Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

Hello, just a couple of general questions/observations on the evolution debate. The arguments I am using are only valid against a world-view that allows for evolution but dismisses the possibility of God for lack of scientific evidence. Perhaps better put, evolution without divine intervention is what I am arguing against.1) The fundamental problem I have with the theory of atheistic-evolution is that it fails to answer some of the deeper meta-physical questions concerning the origination of life. I have not seen an adequate explanation that can hold up to science, logic , reason and that can account for the various meta-physical realities that exist in our world today. To reiterate here, I understand that a true evolutionist does not intend to explain that which I am asking it too. That is why the intended audience is for an evolutionist who believes that God could not have used evolution in order to populate the world as we know it today, perhaps better put--an atheistic evolutionist.2) The theory of evolution is grounded on more unproven pre-suppositions than most theistic interpretation of the world in which we live and the originations of life on this planet. The problem with this approach is that in the world view it exists in (atheistic), unproven assumptions are not allowed. In many peoples opinion, as well as mine, this places evolution in a tremendous dilemma and starts it out in a logical bind. It wants to use the laws of science and logic, but in doing so it presupposes the existence of such things. It assumes that they exist in advance without proving them. In order to prove that the laws of logic or science are valid tools, one must use the laws of logic. In order to do this, one must use that which is trying to be proved in order to prove the assumption. That is, you use logic to prove logic exists.3) Creationism (with evolution or without) does not have the same logical dilemma. This is because in the theistic interpretation of the world, these things are allowed. That is, entities that are pre-supposed as well as evidenced are allowed since they reflect the nature and character of God. One can use the laws of logic since they are in fact universal laws. The atheistic approach does not have that same argument since it does not make sense in their world. No-one can say there are any universal absolutes (laws of logic, science or morality) since they don't exists. Again, to reiterate, these universal absolutes are allowed within theism since they reflect the nature and character of God.Because of these arguments as well as around a hundred others, It is my humble opinion that the theistic approach to the world in which we live (in particular Christianity for other reasons I have not listed) is the intellectual high ground. The others while on the surface appear to make sense or to be possible, as one analyzes the metaphysical realities in this world and thinks about the implications of an atheistic world, atheism becomes much more difficult to defend against(since meta-physical realities can not be accounted for). Furthermore, the world is either atheistic or theistic. While it is possible for someone to be agnostic, the world can not be. Given this, and the impossibility and logical inconsistencies contained within atheism, the only rational decision in my mind is the a God centered universe.

I will systematicaly attempt to answer all questions as time permits me to:###
Exactly what realities are you talking about?
###I am talking about all the realities of the world we live in today-Academic Metaphysics to be more precise. Evidence of the human experience if you will. The concepts of Love,Thoughts and morality are probably the simplest examples one could produce. Laws of logic, and concepts of numbers are others. Clearly they exist, but can't be explained(or proven to exist) in the same way we would explain(or prove) any other naturalitstic entity.######
To the contrary; it's grounded on the least assumptions. In fact it's grounded on only one assumption that could be said to be un-proven: that naturalistic methodology is the best way to find out about the universe we live in.
######I would argue that the theistic approach demands one assumption. The existance of God with certain attributes. This is assumed adn evidenced. The athesitic one requires more than one. Presupositions required for aethism include the laws of logic, mathematics, uniformaty of matter, etc. Theism (Christianity in particular) has the advantage in this since it presupposes only an eternaly existant perfect God. I agree that the naturalistic approach is the best way to find out about the world we live in. However,in discussing the existance of non-material entities , that is entities not extended in space (God, logic, numbers, morality,soul), the naturalistic approach can not provide a reasonable explanation.###############
It's not necessary for logic to exist in order to use it. In fact I'm not sure that you can say that logic exists - certainly it doesn't exist outside of our heads. Nonetheless, it's our heads we're using to examine the universe, therefore a logic that only exists in our heads is sufficient.
################The very argument you use is using logic. If the laws of logic do not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. They do exist and they exist external to us. It is illogical for me to say that I am writing this statement but I am also not writing this statement. If this kind of logic is allowed on this forum, it would be meaningless. I could simply stipulate that I am correct and that you are wrong, therefore you are wrong and I am correct. I am sure you would agree that this forum demands that logic exist. Take away the laws of logic from this discussion and it is meaningless.###########
But you gloss over the number one problem: if we're going to put God in our science, then it's imparative for you to prove that God exists in the first place.
#############Again, you are using logic in this statement. And I would say that your logic is correct, else anyone could make any statement (green dog on moon created earth). In the same you you are pre-supposing that God doesn't exist, I am presupposing He does. This presupposition is based on suficient evidence. I could start listing them, but I think you already know most of them. (concept of evil, the created order, impossibility of the contrary{atheism}, the list goes on..). I would then have to ask a similar question, on what basis do you presuppose the laws of logic, or laws of morality(if you do) or any other non-naturalistic entity you would agree exists? Is it wrong to kill someone? Why ? What is presupposed in order to answer this. Chrisianity provides a reasonable answer to this question. It is wrong to kill unjustly because that is an action contrary to the nature and goodness of God. I have presupposed that God exists and that his characteristics match the christian view of God. Again, presupposed with ample evidence.Thanks for the reply

