Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:03 PM
28 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,192 Year: 5,229/19,786 Month: 1,351/873 Week: 247/460 Day: 63/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 115 (65890)
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2003 6:12 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-11-2003 6:14 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2003 6:19 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 11-11-2003 6:23 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 6 by :æ:, posted 11-11-2003 6:56 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 14 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-12-2003 10:56 AM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 11-14-2003 5:49 AM grace2u has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 115 (65892)
11-11-2003 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


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.

Exactly what realities are you talking about?

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.

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.

It wants to use the laws of science and logic, but in doing so it presupposes the existence of such things.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 7:58 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 17 by Philip, posted 11-12-2003 2:48 PM crashfrog has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 3 of 115 (65893)
11-11-2003 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


Hoo boy!
quote:
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.

So? Why is this a problem?

quote:
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.

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.

quote:
Creationism (with evolution or without) does not have the same logical dilemma.

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.

quote:
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.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 2:26 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 4 of 115 (65894)
11-11-2003 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


To deal with your points in order.

1) Why would you expect science to explain metaphysics ? Metaphysics is outside the scope of scientific investigation.

2) 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.

3) 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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 12:49 PM PaulK has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 5 of 115 (65896)
11-11-2003 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


I think this possibly belongs in the "Is It Sciece" thread.

Point 1)
"atheistic-evolution" -- since evolution doesn't say anything about the existance of God it is odd that you would glue these two terms together. I don't think even the atheisits say God *couldn't* have created the world as it is. They just don't believe that separately from any evolutionary questions. As you have suggested the two issues of evolution as mechanism for God (or not God) to get the world as it is today and the existance (or not) of God are separable questions and are kept separate in the mind of most scientists and religious believers.

Point 2)
I think you are saying that there are two main classes of things taken as assumptions: 1) laws of science and 2) logic
How are either of these simply assumptions? We test the "laws" of science (if by that you mean things like the conservation of energy/mass, general relativity and quantum mechanics ) all the time. In addtion, what would you suggest to replace "the laws of logic" whatever you mean by that?
I take it the existance of a God which has zero objective evidence is ok by you? How do you equate that to tested "laws"?
We test the laws you speak of by finding out how well our predictions stand up against the real world. They sure seem to be working awfully well so far. Got a better idea?

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. 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.

I think you will have to carry on and detail the metaphysics you are talking about. What you have above is only specifying the difference between science and religion. That is, one tries very hard to test and retest any of it's assumptions the other avoids that completly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 6:05 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5294 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 6 of 115 (65902)
11-11-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


grace2u writes:

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.


All of the so-called "laws of logic" are founded on a priori postulations which constitute the axioms of the logical system. Period. Thus all of the theorems of logic which are derived thereof those postulations are tautologous. IIRC it was Wittgenstein that said "The theorems of logic all say the same; to wit, nothing." Basically what that means is that all logical proofs derivable from the system's axioms necessarily beg the question of the axioms' validity. Since this is the case, it cannot be that the so-called "laws of logic" are necessarily binding on reality.

In simpler terms, the "laws of logic" are just laws of our language, and not laws of reality. Reality doesn't say "A = A" or "~(A and ~A)". Reality just says "A", and then we make up all these rules for communicating sensibly about reality.

Now, scientific laws do not bind reality either. They do not say what can or cannot happen, nor what should or shouldn't happen. They simply describe what does or doesn't happen according to our observations. New observations have and still can give us cause to revise the "laws". Finally, the only a priori assumption that these laws are founded on is that solipsism is false.

As I gather from your posts, you seem to be concerned that in the atheistic view of things an individual has no way to guarantee the validity of these a priori assumptions, and you seem to feel that a postulated God can provide such a guarantee, but this just isn't the case. Postulating such an entity actually creates more uncertainties than it settles. How do we know we can trust this entity? How can we rely upon our observations if we cannot presume they are absent the effects of intermeddling supernatural beings? Saying that the answers to these questions are inherent in your God's characteristics or "nature" merely begs the question since you must first posit that he's revealed that nature to you accurately.

