Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

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

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.

OK so we have established that your complan that science cannot explain metaphysics is invalid.And you are wrong - about atheism - atheism DOES allow certain basic beliefs as presuppositions on pragmatic grounds - including the laws of logic (although such a belief can be justified, if not proven). In fact it is Presuppositionalists who have the problem of circularity since they refuse to presuppose the laws of logic.And atheism has no problems with logic or even morality. Indeed Hinduism includes an atheistic strand and their notions of karma and dharma encompass a form of morality as an absolute.And I have discussed the issue of logic with Presuppositionalists before and you know what ? NONE of them can account for the laws of logic adequately, yet I can ! Isn't it interesting that the real situation should be the reverse of your claim ?So, before I give my answer, lets see you explain how you can derive the laws of logic without presupposing them or an equivalent - as you have claimed you can do.

Well you're coming out with all the usual Presupposiitonalist assertiosn but you are - again typically - short on argument.Even when you do provide some sort of argument it is superficial and in great need of further support.For instance this :

quote:

---

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.

---

Why would violating the principles of one particular being be immoral ?
You don't say. Quite frankly rejecting an absolute morality or proposing that an absolute morality exists in and of itself would be less problematic. Yet you insist (tpyically) that the answer you like is the only one possible. You even insist that absolute morality is a "simple truth". Well no, it is an assumption - and one that is as compatible with atheism as it is with theism.Well at least you haven't suggested that logic requires a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity yet !Your other arguments are equally weak.Complexity , universal order ? Hardly evidence of a God (and explaining them by invoking MORE complexity and order explains nothing, while insistinn that the additional complexity and order must take the form of a God is unwarranted).Archaeology ? Well that causes serious problems for Biblical inerrantists. Apart from the fact that humanity is far older than the literal reading of Genesis favoured by many creationists allows, the Exodus has been abandoned, as has Joshua's invasion of Canaan. Even the idea of the United Monarchy over Judah and Israel has problems with the evidence.
Fulfilled prophecies ? Only if you start with the assumption that the prophecies must be fulfilled. We've had discussions here on that subject and we have yet to see even one good example.
Jesus teachings are not that far out of character for the time and place. Especially when we allow that we do not know exactly what he taught - the earliest Christian writings, the Epistles of Paul (those that he did write) do not refer to Jesus' teachings, even if they would be relevant.
Logical coherence of theology ? Perhaps in the strict sense that it can't be PROVEN to be logically inconsistent. But that's such a low bar that I don't see that it can be evidence of any sort in favour of a belief in God. Entirely false beliefs may be coherent in that sense.
Changed lives ? Other religions and even atheism can claim the same.

:ae: is fundamentally correct. What you are missing is the fact that logic is a formalisation of some very fundamental aspects of the semantics of at least the languages we are familiar with - and ot the best of my knowledge most if not all human languages.Considered purely as a formal system (as logic is considered in mathematics) it is equally valid to use different axioms than the "laws of logic". Naturally these will not agree with the usages of the English language since they differ from the semantic rules embodied in the English language. And that is where your argument fails, since that conflict is the essence of it.Moreover your claim that atheism does not allow absolute truths is false. Ad I will put that forward as an absolute truth.I put forward the Presuppositionalism is an inherently irrational system. It substitutes making assertions - often completely indefensible - for reason. And that is clearly irrational.

I may be a little rusty, but I too studied logic for my Math degreeBut grace2u is simply repeating a standard line. Don't expect to see any rational argument.

What do you mean , where do "absolute truths come from" ? Your question makes no sense whatsoever. Truth is correspondance to reality, yes ? So a statement that corresponds to reality in all respects (i.e. allowing no exceptions) would be an absolute truth. Since this is compatible with atheism then atheism does indeed allow absolute truths.The laws of logic relate to intelligiblity because they are part of semantics. They do not represent fundamental laws of the universe as you would have it. Without logic or an equivalent statements ABOUT THE UNIVERSE would cease to be intelligible. Of course somebody who jumps to the conclusion that the laws of logic represent universals because we need them to understand the universe and then jumps to the conlcusion that that God exists hardly has a good grasp of logic.And I need only present your posts of examples of assertions without argument. When you do present anything resembling an argument it is superficial at best. And that is a demonstration of the irrationality of Presuppositionalism.And you say that no claim is indefensible ? OK, please defend your claim that you do not have to presuppose the laws of logic.Then you can defend the claim that it is necessary to accept that doctrine that God is triune to "account for" logic. (Yes a Presuppositionalist said that)And here is another Presuppositionalist absurdity for you to defend. How can it be said that making your own mind up on any issue is "setting yourself up as God". Please include an explanation of how Presuppositionalists can avoid ever making up their own minds.

