Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

Thanks Milagros...
I think that this is a pretty good summary of the points I am making. I think most unbiased observers would agree with what you are saying. This is common knowledge and doesn't require a degree in physics,engineering,theology or mathematics to understand. It demonstrates in the simplest terms that atheism must deny the realities of the world in which we live in order to give an account for its philosophy. While atheism would certainly not argue that we don't exist(most atheists would not at least), they would be quick to argue that universal invariant truths do not exist, an equally absurd debate, for in doing this they would render the debate itself meaningless. Perhaps in other words,if they are correct science at a minimum would be impossible."Christe eleison"[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-17-2003]

Please elaborate more. These kinds of unspecified (hopeful)allegations hurt your cause more than help it. I don't quite follow you on this one. I have not claimed that all mathematical operations are commutative. There might be operations where you can not arbitrarily swap values (cross product is not commutative) or similar situations, but these are defined to be non-commutative, they are different operations all together. Sorry, but I think you are grasping for straws on this one. BTW, I think that you would be hard pressed to find a mathemetician willing to say that in some mathematical equation describing reality , 4+5!=5+4, or that 4x5!=5x4. I apologize if I sound arrogant. Please understand it is not my intention to do this. I am willing to at least examine and listen to the other side of the argument.Take care..."Christe eleison"

Most of what is being said is repetitive(yes on my own points as well). I have tried to answer as many as time allows me to. Are there any specific posts you would like for me to address? I am in the process of trying to put together a moral formal argument(with concepts used more explicitly defined) which I think will provide a better ground for this discussion.

Fair enough...Allow me to address your points. I don't think I stated they are not "semantic rules"(perhaps I did and just don't know what your definition of a semantic rule is), I have stated however that they are NOT merely conventional rules(this is probably the same thing as what are calling a semantic rule).Allow me to explain yet again: Conventional as I am using it implies something based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice. By this definition anything can be conventional if a group decides it to be. A group of philosophers from an insane asylum could postulate that simple implication theorems are not true such as ~(~P)=P. This would have no bearing on the true validity of the concept in question however. It is true that they are described by men, however in existence there are these "truths or laws" which man continues to discover. I can boldly state that the implication ~(~P) = P is true in an absolute(universal and invariant) sense. It is universal-meaning it is the same everywhere, it is invariant-meaning it will not change.To establish my argument, I have repeatedly shown that the necessary condition of my claims are valid. In other words, if the laws of logic are not laws and they are conventional the universe is irrational. This can not be the case, that is the universe be irrational, since science at a minimum is possible. I have also provided the sufficient conditions of my argument. That the laws of logic are the same everywhere and are unchanging. That they are in fact laws. We could postulate that they will at sometime change, but this would be as irrational as saying that matter will suddenly change. The uniformity of nature concepts are not argued against by most atheists, yet the concepts absolute truths are (such as laws of logic and laws of morality). I would not argue against the validity of the laws of logic, uniformity of nature or against the existence of the laws of morality. In all honesty, I can not perceive how any one looking at the evidence in an unbiased way would do otherwise. Again, I have in this thread numerous times provided both necessary and sufficient conditions for these claims. The statement atheists believe in universal truths or absolute truths is a false statement since it destroys the meaning of atheist. This is so because atheism is by definition the denial of the existence of any god or gods. In order to demonstrate this concept, I would have to ask you to explain where this truth could possibly come from in a universe void of god. You could say they are conventions (agreeing with my statement that atheism can not account for universal truths). Most atheists do this, including you(if you are an atheist) from what I can tell, although you seem to suggest that there are universal truths at times(please clarify this). You could say no, they are not conventional they are universal and invariant. As you would try to explain where they come from, you would begin to paint a picture of a type of god. At a minimum one could contend that the universal truth in and of itself is a type of god. When individuals say Christ is the Truth, they are in essence saying this. It is not the only component or characteristic of God, but it is one piece of the picture(revealed theology paints the complete picture). If you contend to be an atheist and agree that absolute truths can exist, please at least begin to explain what they are and where they came from. Then, if you can do this, explain to me how this is not a contradiction to atheism. Are they not diametrically opposed to one another? From the impossibility of the contrary. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. If the laws of logic are absolute truths, and atheism can not make sense with them being just that, theism is reasoned to be valid from the impossibility of the contrary (btw, these statements are partly taken from various theistic philosophers, they are not entirely my own). There are other arguments that can be made as well, but for the sake of this discussion I maintain the impossibility of the contrary argument to be sufficient and valid. Not only is it true that atheism can not coexist with absolute truths, but Christianity gives an extremely reasonable explanation as to where they come from. They reflect the character, nature, glory and holiness of God. This is not a mere speculation, it is evidenced as well. Where is YOUR evidence for whatever explanation you might have for the existence of absolute truths (if you contend they do exist).Again, my apologies if I sound arrogant. I do believe however that I have made these points over and over in a conversational manner in the 10-15 replies I have made. I have yet to see any of the points I have made rebutted in any convincing way. Therefore, my claim stands. In my humble opinion, atheism denies the realities of the world. It suppresses the truth (again, theistic philosophers quote Paul in this same way). It borrows from the theistic interpretation at times, denies it when it is convenient.Thanks for your replies Paul..."Christe Eleison"