#####
What do you mean "unproven"? Do you mean not absolutely proven in the mathematical sense? Science does not work with proofs. It relies on assumptions that are reasonable according to current knowledge, and tests hypotheses by comparing them to observations in the real world. How has the theory of evolution failed this? You need to back up these assertians
#####Let me first say that I am NOT arguing that science does not make sense or that it is meaningless. I am simply arguing that in a world with out God, science is not possible. This can be demonstrated by the fact that science is heavily dependent upon the laws of logic. A premise is made based on some observed phenomena and then it is tested and the theory is proved or disproved based on the results. In doing this, the scientist is dependent upon various laws of science and laws of logic at a minimum. The problem is that the laws of logic are presupposed before they are proven. In order to prove the laws of logic, you must use logic. In an atheistic world, that is a world apart from God, this is not allowed since you are violating the laws of logic (using a circular argument or begging the question).On another note, how does an evolutionist explain the start of the universe without using any pre-suppositions. That is why the atheistic-evolutionist is hard pressed to provide any answers to the questions that mankind has been asking for thousands of years. The theist pre-supposes the existence of a God with the defined atributes. The atheist must make many more presuppositions in order to explain similar concepts (laws of logic and laws of morality to name just a few). They must assume that morality is a convention within societies, that matter will continue to behave uniformaly, that God does not exist, etc.#####
No, creation suffers from another problem in that the physical evidence in the real world shows that the earth and life on earth has had a long history.
######
This is the same line that is repeated over and over. THe problem for the atheist with this argument is that even if I grant you this point (which I would not), it still does not disprove creationism. So if we stack the cards in your favor, you are still left with a belief system that is unproven and still inconsistent with the realities which we experience and see on a daily basis. (morality,love,hate,cocepts of evil,...) What this means is that unfortunately, the hallmark argument for atheism (at least on this formum) is lacking in substance. It is irrelevent to the discussion and can therefore effectively be ignored. It doesn't get us any closer to the question of wehter or not God exists and if He does, did He create the universe (using evolution or through other means unknowable to us as of yet).#####
There is nothing intellectual about the theistic approaches used in creationism. Creationism ignores evidence, distorts evidence, and uses incredible illogical twists of reason. Creationism is anti-intellectual.
#####
This is merely thrashing at the wind. While I would agree that some creationists behave in this manner, I would also argue that many atheists do the same. We all come to the table with our own set of pre-suppositions, mine is the existence of God, yours is (I think) the existence of logic. I maintain that the existence of logic can not make sense in a world apart from God, since the atheistic approach can not account for universal,invariant,abstract entities. This argument by the way has been used by many philosophers throughout history -I am not claiming these concepts to have been orinially presented by myself. I could again grant you that statement(which I would not) and it still has no relevance to wether or not God exists. I would also maintain that my presuppositions are evidenced as well as presupposed, therefore they are not ignorant. For example, the existence of the laws of morality provide evidence that a God does exist. Fulfilled prophecies suggest that the bible is the Word of God. The rapid growth of Christianity amid tremendous persecution suggest some type of divine intervention. the millions of people who have had religios experiences, the theology that is taught makes sense both intelectually as well as spiritualy, the mere existence of Christianity today provides evidence, the tremendous amount of order we see within the universe testifies to the existence of a God, I can go on. The beauty of Christ alone is reason enough to at least consider the possibility of it being true.Thanks for the reply...Kyrie eleison