So in this case not only can't we absolutely verify the original a priori assumptions I described at the top of this post, but we cannot rely on the only means we have for assessing our confidence in those assumptions: our observations. These must be presumed free from supernatural manipulation if we are to rely on them as accurate descriptors of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 11:02 PM :æ: has responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 115 (65920)
11-11-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
11-11-2003 6:12 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2003 6:12 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 11-11-2003 10:00 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2003 11:46 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2003 2:39 AM grace2u has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 115 (65932)
11-11-2003 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by grace2u
11-11-2003 7:58 PM


grace2u

I have to ask you to justify your statement here.
"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..)."

1How does the presuppositon of God's existence show evidence through the concept of evil?
2The created order implies a prior suppositon to the existence of God since you obviously have the concept of a creation as evidence to back up your contention that there is a God.
3How do you arrive at a impossibility of atheism which is simply a point of view taken by certain people and since that is a subjective thing I do not see how you consider this tyo be evidence.

To be honest I don't think you are very rigorous in your evidence are you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 7:58 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 1:53 PM sidelined has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 115 (65950)
11-11-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by grace2u
11-11-2003 7:58 PM


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.

Then they don't exist, do they? They're just in our heads. I mean, does English exist?

The athesitic one requires more than one. Presupositions required for aethism include the laws of logic, mathematics, uniformaty of matter, etc.

You keep acting like logic is some fundamental property of the universe. It's no such thing. Logic is just a very rigid language. On the other hand, uniformity of matter isn't something we assume, it's something we observe.

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.

Nope, it's just language. Logic has no more existence than English exists.

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.

It also requires that language exists, and that we speak the same one. Do you therefore argue for the independant existence of English? If not, how do you explain the discrepancy?

I could start listing them, but I think you already know most of them.

Pretend I don't. Pretend I've never heard of this God of yours. Now why don't you tell me what evidence you feel can be explained only by God?

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?

I don't agree that any of those exist. Morality is a human creation - even when we say it comes from God. Logic is language. So back up - what reason is there to believe in your God? (What exactly is your God, anyway?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 7:58 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2003 11:48 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 30 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 4:42 PM crashfrog has responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 115 (65970)
11-12-2003 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
11-11-2003 6:14 PM


Re: Hoo boy!
#####
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-11-2003 6:14 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 11 of 115 (65972)
11-12-2003 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by grace2u
11-11-2003 7:58 PM


OK I see where you're coming from - the usual presuppsitionalist line is clear. So I'm not surprised that your views are incoherent and confused.

Let's start with some basics:

1) How can you derive the laws of logic WITHOUT presupposing them ?
Since you claim that you do not presuppose the laws of logic you must be able to do this. If you cannot you must accept that you presuppose the laws of logic, just as everyone else does.

2) Do you understand that the laws of logic can "exist" (in the sense that they do exist) even if there is no God ? If you disagree can you explain why ?

3) Turning presuppositions about nature into presuppositions about God does not turn all those presuppositions into one presupposition. Do you understand that it is quite likely that in fact you have MORE, not fewer presuppositions than an atheist ? To claim that you genuinely have fewer presuppositions you need to count the presuppositions you make ABOUT God to derive the beliefs that you claim to conclude rather than presuppose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 7:58 PM grace2u has not yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 115 (66015)
11-12-2003 7:48 AM


Logic is basically a mechanical system, and as such, it's functioning is heavily dependent on the phsical laws of the universe and the rules of evolution.

In order for us to create "symbols" for entities in the external world, and convolve them with the rules of logic, we must have the mechanical structures which accomplish this. These structures in our brain perform these convolutions because

A) these mechanisms - which parallel both the existence and behaviors - of what was percepted of the produced behaviors in organisms - allowed them to better survive in their environment.

B) It was possible to have mechanical processes internal to an organism (in its brain) who's interactions give the organism additional useful information about the external world. This is possible because the laws of physics allow small sets of atoms or particles to interact in ways that reveals pertinent information about larger external structures. In a sense, logic is basically a physical "miniature" representation of a physical state external to the brain. The convolution of that situation involves the same sort of physical interactions that the real situation does externally (i.e. existence or non-existence, set membership, countability, etc.) These physical processes that mimick external physical effects are directly percepted since they are part of the structure of the brain itself.

So in effect, logic is simply another name for the rules of physical reality. It isn't constructed, or "made" by anything. If the laws of physical reality were different, then so too would logic.

As for "pre-supposing" logic, we can't pre-suppose something that is inherent in the laws of the universe. Existence/abscence is both the nature of physical objects, as well as the physical states of neuron firing that represents those objects in the brain. Likewise with countability, and set membership, and the other basics of logic. The physical states this logic represents is paralleled by similar physical states inside the brain. Matter behaves the same way inside the brain as it does in the larger world, and that's how logic works.

