here is one way he puts it on pages 21 and 22:
"...Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true.
It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained eveything else in the whole universe but which made it imposssible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. it would have destroyed it's own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound-a proof that there are no such thing as proofs-which is nonsense."
mike the wiz:
positivists simply don't adhere to the fact that TRUTH exists beyond the empirically tangible, and/or without it.
I know... but how do you prove that emperically? It is an act of faith (as the Davies quote below will show).
The term 'positivists' is new to me, but the point is...that their's is a philosophical position. Their philosophy is not based on any material proof (no philosophy is), but on the validity of reason and logic. It is an assumption, that a contradiction must be false.
So, as Lewis, myself, you, and many others have shown over and over again... there is ultimately nothing emperical about 'empericism' other than it's correct inference to logic (ie. philosophical coherence).
But the funny thing is... 'philosophical coherence' is not what they claim 'empericism' to be. 'It is not philosophy', they say, 'it is real and hard evidence'. And that is what a baseless assertion is for the mark24's among us... On what can they base that claim?
So... as Paul Daives has said,
"“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
mike the wiz:
This is why the likes of this Hume-guy, disregard philosophy, but science only works because of the philosophies of epistemology and logic.
Exactly!
And the sad part is... Hume was a philosopher. And so modern science's claim to fame, the almighty and emperical fact that is superior and utterly removed from philsophical bias' was given birth to by philosophers.
They have raised this image, and given it the ability to speak. And a great number of millions follow and marvel at it...
mike the wiz:
We have logic and epistemology as the base, then science, and what it can tell us, and then worldviews, which are guesswork.
I would state it differently...
If our worldview is not logical, then it is a false philosophical construct which is our worldview (philosophy), and attempts to combine the different disciplines into a coherent portrait of God (reality).
What I think you and I understand, is that God reveals Himself through logical and coherent reasoning. And that is the Word. And that is what we all use to relay these things. So as soon as you speak, we are looking for coherence...
So, truth is axiomatic. And you and I consider these truths to be self evident. They do not depend upon bias, but upon logic actually being valid.
And this relates to the subject... 'Was there ever a time when logic did not exist'? For that is the nature of God's holy Spirit. Once you know it... you have begun to fear and know Him. For he does not show partiality.
How was that mike??? Was I starting to ramble at the end?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 11:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 1:49 PM Rob has replied
 Message 198 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2007 3:05 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 36 of 297 (416377)
08-15-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
It just hit me Mike...
I think the empericists are trying to say that the physical world proves itself to be logical. But what we are saying, is that it really only proves logic to be valid.
And if logic is valid, then it is valid beyond even the emperical, since the emperical is baseless without it (as you said). That's the only reason either side can legitimately theorize about their ultimate philosophical construct of reality.
So, the physical world shows emperically the validity of logic. We do not have a complete picture on either side, but it reveals God's (Reality's) nature.
So mike... what the apostle Paul said was true (since it cannot be otherwise):
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
If logic is valid there simply is no other conclusion, since the premise is itself 'logic'.
And unless I forget the context, that is why I told Mark24 that my claim is not a premise, but a conclusion.
Certainly he will not say that that claim is baseless, since the emperical world is my evidence of logics validity.
It's kind of what Ray Comfort tries to say... 'you cano thave a building without a builder'. The universe itself, in all of it's glory, is the evidence of God.
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 11:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 2:03 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 38 of 297 (416379)
08-15-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 1:49 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mike the wiz:
I agree if you mean to say that empericism or empiricism is only sound because of logic.
Yes!
mike the wiz:
I understand what you're saying, yes. For me, Christ is the most wise. Logic, the philosophy of humans, is probably the baby-steps to God's ultimate wisdom.
Oh yes... so true so true...
We must first understand addition and subtraction, before we can progress to algebra.
God is logical. And so he is both simple and complex. he is not divided against Himself. He does not oppose Himself (ie. He never contradicts Himself).
A knigndom divided cannot stand. His endures forever...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 1:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 39 of 297 (416380)
08-15-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
08-15-2007 1:51 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
No evidence = no deal.
I go back to my question... What particualr emperical evidence would you be willing to accept?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 1:51 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 2:15 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 42 of 297 (416388)
08-15-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 2:03 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mike the wiz:
I think Mark's message #37 hits on why God/s aren't proven.
Internal consistency is not enough... I agree!
But did you notice that he also said, other religious views contradict ours? Hence, they cannot all be true.
mark24:
I've been in discussions with members of other religions & they expect me to accept their assertions with no more evidence than you provide, ie. none. Their assertions contradict yours. The only way I can tell between them is with empirical evidence. You can make up fantasty-land stories that are internally consistent & therefore internally logical all day long. But that logic won't help anyone get to the truth, only evidence can do that...
...Just because a statement is internally coherent doesn't make it true!
But what is also being said (which I think he misses), is that internal 'in-consistency' would be an example of falsehood.
So when 'methodological naturalism' is internally inconsistent, what does that mean?
Let me explain by sharing a revealig article for you: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/intelligent-design/?...
In it Discover magazine editor Susan Kruglinski says,
...WHY ID IS NOT SCIENCE
Definition of science
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;..."
"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth."
"In deliberately (ie. for philosophical reasons) omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."
Now that is fascinating, because they do so for philsophical reasons...
Hence the internal inconsistency and evidential falsification of it's merits based up on logic.
Do you understand that mike?
Would you put it differently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 2:03 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 3:35 PM Rob has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024