Again, as time permits I will respond in order....
#####
Why would you expect science to explain metaphysics ? Metaphysics is outside the scope of scientific investigation.
#####
To reiterate my position, I am not arguing against science. Nor am I arguing against evolution (while personally I do not see enough convincing evidence I am largely indifferent). I am simply arguing that in an atheistic world, the observed realities which are experienced can not be accounted for. Therefore I am arguing against an atheistic evolutionist. I am not asking science to explain metaphysics, I am simply asking for an atheist or even agnostic to explain how it is possible to have things such as laws of logic, laws of morality, and any laws in general.###
Which unproven assumptions does evolution rest on other than those common to science ? There is no need to assume the laws of science- they are conclusions.
###
These conclusions are reached using a type of circular argument however. I agree that they are conclusions and that they appear to withstand the test of time. My argument is that they are based on the presuposition that the laws of logic are even valid true. How have you tested the logic that you use to prove the naturalistic theories you maintain? I would argue that you use logic to do this. I am not saying that you do not use logic, you do. I am not saying that theist don't use logic, they do as well. I am simply saying that in the atheistic universe, these things are not allowed (unproven presuppositions, unproved through illogical means- such as using a circular argument), and therefore the atheistic universe can not withstand logic or reason. On the surface it does, but as one examines the implications of the system, one can conlude that it is an incoherent, irrational, illogical view of the world, simply because it can't account for the universal, invariant abstract entities that exist in the world.######
You say that creationism does not have the same problems because creationism allows unproven assumptions. However that does not mean that creatinism is any better - just that it has lower standards. Something many creationists would deny.
######
I am simply saying that in a theistic universe, universal invariant abstract entities make sense. In the atheistic they don't. If you don't believe that these entities exist then atheism makes sense. If you do however, then atheism is left thrashing in the wind. It can not deal in a rational way with this problem. Since these global, unchanging, non-material entities can exist within theism, the discusion can at least begin. We can then start to examine the evidence for or against evolutionism. As it stands however atheism leaves science without any deep intelectual or philisophical substance. Atheists are left looking for scraps on the floor while the true depth and consistency of science is reached(or explained rationaly at a minimum) through the existence of a God. I am not saying then that we can explain everything away with well God just did it. I am simply saying that we can being to have a rational discussion about it.####
Considerign that your arguments make unrealistic demands of other beliefs, while holding your own to unreaonably low standards it would seem that you are not occupying any intellectual high ground. An anti-intellectual ground perhaps, And that means that creationism is certainly not the rational choice you claim
####
The theistic belief is simply the most reasonable and simplistic answer to the deeper philisophical questions that exist in the world. It is the only rational explantation to the problems I have suggested atheism contains. Universal invariant abstract entities can exists wtihin the theism since it reflects the nature of God. How do I know this? because God has revealed Himself to us. How has he done this? While there are many reasons one could use, I simply use the existence of two universal, invariant, abstract entities know as the laws of morality and the laws of logic. Many of the laws of logic are not experienced but are proven through deductive means, yet they withstand scrutiny. They are universal, unchanging and abstract. You can not touch them. You can not prove they exist in an atheistic world since in doing so you would be using logic. They are at least allowed in a theistic world since they reflect the nature and character of God. The existence of morality alone should be enough evidence to suggest that atheism does not make sense. That is it fails to deal with the realities of the world we live in, in a logical, coherent manner. You can not account for the fact that rape is wrong. You can not account for the fact that even though in some cultures, it was ok at some point in time to kill or rape your children, it is wrong. The best you would be able to come up with is probably that these concepts are cultural or imposed by society. Therefore if society says it's ok, then it is ok. How could you deny that there are absolute right and wrongs in this universe? Again, since most people can not, and since these absoulte truths do not make sense within the scope of atheism, atheism is an invalid, illogical and incoherent system of belief.Thanks for the reply...Christe eleison

####
I think this possibly belongs in the "Is It Sciece" thread.
####
It is starting to evolve to that point. My intention however is not to fault science for it's methods but to simply propose that evolution can not make sense in a world that can not account for abstract entities. That is in an atheistic universe, evolution and the theories it suggests can not coexist since the laws of logic can not be accounted for.#########
Point 1)
#########The logical contradiction still exists however. The theory of evolution can not exist in a world that can not account for universal absolutes. Such as laws of logic. This debate has no meaning if the laws of logic are not universal, or if they are not invariant. If they are not universal, then I could stipulate any statement (such as God exists) to be a tautology and therfore it is true depending upon which culture I choose to arbitrarily create. If they are not invariant then it wouldn't matter anyway since the logic is changing and could possibly be different tomorrow. I maintiain that the laws of logic are universal and invariant. I also maintain that in a world apart from God, these types of entities can not exist. If they do, what is the justification for their existance? And why should I be confined to using them in this discussion? Within Christianity there is an answer to this question. The laws of logic (among other laws) reflect the nature and character of God. We must abide by them because if we did not, we would be operating in an incoherent manner, one contrary to the character and nature of God. Laws of morality are similar only far easier to prove for the theist.
####
Point 2)
How are either of these simply assumptions?
####
While I would agree that these laws of science are ultimately confirmed using aposteriori lines of reasoning, I would also argue that given the universal nature of them (as they truly are, not how we perceive them to be since our perceptions change), and their reluctance to change, these observed behaviors are an accurate reflection of matter as best as we can see fit. However, concerning the laws of logic, this same reasoning does not exist. Most laws of logic are not independently verified or observed in nature. There are many examples of laws of logic that are extremely complicated to grasp much less observe in the natural world. At a minimum, they are justified along a priori lines of reasoning, that is they are justified apart from experience. Since the laws of science are heavily dependent upon the laws of logic, I would suggest that the laws of science in the end are first pre-supposed along a priori lines and then confirmed to be true along the a posteriori lines of justification. I would also argue that given their universal, invariant and abstract nature, they can not be accounted for in an atheistic universe, therefore science can not make sense in an atheistic universe. Again, you will say they can be accounted for, I say in what way? Why should I be bound to your laws of logic? Why is it that you would not be able to explain to me why raping someone is wrong? I am not saying that you would take those positions, only that in an atheistic universe the stipulations you would make have no basis for truth. they are simply stipulations from your perception of reality. In a theistic universe it is wrong because God is the standard of goodness and committing these crimes would be behaving contrary to His nature.########
Point 3)
You seem to say in point 2 that it isn't allowed to use things which haven't been proven or tested or whatever. However, in theism it is ok to do exactly that.
#######
I have not made this claim, nor would I. I am simply saying that the world can not make sense in an atheistic universe since it can not adequately deal with the neccessary conditions of human experience. The laws of logic and morality and science make total sense in a theistic universe. More specificaly a Christian universe. I presuppose the existence of God. This presupposition is grounded in evidence. The wonders of the bible are one example. Being able to account for the laws of morality and the laws of logic are other examples. In fact being able to in the most basic sense, make sense of the world are others. In an atheistic universe, we can not even begin to discuss these things since we would be forced to deal with countless a priori lines of reasoning.########
Fine! That is why your approach isn't science at all. It also doesn't seem to be useful in telling us anything about the natural world around us.
########
This is more thrashing in the wind. My aproach is no different from yours. The only difference is that I presuppose the existence of a God, which is also evidenced (similar to the way you presuppose the laws of logic), you presuppose the non-existance of God. Since my world view can account for these universal, invariant abstract entities, it makes sense. We can begin to have a rational discussion. In a world were absolute truths do not exist, the same can not be said.Thanks for the reply...Christe eleison