And those states that are used by the brain are constrained to those that provide useful additional perceptual information about the state of an organisms environment. This is a result of evolution. Of the set of physical interactions that logic "could" be based on in the brain, evolution has eliminated most of them, leaving only the physical interactions that correspond faithfully to their analogues in the external world.

So the situation can be summarized:

1. matter exist
2. the rules of matter allows for analogous sets of particles to be able to react in ways in which the interactions of one set reveal informaiton about the future or history of another.
3. evolution inevitably exploited this capability and produced brains
4. We have physical mechanisms in our mind that we label "logic"

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 11-12-2003]

[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 11-12-2003]


Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 115 (66016)
11-12-2003 8:27 AM


quote:
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).

Well, we could just presuppose logic, that would cut out the middle man of having to presuppose God first in order to then presuppose logic.

In any case, you can't presuppose God first, as this presupposition comes only as a result of logic (i.e. the idea that you need a justification for logic is in itself a logical statement).

So you need logic first in order to even realize you even need to presuppose God. Logic always comes first.

quote:
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).

The universe exists, and is made of matter, properties of matter produce both evolution, and evolution produces logic and morality.

Therefore we need only presuppose the existence of the universe, which is rather an easy pre-supposition to support.

quote:
They must assume that morality is a convention within societies, that matter will continue to behave uniformaly, that God does not exist, etc.

But atheists don't actually suppose any of these things except for the last one, and usually the last is usually a claim that YOUR God as you describe him can not exist, not that no God's whatsoever can.

Atheists tend to make the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist because the description of him is contradictory and highly improbable.

quote:
..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.

Uh.. well if the earth is very old, it certainly contradicts the literalist interpretation of the Bible, and I am not aware of any inconsistencies with Evolution that I experience on a daily basis.

However, I don't see any God's or angels on a daily basis, so I'd say that these contradict my experience.

quote:
(morality,love,hate,cocepts of evil,...)

These are all well known products of evolution. And in fact evolution can explain "why" these are what they are, and not just attribute them to the ineffable whim of an imaginary anthropomorphic super being. I would say that sort of explanation is superior.

quote:
What this means is that unfortunately, the hallmark argument for atheism (at least on this formum) is lacking in substance.

Hmmm.. all of these aspects of life are explained via evolution. So why exactly should we appeal to the supernatural?

quote:
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.

Easy to say. But the devil is in the details, as they say.

Prove it.

quote:
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.

Yours is also in the existence of logic, otherwise you would never have been able to conclude there was a God. You require the belief in the correct functioning of your own mind first, in all matters of thought.

quote:
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.

See my former post. Just because you think this is so does not mean that it is.

quote:
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.

Many fallacious arguments have been put forth throughout history to support a wide variety of claims.

quote:
the existence of the laws of morality provide evidence that a God does exist.

Not at all. What use would God, an eternal immortal, all powerful sexless being have for rules about murder, death, and sex?

Theists claim that morality is the random whim of God, while science actually has genuine explanations as to why morality exists, and why some moral taboos and intuitive feelings are universally strong.

quote:
Fulfilled prophecies suggest that the bible is the Word of God.

Fulfilled prophecies is proof that writings of Nostradamus is the Word of God then too. Each post-facto interpretation of a supposed prophecy fulfilled in the Bible is exactly the same as those supposedly fulfilled by Nostradamus.

Niether nostradamus nor the Bible seem to be able to make specific predictions "in advance". What does this tell you? That humans are good at reinterpreting ambiguous fuzzy "prophecies" after the fact, that's all.

quote:
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,

No, actually this would be better evidence for the Islam, not Christianity.

quote:
the tremendous amount of order we see within the universe testifies to the existence of a God, I can go on.

Why? The universe does not look particularly ordered to me. In fact, its full of diseaase, random disasters, chaos, etc. Is this proof of order?


Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 115 (66024)
11-12-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


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

Uh-huh, which it’s not designed to do... okay...

concerning the origination of life.

Erm, evolution doesn’t have anything much to do with that either...

I have not seen an adequate explanation that can hold up to science,

Really? What do you know of the science, may I ask?

logic , reason

Ditto...

and that can account for the various meta-physical realities that exist in our world today.