Basic predicate logic is a formalisation of the concepts of "and", "or", "not" etc. which allows us to deal with them on a purely syntactic level. These concepts may be useful but they are purely semantic, not referring to any "real" entity. The Earth exists - but there is no thing you can point to and say that that that is "and".
So "and" really is just a concept - if there is nobody to think of it it does not exist in any sense.It follows from this that logic itself is not a thing, like the Earth.Now you can argue that the semantic concepts underlying 2=2 are true even if we were to reassign the meaning of one or more symbols to mean something else. But where does that get you ? It still doesn't get you a fundamental law of reality any more than redefining "=" to mean "less than" means that "2=3" becomes a fundamental law of reality. And it certainly doesn't make any sort of argument for the existence of a God which is what grace2u is trying to do.IF you want to discuss morality then we can start a different thread, but at this stage I can point out that a general agreement on the basics of moality does not mean that there is an "absolute morality". And that there certainly are good reasons why the sort of selfish "morality" you talk about is NOT universal. Humans are a social species, relying on cooperative effort. So we need some sort of morality to have a working society - and pure selfishness simply will not work. Given that fact, there is really not much of an argument for a God here, either.

There are three major problems with your argument that need to be addressed.Firstly you need to refute the concept that the laws of logic are semantic rules, true by definition. Since your argment relies on assuming that this is false it needs to be addressed.Secondly you need to support your assertion that atheists do not belive in universal truths. Since in my encounters with Presuppositionalists I have seen them endorse the strongly relativist coherence theory of truth as a central part of the Presuppositionalist argument, while atheists in general do not it would be difficult to argue that it is the atheists who have the problem.Thirdly you need to provide your account of the truth of logic and show that the truth of logic is contingent on the existence of God. This faces a fundamental difficulty - any such account must rely on the truth of logic and therefore falls prey to self-contradiction. If the laws of logic are the universal rules you claim that they are then they must be necessary truths, and their existence is therefore as consistent with atheism as theism.To claim that atheism must "deny the realities of the world we live in" while your argument faces such serious problems, any one of which - if correct - would have your argument denying a reality of the world we live in - is at this point in the discussion arrogance.Indeed seeing that this thread has reached 69 posts even as I write this, without even one of the "inconsistencies" alleged in the original post having been shown to be a real problem it would seem that you have little to crow about.

If the laws of logic are semantic rules - as I say then they are follow form how we use meaning. That is if we say that something is black we mean that we exclude all states that would be considered non-black. Thus it is the meaning of "it is black" that rules it "it is not black" not some universal rule.Or in simple the rules are "universal" not because they apply to everything but in that they apply to all our descriptions. Thus they seem to apply everywhere in that they apply to all our statements - no matter where nor when the situation described by those statements is.Consider wave-particle duality. Does that represent a challenge to logic or a challege to our ability to describe and model the fundamental particles ? I say the latter.Logic is like algebra - a way of manipulating unknowns to examine their implications. And that is because it deals with semantics.That is point 1.On to point 2.I have already asked you to explain why universal truths should come FROM somewhere, and as yet you have not answered. And indeed as I pointed out it is incoherent to claim that logic in your sense comes from anywhere. And no, I have never stated that any universal truths are conventions. And I would certainly not call a "universal truth" a god. After all it would simply be a statement that corresponded to reality in all times or places. Worshipping a statement seems to be quite insane to me. So your point 2 remains without any serious support.Finally point 3.I have to laugh every time I see the phrase "The impossiblity of the contrary". Every time I see it the contrary is eminently possible. Indeed - as in this case - it usually serves in lieu of argument, as if merely declaring something impossible were enough to make it so.I have already made a case that it is in fact impossible that logic could be contingent, if it were to take the form of universal laws as you propose - in the very post you were replying to.So you say that logic "reflects the nature of God". But you do not offer any account of how it could come to be the sort of "universal law" you propose. And you cannot since any such account would - as I pointed out - rely on the truth of logic.So the three points are still not adequately addressed. Indeed none of the main objections I have raised is new to this thread. You may not consider these rebuttals adequate but it is a fact that you have not answered them. Until you can answer them then you have no basis for claimign victory.

In addiiton to JustionCy's comments, I would like you to show that there is one universal truth that is rejected by atheists.Remmember to prove that it is a univerasal truth AND that it is rejected by all atheists (including religious atheists, such as religious [as opposed to secular] humanists, the atheists within Hinduism and Buddhism and Objectivists).Please do so without making silly suggestions like the idea that a universal truth would be a god (I'm still laughing at that one, it really is one of the daftest things I've ever heard).

Well it seems that you consider actually living up to your own claims an "unrealistic demand". That really says it all, doesn't it ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-19-2003]