While they are founded on what we would describe to be a priori lines of justification, this does not provide much information as to the nature of these a priori postulations. At least you agree that they are presupposed apart from experience (since most laws of logic can not be experienced). I disagree with this statement. It is true that another one of the a priori assumptions that the laws of science use is that solipsism is false, however the laws of science are dependent upon the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic by your own admission are a priori, it should easily follow that the laws of science have a primary a priori assumption, that is that the laws of logic are indeed logical. To reiterate, I am not claiming that the laws of science are illogical, quite the contrary. My point is only that with out the theistic interpretation of the universe (again, Christianity in particular), these laws can not exist and therefore to assume that God does not exist is simply irrational. IMHO this places an atheist in the same camp as those who defend solipsism. No rational scientist would defend solipsism for it would make science irrelevant and meaningless. I am simply stating that the world view can not account for universal, invariant abstract entities. I am also suggesting that these laws of logic which are embraced by science along a priori lines or even along a posteriori lines of reasoning for some of the more simpler, provable through experience laws of logic, are universal, invariant and abstract. In atheism, this can not make sense since nothing can be universal and anything postulated to be universal and invariant using a priori lines of reasoning is meaningless since this could account for any statement ever made. Anyone could make any statement APART FROM EVIDENCE and declare it to be a tautology. . In a Christian universe, this problem does not exist since universal invariant abstract entities can exist. They can exist because they reflect the nature of God and His created order. A postulated God that exhibits the characteristics that the Christian God does, can in fact provide such a guarantee since it is a necessary property of the Christian God. That is, God is moral(accounts for morality and the fact that what God says to be true is in fact true). So if you postulate a similar construct within atheism, that is some governing authority that is by definition all of the absolute truths contained within that system ,that clearly do exist(laws of morality,logic, science, etc,) then you are left with a various charecteristics or properties of this entitiy that would begin to look like the Christian God. For instance, you can postulate a universe that has some governing absolute law of morality in order to solve the morality dilemma athesits have. In doing this you would start to paint the picture of God that the theists do. You caould then postulate that this entity is logical since the laws of logic exist. Therefore this all moral being would have to be logical and not capable of being illogical. It would then follow that this perfect, all moral being is greater than ourselves and the universe itself since it is that by which we measure everything else by. This would in effect be postulating that the Christian God exists since these are the characteristics and properties of Him. Atheism would do no such thing since this would obviously make atheism non-existant, therefore atheism is left with an logical dilemma that I would suggest is far greater a dilemma than any problem of alleged evil, or flood, {fill in the blank}. The atheist dilemma is that it can not deal in a logical and coherent manner with the realities of the world in which we live. In the Christian world, universal, invariant abstract entities do exist since they are in a sense the shadow of God, therefore I maintain that atheism can not deal with this problem in a rational manner. We know we can trust this entity because one of the characteristics of this entity (required for the universe to make sense) is that this entity is moral. A characteristic of morality is that one doesn't lie. Since this entity can not lie, we can trust it because it has said we can trust it. This is a necessary presupposition in the theistic universe that is pre-supposed as well as evidenced. With the original presupposition, The Christian God exists , one can deduce that He has revealed that nature to us accurately. If He has not, then the Christian God does not exist. I've just demonstrated that the universe does not make sense apart from the theistic interpretation since any other system can not account for universal invariant abstract entities, therefore I would say with a high degree of certainty that the Christian God does exist and that He has revealed His nature to us accurately. I disagree again, the only possible way we can rely upon our observations is if the laws of logic are invariant and universal. I have demonstrated that it is impossible for these abstract entities to exist in an atheistic universe, since they do exist, they must exist within the confines of a theistic universe. I am only speaking rationally here. I am simply deducing that God must exist and that He exhibits the necessary properties required for this universe to exist. This is not doing a dis-service to science. In fact it compliments science at an intellectual level far deeper than most modern atheistic scientists care to go. By interpreting science through the lens of a God centered universe, man will reach intellectual depths far superior than any atheistic interpretation of science could ever offer.Thanks for the replies....
Christe eleison[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-12-2003][This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-12-2003][This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-13-2003]