Now you’ve lost me. What realities do you have in mind? Maybe I’m just thick, but I don’t see any problems with the science, logic and reason of evolution.

To reiterate here, I understand that a true evolutionist does not intend to explain that which I am asking it too.

And there was me thinking I was a True Evolutionist™. This is an interesting twist: atheism and evolution being incompatible. Hell, I usually have to argue that theism and evolution are compatible, even though I don’t hold with that theistic hogwash myself.

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.

What you seem to have there, old chap, is a straw man argument. You’ll be hard pressed to find an ‘evolutionist’ (whateverthehell one of those is: it’s not a faith position, y’know!) who says that gods could not have been involved. IOW, I doubt that there is such a critter as an ‘atheistic evolutionist’ as you seem to mean it.
What atheists and ‘evolutionists’ such as myself say is that gods are superfluous, and that certain definitions of god are actually refuted by evolution. Some sorts of god(s) may have been involved, but since their involvement looks exactly like non-involvement, we may as well ignore them. Your beef is with atheism, not evolution.

Um, what actually was the first of your “questions/observations”?

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.

That’s nice. Which unproven presuppositions are those? Broadly, if you compare theistic evolution with no-god-required evolution, I can see one plain unproven presupposition in the former that the latter lacks: a god. Having one less presupposition, I’d have thought, meant that theistic evolution has at least one more presuppositions. That’s pretty basic maths really.

And what’s with this “The theory of evolution is grounded on more...” stuff? Just now you seemed to be fine with evolution and just wanted to smuggle gods back into it. Now there’s presuppositional problems with the theory itself?

The problem with this approach is that in the world view it exists in (atheistic), unproven assumptions are not allowed.

So again, let’s see these unproven assumptions. The poor benighted scientists, the stupid buggers, seem entirely unaware of them. Pray carry on, your Nobel prize awaits...

In many peoples opinion,

Since when was science decided by popularity vote?

as well as mine,

Sorry, but I have to ask: what exactly do you know of it? Could you perhaps define evolution for us, describe some of its mechanisms, perhaps explain the reasoning behind the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and the significance of, say, biogeography?

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.

What laws of science and logic? Science and logic are tools, which either work or they don’t. As it happens, they do. You seem to be criticising scientists for thinking like scientists....?

And where does evolution fit into all that? I don’t recall ever seeing evolution used to justify the principles of logic.

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

Yup. There you are, you see. One more presupposition than atheism.

Kindly demonstrate the mere existence of your gods, then we can start to talk about what they can and cannot, did and did not do.

as well as evidenced

Wheee! Let’s see this evidence!

are allowed since they reflect the nature and character of God.

What, science and logic do? How do you figure that out? What friggin’ god?

One can use the laws of logic since they are in fact universal laws.

You know this how?

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.

No, no-one can say there are universal absolutes because we’ve not investigated every corner of the universe. They may well exist -- with some deity’s help of not -- but we don’t know for sure.

Again, to reiterate, these universal absolutes are allowed within theism since they reflect the nature and character of God.

How do you know this?

Because of these arguments

Sorry, were there arguments there then? Half-baked ersatz-philosophical navel-gazing, sure, but arguments...?

as well as around a hundred others,

Uh-huh, then let’s see th... nah, don’t bother.

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.

So because science and logic seem to be useful tools, they reflect the nature of god. And so the intellectual high ground belongs to the theist, because science and logic seem to work.

Nah, no circular logic there...

The others while on the surface appear to make sense or to be possible, as one analyzes the metaphysical realities in this world

And these are...?

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).

You really don’t get it, do you?

For the last time, please state clearly and plainly what these metaphysical realities are, your evidence for them and/or your justifications for believing they are realities.

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,

... neither of which you have demonstrated...

the only rational decision in my mind is the a God centered universe.

So tell me: how would you know whether you are being irrational in making that decision?

What your claims seem to boil down to is, we can do science because god allows us to. Well, scientific investigations reveal no need for a god’s involvement. Since this god has gone to such trouble to hide himself and to deceive us into thinking he’s not really there, surely we should do him the courtesy of being deceived?

TTFN, DT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 115 (66038)
11-12-2003 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
11-11-2003 6:19 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2003 6:19 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 11-12-2003 1:06 PM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2003 6:25 PM grace2u has not yet responded

1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019