Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 31 of 115 (66324)
11-13-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by grace2u
11-13-2003 4:42 PM


Since I anticipate a similar response to my posts, I'll address your response to crashfrog's statements which are rather similar to mine.
grace2u writes:
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 is not non-logical at all but simlpy invalid within certain logical systems. Likewise, within your stipulated system P = P would be invalid. If you could demonstrate sufficient usefulness of your system which postulated the axiom (~P) = P, then more individuals would have cause to adopt your system. The world would continue to make sense in any case, however your STATEMENTS ABOUT the world would not make sense to those who interpret them according to common language which says P = P. You must recognize the difference between reality and STATEMENTS ABOUT reality. Logic is simply our systematized method of constructing STATEMENTS ABOUT reality, but reality is not bound to obey them. Logic does not dictate whether or not reality itself "makes sense." Logic dictates how certain organizations of symbols are to be interpreted in order to extract the meaning that they were assembled to convey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 4:42 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 6:29 PM :æ: has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 115 (66331)
11-13-2003 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by grace2u
11-13-2003 4:42 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 4:42 PM grace2u has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 115 (66355)
11-13-2003 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by :æ:
11-13-2003 5:08 PM


This is not non-logical at all but simlpy invalid within certain logical systems.
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.
grace2u writes:
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.
ae writes:
Likewise, within your stipulated system P = P would be invalid.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 5:08 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 6:47 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2003 6:54 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 7:09 PM grace2u has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 115 (66365)
11-13-2003 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by grace2u
11-13-2003 6:29 PM


grace2u, what do you know about logic? Where have you learned about it? I ask because I'm a graduate student in mathematics, I know a little something about it by training, and some of your statements don't make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 6:29 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2003 6:56 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 41 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 8:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 115 (66368)
11-13-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by grace2u
11-13-2003 6:29 PM


: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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 6:29 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 9:52 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 115 (66369)
11-13-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
11-13-2003 6:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 6:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 7:04 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 45 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 10:42 PM PaulK has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 115 (66370)
11-13-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by grace2u
11-13-2003 4:42 PM


By stating this you are implying that if something can not be proven to exist using naturalistic processes, then it does not exist.
No. I'm claiming that if it can't be proven to exist through naturalist methodology, then we can't know if it exists or not. The scientific method is the best and only way we have to know what we know.
There are many things that can not be proven in that way, yet they are not denied to be true claims.
Like what? This is what I keep asking you, and you keep saying things like "morality and logic" but neither of those are universal. Oh, sure, you say they are, but you're wrong. If logic were universal, then why would it be incomplete? After all there's an infinite number of statements you can logically derive that cannot be true, and an infinite number of true statements that cannot be logicall derived. The very incompleteness of logic is evidence that it exists only in our head.
Languages are conventional. Languages are not universal and they are not invariant.
To the contrary - the rules that cultures follow when they develop language are universal and invariant. All cultures follow the same rules to develop the rules of their languages.
Yet, this doesn't mean that the deep grammar of language has independant metaphysical reality. It just means that all humans process language in the same way. So too with logic and morality.
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.
And that would be a logically valid system, because the axioms of any logical system are arbitrary. You really don't know much about logic, do you?
The existence of the Laws of morality alone justify on a philosophical realm the need for a governing moral being(God).
What laws of morality?
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.
So, circumcision and spanking are universally wrong? Any sort of discipline is morally incorrect?
Complexity of Gods word, universal order, rapid growth of Christianity amidst tremendous persecution
Christianity is on the decline, dude. If you want to use numbers or growth as evidence, then you've proved the existence of Allah, not Yahweh.
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.
Atheism changed my life. Buddism changes lives. All the religions you think are false have changed peoples lives. Why should I accept your account over theirs, or over my own?
If anyone of these claims is proven to be true, then the system in question is true.
Yup. You don't know any logic.
If I can provide one counterexample each for your "evidence", then I disprove your statements. Having done so, we can conlude that your arguments are insufficient to prove god.
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,
You've totally misunderstood me. Logic and morality exist. They exist because we say they do, not because they flow from god or have an independant existance.
As a matter of fact, your culture says that a number of acts are "ok" that other cultures find abhorrent. Eating meat, for instance. If there's only one morality, then how do you know you have the right one? Morality is defined by a consensus of personal decisions about what we're all willing to have done to us.
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).
How can it be an a priori assumption when in fact it was the evidence that convinced me to stop believing in god?
The fact that I'm using logic here is no more significant that the fact that I'm using English. They're both as real. They're both as invariant.
A rational theist has examined the universe and noticed these universal invariant truths.
I just don't understand how you can observe the great variety of moral codes among human cultures and somehow conclude that they're "invariant". Variance is the very condition of human morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 4:42 PM grace2u has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 115 (66373)
11-13-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
11-13-2003 6:56 PM