The very fact that athesist pose a question of alleged evil or injustice allowed or committed by a postulated God provides evidence fot the existence of such a concept (evil). In order to do this, the atheist must jump out of their worldview and in essence borrow from the theistic interpretations. By asking or posing the question, you are acknowledging the existence of such a concept-evil (otherwise you wouldn't use it in any argument since the concept alone is irrational to an atheist. ). But this isn't the case. Time and time again, atheists and agnostics bring up the alleged problem of evil. One more time, in doing this, they are admittiing the existence of evil even though there worldview can not account for it. The question posed is typicaly "How can evil exist in the world and a loving God, who is omni-this,omni-that,etc" This is an irrational question in an atheist world since evil does not exist in their world. Again, atheism demonstrates it's inability to account for the realities of the world in which we live and it furthermore confirms the obvious, that is the existence of evil. Now a Christian theist is justified in asking this question since evil does exist in the world he believes in. He can then look at the alleged problems and at least begin to deal with them. We all have our own set of a priori lines of justification we use. We come to the debate with a set of preconceived notions. We all interpret the evidence we see through this looking glass. At a minimum, a naturalist presupposes that he himself even exists and that he is not the only creature in the universe (someone on this thread made this claim).I am merely stating that in this universe, there is a set of absolute truths. morality, science and laws of logic to name 3. These absolutes can not be accounted for in an atheisitc universe since to do this, you would have to presuppose a world that contains these universal invariant abstract entities. In doing this, I would have to ask what evidence do you have and what proof is there in your method. The only rational explanation is that these truths exist because they make up all that the universe is. This in essence is admitting to the existence of a God. Some type of governing entity provides the order of the universe and the morality we can not deny exists. Therefore, atheists can not admit to universal invariant abstract entities for in doing so, they would be admitting the existence of God. Let me explain in one more way:
Proposition1. absolute morality exists.
Proposition2. absolute moralty can not exist in an atheistic world.
Proposition3. The world is either atheistic or theistic. Logic demands that both can not be true.If absolute morality exists and absolute morality can not exist in an atheistic world, the world is theistic. There are many other similar arguments that could be produced that would indicate similar things. Since it can be demonstrated that atheism is illogical, theism is the only rational choice and the world should be interpreted within the confines of a theistic universe.Thanks for the reply... I will address your other posts as soon as possible.Christe eleison

By stating this you are implying that if something can not be proven to exist using naturalistic processes, then it does not exist. This is a fallacious statement. There are many things that can not be proven in that way, yet they are not denied to be true claims. The method used to prove a statement/concept should be dependent upon the nature of the entity in question. The existence of God is a question of metaphysics(far more complex than any naturalistic entity we could try to prove or disprove), therefore the tools used to prove or disprove His existence can not be primarily derived from naturalistic methods. While naturalistic techniques should confirm or disconfirm any allegations that are made about said entity, they are not sufficient in and of themselves, in fact if this entity can transcend our time and space continuom, naturalistic methods could produce misleading results. I have demonstrated repeatedly how philosophically the concepts of atheism can not sustain rational debate, yet Christian theism can. Atheism denies absolute truths which are clearly in existence. In doing this, atheism violates many principles of logic and reason -Occams's razor to name one{By choosing a far more complex and irrational answer to the philisophical questions that have plagued mankind, that is atheism instead of theism}. I disagree with your conclusion. Equating logic to a cultures language is oversimplified rational and simply untrue. Languages are conventional. Languages are not universal and they are not invariant. While they are abstract, I am not arguing that the existence of abstract entities constitute the necessary evidence to believe that God exists. Logic however is universal and it is invariant. If logic was conventional then I could stipulate a society or culture in which it was valid to say whatever I wanted to such as (~P)=P. This is non-logical and nothing would make sense in the world. This debate would certainly not. Therefore a necessary property of the world in which we live-taken perhaps on a priori lines of reasoning, is that this universe contains abstract invariant universal truths. If it doesn't then the universe is nonsensical. 1)Impossibility of the contrary. The existence of the Laws of morality alone justify on a philosophical realm the need for a governing moral being(God). The fact that it is wrong to torture your child is wrong not because our culture dictates this, but because it violates this moral beings principles.
2)Complexity of Gods word, universal order, rapid growth of Christianity amidst tremendous persecution, archeological evidence confirming biblical claims, fulfilled prophecies, the teachings of Christ when looked at in context with the culture He walked in, logical coherency of theology.etc.,etc.
3)Changed lives. One changed life alone is enough evidence to at least suggest the claims it make should be examined to be true or false, in an unbiased nature. There have been many such claims throughout history.If anyone of these claims is proven to be true, then the system in question is true. While I believe 2-3 can hold up to rational debate, I wish to limit this debate to points on transcendental truths. I appreciate your honesty with regard to this, however if you do not agree that the laws of logic exist (or perhaps better put that they are not laws), then this debate is meaningless. If your position is that the laws of morality do not exist, and therefore it is not wrong for a culture {to torture their young,rape their women/men, steal from others, whatever horrible act I can think of} if this culture says it's ok, then I would have to say you are denying the realities of the world in which we live. You are using the laws of logic when they are convenient and denying solipsism, which are rational decisions, yet you deny the other simple reality of the world in which we live(morality is absolute) in order to fit the world into what your a priori assumption is (God does not exist). The theist does not do this. A rational theist has examined the universe and noticed these universal invariant truths. They have seen that these truths can only exist in a theistic universe. Since they do exist, the theist can conclude that his decision is rational and is in fact the only logical solution. In order to get around this fact, the atheist is forced to eliminate the concepts of absolute truth. In doing this they are denying reality and are therefore following an irrational system of thought.Thanks for the replies...
I do appreciate the points you are raising.Christe eleison

I disagree. This is non-logical indeed. While being non-logical might be allowed within any given system, that system would have to be non-logical, therefore it is invalid within ALL logical systems and only valid within non-logical ones. I contend our universe is logical, therefore my point stands. I believe you are struggling with your point. Correct me if I am missing what you are trying to say, however it appears as if you are saying that P can not equal P since P is equal to its negation. This would be true if I would have said that my system was logical and even then only if I would have said something on the order of:R=~P
~R=P (note, in my example I said ~P=P)
Then logicaly speaking, you could have said R = P is invalid, since ~R=P, or (~P)= P is invalid.I stated that ~P=P , therefore in this system since it is already illogical, P could still be P if thats what I choose to stipulate.This very example demonstrates that the laws of logic exist and they are universal and absolute, since in attempting to refute the evidence I presented proposing them to be absolute truths, you assumed them to be absolute and attempted to aply them to my very example(althought you did this carelessly - again correct me if I misunderstood you). If they were not absolute and invariant, then my illogical system could exist (or perhaps some society somewhere could have a system similar to this one). I am speaking of the laws of logic within the confines of reality. This forum expects and demands that the laws of logic be universal and absolute, and yes.. invariatnt as well. Absolute truths are not allowed within atheism, yet the exist in the world we live in. Therefore I maintain that atheism is an irrational system of thought since it can not deal with the realities of the world in which we live in a logical, coherent manner.I grant that at times someone may use an illogical system within the confines of their system and that would be ok. It would NOT be ok, however to declare that their system is logical. If this were not the case, the universe would not make any sense. We certainly could not have this debate in a rational manner. Science would be illogical since any one could stipulate a new construct that allows a negated proposition to be equal to the proposition itself. The laws of logic are universal and absolute as I have shown evidence repeatedly.Thanks for the feedback...Christe eleison

Not that it really matters but I have a B.S. in EE and am working towards a masters in Computer Engineering part time while I work full time as a hardware design engineer. In my undergraduate course work I have taken some courses in logic. I am also an amateur theologian and have some background in philosophy. You will have to demonstrate the statements that I have made that don't make sense to you. I am not making any complicated statements by any means, a degree in mathematics/engineering or philosophy/theology is not neccesary to follow the statements I have made. I am simply using inductive and deductive logic within the confines of formal sentential logic to make a point that atheism can not account for the reality of the world in which we live.Thanks for the feedback...Christe eleison

Please show me where these absolute truths come from within atheism. The must be presupposed to exist, but from what? I am not arguing that they do not exist, simply that the philosophy of atheism can not account for them in a logical concise manner. I am not arguing that the laws of logic are absolute because I said they are. I am arguing that they are absolute because the universe is confused and unintelligible if they are not. I am then inductively (or depending on how the argument is formed, deductively) arguing that the universe must be theistic in nature. Why is this system inherently irrational? I would argue that in your world you have your own set of presuppositions. At a minimum the laws of logic are valid tools and that God does not exist(if you are in fact an atheist). In reality, there are others as well. In what way does it substitute making assertions for reason? You can not assume that all theists/presuppositionalists would rather assume things than test them through the use of science and reason. We all have our own set of precommitments. At any rate, how can you even begin to attempt to prove that someone’s claims are indefensible. No claim can be entirely indefensible, while it might be unlikely, no claim is indefensible.Thanks again...Christe eleison