As a mathematician, my instinct is to pin grace2u down by demanding rigorous definitions of the words that he/she is using. I suspect a lot of "shifting definitions" is going on, not to mention quite a bit of circular reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2003 6:56 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 1:20 AM Chiroptera has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 39 of 115 (66375)
11-13-2003 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by grace2u
11-13-2003 6:29 PM


grace2u writes:
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.
You are totally wrong. "Logical" means "abiding by the defined rules of the system" and NOT "abiding only by the rules of elementary two-valued logic." Any system which abides by its defined rules is logical. Now some operations are valid in one system and invalid in another, yet both systems can be logical.
You never answered my question: How can there exist multiple useful logical systems if logic is universally absolute? Which logical system is the absolute one? Why did we need to create and define new logics in order to express our observations at the quantum level if there is only one universal logical system? Do you realize that statements expressing our observations at the quantum level have truth values that can exist anywhere on the interval 0 to 1? This is not in accordance with elementary two-valued logic, nor three-valued logic. If logic were universally absolute, this would not be the case.
grace2u writes:
I believe you are struggling with your point.
My friend, I don't believe it is I who is struggling.
grace2u writes:
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.
If the system abides by the defined rules, then it is logical. You seem to be trying to say that collecting $200 when you pass Go in Monoploy is invalid because it is the rules of Scrabble that are universally absolute. What you are not realizing is that the collecting $200 for passing Go is perfectly valid in Monopoly, yet invalid in Scrabble. Still, both rule sets are logical. It is ignorant to delcare that the rules of another game are "illogical" simply because you prefer to play one particular game most of the time.
grace2u writes:
This very example demonstrates that the laws of logic exist and they are universal and absolute
Incidentally, WHICH logical system is universally absolute according to you? Aristotlean logic? Three-valued logic? Fuzzy Logic?
grace2u writes:
you assumed them to be absolute and attempted to aply them to my very example
No, I didn't. I simply illustrated how the operations of one logical system are invalid in another logical system. Neither of them need to be absolute in any sense for that illustration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 6:29 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 2:51 AM :æ: has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 40 of 115 (66382)
11-13-2003 7:31 PM


grace2u, you might do well to read up on and try to understand the work of Kurt Gdel and how his work pertains to metalogic. Read over this for a quick intro:
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~mileti/Museum/complete.html

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 115 (66402)
11-13-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
11-13-2003 6:47 PM


grace2u, what do you know about logic? Where have you learned about it? I ask because I'm a graduate student in mathematics, I know a little something about it by training, and some of your statements don't make sense.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 6:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 9:36 PM grace2u has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 115 (66405)
11-13-2003 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by grace2u
11-13-2003 8:54 PM


Unfortunately, your premises are unsubstantiated assertians, and some of your terms are, I fear, not very well defined. Maybe you are trying to say too much, and so maybe we should just look at your points one (or a few) at a time.
Lets go back to your original post:
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.
I'll ask you again: why do you think this is a problem? Metaphysical questions simply are not what any science deals with. Why not let science answer the questions that it can deal with, namely the investigation of the material universe, and the search for the best theories that explain the observations? And then you can ponder the metaphysical questions using whatever philosophical/religious tools you have?
Second, why do you think that any of the metaphysical questions even have answers? It's no problem against science if it cannot answer a question that has no answer.
Third, evolution is a valid explanation or it is not; this is determined by observations in the real world. If evolution explains the data well, no other theory does, but it contradicts the answers you have for your "metaphysical" questions, then shouldn't you change your metaphysical methadology?
Finally, Newton's law of gravity does not answer any metaphysical questions, neither do the laws of thermodynamics, and neither does any other branch of science. Why single out biological evolution for this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 8:54 PM grace2u has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 115 (66406)
11-13-2003 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
11-13-2003 6:54 PM


Moreover your claim that atheism does not allow absolute truths is false. Ad I will put that forward as an absolute truth.
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.
I put forward the Presuppositionalism is an inherently irrational system.
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.
It substitutes making assertions - often completely indefensible - for reason. And that is clearly irrational.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2003 6:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2003 9:57 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2003 2:30 AM grace2u has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 115 (66407)
11-13-2003 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by grace2u
11-13-2003 9:52 PM


Please show me where these absolute truths come from within atheism.
How would you know what an absolute truth is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 9:52 PM grace2u has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 115 (66409)
11-13-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
11-13-2003 6:56 PM


But grace2u is simply repeating a standard line. Don't expect to see any rational argument
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2003 6:56 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2003 10:52 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 10:56 PM grace2u has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024