I think that the opponents of comments on this board are missing the deeper points I am making. I do not know how I can be any more rational. But let me try again. I am not arguing against science, nor logic nor even evolution (while I personally do not agree with it, I am largely indifferent as stated previously).1) One of the observed realities of the world in which we live are the laws of morality. These are laws meaning they absolute truths. I have shown evidence why they are laws repeatedly using examples from atheism itself. Laws of logic are observed realities as well.2) I contend that within an atheistic universe, having absolute truths is not allowed. While some atheists would deny this, most will not. They at least readily admit that there are no absolutes since there is no basis for them in their world.
a. To deny the laws of morality (and the other absolute truths observed in the universe) then is to take an approach to reason that is simply irrational. The natural explanation is to concede they exist, yet atheists will go to great lengths to claim that they don't.
b. To acknowledge absolute laws such as the laws of morality, is to defy atheism and to speak unintelligibly within the scope of atheism proper. In order to do this, you would have to suggest that there is some moral governing authority of which these absolutes either reflect or are derived from. In doing this, the atheist begins to paint a picture of a world that begins to resemble a theistic universe. In particular the Christian God. While they will not concede that this is the Christian God, it is in essence that which they perceive to exist.3) Since atheism can not deal with the realities of the world in which we live in and Christian theism can, we can state with a high degree of certainty that the Christian God exists simply. This is an argument from necessity.4) While this is true, there is other evidences to backup the existence of a God. It is an entirely different discussion to then determine who or what this God is. I believe that if someone in an unbiased manner, examined the claims of each system or religion in existence, they would conclude that Christianity is the most likely answer. Having experienced this to be true, I not only believe this is far more convincing than any atheistic explanation of the universe on an intellectual level, but have also experienced it to be true on a metaphysical level.How is this line of reasoning irrational? I maintain that while admittedly point 4 would need more clarification, points 1-3 are the most rational position an unbiased scientist could take. In fact many great scientist in the past have. This includes:(I will largely be quoting from external resources now-I will provide more information if needed)
Blaise Pascal, who wrote Treatise on the Equilibrium of Liquids, the first systematic theory of hydrostatics. {By the way Pascals wager is largely misunderstood by atheists today --my comment}Robert Boyle. To Boyle, love of God came first, and everything else second. Science was a means to a higher end: loving God with all one’s heart, soul, strength, and mind. Boyles law named after him.One of my personal favorites..
Sir Isaac Newton (calculus among other things)
Antony can Leeuwenhoek,Linnaeus,Herschel, the list goes on and on and on.I agree however that this is ultimately irrelevant. I only bring this up to make a point that being a theist, Christian even, is not irrational. Some of the most rational scientists that have ever walked on this earth have understood the depths that the theistic approach to science can reach. Apart from God, science is meaningless. In a world without God, science is irrational and can not be trusted. Since the world is rational and absolute truths do exist, I maintain one more time, as I am sure these great scientists would as well, that atheism is simply irrational. Because of the impossibility of the contrary as well as the evidences suggested for the last 2000 years by philosophers starting with the apostle Paul himself, Christianity can sustain a rational debate, while atheism is an intellectually bankrupt philosophical system.Thanks for the comments and feedback...Christe eleison

I will gladly provide a rigorous definition of any term I have used, all you have to do is ask.By the way I am a he.Thanks,Christe eleison

I will attempt to iterate some of these posts rather quickly since I beleive most of these have been answered. This will allow more time for me to respond to the other points made in the last couple messages posted. Where did you get this definition from? It would seem to me that you are demonstrating my point. You are dogmaticaly stating the definition of Logical( you can do this with the laws of logic{as I have been doing}, but not with the word Logical). If there was ever a time where I would say somthing is not universal and invariant it would be now. This is another example that the laws of logic are absolute and are not the same as the rules of language. The word Logical can have any number of valid definitions. You produced yours, I can produce my own. Heres one I pulled from dict.die.net1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and
valid reasoning;
2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion"
[syn: legitimate]
3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent
relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly
presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]
4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was
a logical expectation, given the time of year"
5: capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and
consistent manner; "a lucid thinker"; "she was more
coherent than she had been just after the accident" [syn:
coherent, lucid]The same can not be said for the laws of Logic, nor for the laws of morality. We could not both produce our own laws of logic for use in dealing with reality and then proceed to use that definition with any confidence like we can the word Logical. I will grant you your definition of the wrod Logical and you would most likely grant me mine. This same line of reasoning can not be applied to the laws of logic however. If I said that (p | q) is the equivalent to (q | p) you could not contend that I was wrong. Unless you postulated an illogical system in which this simple commutative axiom was invalid. Each of these logical systems are only valid within there narrow domain of usefullness. Most logical systems however do contain overlap. For instance Aristotlean logic composing of the three most basic constructs of propositional logic is part of the universal absoluteness of the laws of logic. That is within the laws of logic in their absolute and pure form, the 3 ==, /= and ^ used within aristotlean logic are contained. These laws are also seen in propositional logic. I would contend that fuzzy logic however is a subjective form of logic and therefore is not absolute. Three valued logic is extremely complex and non-intuitive, however as I understand it, it is based on propositional logic and therefore components of it could be said to be exhibited in the absolute laws of logic. Propositional logic is the more traditional form of logic and it is composed of the laws of logic proper. What I am saying is not that the absolute laws of logic reflecting Gods character are subject to mans compiled sets of laws of logic, rather mans compiled sets of laws of logic (propositional,aristolean,etc) are subject to the absolute laws of Logic -that is, Gods defined and necessary logic. I will have to disagree again. Although I grant with your definition of Logical this could be perceived to be true. In doing this however, you would render the word useless since anything could be tautologous. When I use the word logical, I mean adhering to the laws of logic that this universe demands exist. That rational thinking demands exist. This was covered. The logical system that exists which is absolute is the one that the universe as we see it demands exist in order to sustain any sense of rational thought or discussion. This would mean that propositional logic, aristolean and perhaps three valued logic (as I understand it)could all in some way fit into that paradigm. Mans perceived laws of logic (propositional, etc) do not govern the absolute laws of logic, it is the other way around. The laws of logic by necessity are universal invariant and abstract.I do appreciate the thought provoking comments ...
Thanks again..Christe eleison[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-14-2003][This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-14-2003]

This thread is starting to get bogged down in semantics . A quick reply to some of the comments you did make however, I am not arguing that the symbols used are invariant and universal, rather that the realities described by them are. The laws of logic are universal and invariant else rational discussion would be impossible. The laws of thought are even simpler to see this with, another set of universal and invariant truths(these laws should be even more intuitive to see, similar to the laws of morality). Atheism can not account for them in a rational manner, therefore IMHO atheism is an irrational philosophical system. This is a false statement. I could not produce ANY law of logic that says that AorB is not equal to BorA and have confidence it will work within the confines reality. This law is contrary to something but what? It is contrary to the laws of logic as known by God, and partly understood by man. This principle is used in mathematics as well as by logicians. 4+5=5+4 Again I could not postulate ANY system I want and expect it to work within reality. There are Laws of Logic which do govern reality. Is this semantics?? I agree with this statement . Your conditional statement would disallow my fabricated illogical postulate . This statement is false statement. I understand what you are trying to say, I think you simply were a little sloppy in your explanation. As I'm sure you know, A=A is a law of thought. No rational scientist or even philosopher would argue that the laws of thought are not true, or that at any scale (A is not always A). I think your intention is to say that with a moving particle(has momentum) at the quantum level(electron) we do not know for certain where it is at any given time, the function describing the position of an element can be known using Newtonian physics but at the quantum level that position function is not the same, in fact we can only make predictions as to where an electron might be.In order to even determine this principle and all the other ones science has, you must have a set of universal and invariant laws to govern your thoughts with, otherwise a scientist could never quantify these results. The universe would not make any sense since you could never deduce any principles or theories. Did I misunderstand you on this? I think you might be missing my point. Not that the laws of science as defined by man are universal and invariant, rather that there exists within the universe a set of absolute truths (i've mentioned laws of logic and morality) known to God at a minimum. Man continues to discover these. At one point in time, science might have thought that a classical position function would be absolute and binding on all things. They discovered that this wasn't the case and devised quantum physics to deal with these types of problems. Man continues to discover more truths about these absolute truths that exist. Again, how can atheism account for these absolute truths? They are forced to say that they are not absolute or do not exist. This defies rational thought in my opinion. Semantics. This is not true. Anything can not be tautologous. A contradiction is not tautologous. The existence of these laws never changed however. Our perceptions have and will continue to. You are being sloppy again. I have not asserted that abstractions are universal and invariant. Abstract and an abstraction are different words entirely. For one, "an abstraction" is a noun as you have used it. I have clearly been using the word abstract - an adjective.At any rate, abstract can be used in various ways, in this particular context, it simply mean something that is non-material and perceived to exist within the mind. Since it is conjunctively used with invariant and universal, the entity it describes is one that is non-material, universal(standard) and unchanging, that is some entity not extended in space that is the same independent of the particular mind perceiving it to exist and will always remain as it is.I will be starting a new thread that will be a continuation of this discussion but with terms used defined a little more clearly. It will also contain a more structured argument in order to try and clear up the esoteric feel this subject matter has.In all sincerity, I do appreciate the dialogue..Christe eleison[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-16-2003]