Thanks for your patience...(Various dictionaries on the web referenced, while words can have different meanings, the definitions I've listed pretty much represent my own definitions as well as what I think the consensus would be)1) god.
a. any supernatural being perceived to be controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
b. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religionsWhen I refer to the Christian God I simply refer to the following as defined through revealed theology:
The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the
Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.2) universe.
a. the whole collection of existing things both physical and metaphysical, material and non-material3)logic
This is used in many different contexts within this post. Where used, I have tried to be clear in what manner I am using the word in.Implies such things as:
a. reasoned and reasonable judgment
b. sound practical judgmentI think websters definition is pretty clear in other contexts...c. The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and
formal thought, or of the laws according to which the
processes of pure thinking should be conducted; the
science of the formation and application of general
notions; the science of generalization, judgment,
classification, reasoning, and systematic arrangement;
correct reasoning.Ok, you can fire away now...."Christe eleison"

Sure. One of the characteristics of this God that is presupposed as well as evidenced is that He is an eternal entity that is the standard of reason(logic) by which we judge all reason or logic by. He has other traits as well, all moral being another one. Because of this, a theist can at least begin to have a rational discussion about this entity or what laws this entitiy might radiate or define since a theists worldview accounts for these truths. The theist can do this while the atheist is left defending the low-ground by denying these absolute truths, when most of humanity(yes, scientists included) would clearly accept them for what rational thought says they are. Atheists then are forced into a more unreasonable position since they can not account for these self evident truths. Note, my argument has not been that they are self-evident, rather I have provided inductive reasoning to demonstrate how these truths can and should be accepted by all clear thinking individuals. So not only are they self-evident, but they can be demonstrated to be valid and reasonable claims. I will respond to the other replies shortly..Thanks..
"Christe eleison"

You are touching on an issue that hasn't been brought up yet so I am addressing it first. How do you suggest that we all know it? Christianity teaches that Christ in His mercy has placed this within us. That is actually an entirely different argument for the existence of God. The argument from morality. The concept that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I could not agree more with your statement. Any unbiased observer would contend that there is at least some evidence to support the claims Christianity makes. Would you not agree? Even if the evidence is not compelling to you, there is some. I would contend that the evidence for outweighs the evidence against, this is probably our point of disagreement. I do believe you would, I don't think anyone could deny that the beauty of Christ, or the concepts of His love for creation, are bad concepts. How so? What is the evidence against? Alleged lack of evidence for the flood( I don't grant this for other reasons, but even if I did...)? fine. I contend that the evidence of morality alone is enough reason to believe. Add in the laws of logic(I have labored this point alone), laws of thought, concepts of justice, love, beauty and any other esoteric concept. What else? There are many other evidences that provide further confirmations of this God. The theology behind Christianity is another. It is believable and it speaks to the core of the problem that has plagued mankind. I commend you for your honesty but you must examine where these feelings come from and how can your worldview account for them? I contend that it can not. Atheism can not explain these metaphysical concepts, theism can. They clearly exist, as you are even demonstrating yet again. So when speaking of the metaphysical, if one system can explain the metaphysical in an extremely concise manner, and the other can not even begin to account for them, which is more likely an accurate representation of the system it is trying to describe? Most on this forum claim that science and theism can not coexist. It can. In fact I listed some of the most profound, thoughtful, intelligent and rational scientists ever to have blessed this earth were Christians. Again it is irrelevant ultimately but it does provide evidence that all theists are not babbling fools as some might think. I wrote this on an earlier post in case you missed it: And now this is your quote: This is not the only argument however. In the same way you use circular reasoning to justify the laws of logic a theist will appear to be circular in justifying theism. Both are presupposed but with evidence. Some things are unprovable in the proper sense. The existence of God is one of them. It is not a mathematical theorem that can be proved or disproved. The evidence must be examined in an unbiased manner. I contend that if one does this, the only rational choice is the belief in God. How can the contrary be possible(God does not exist)? If that were so, these emotions you have among other things can not be explained except for them being electro chemical processes in your brain. It should be self-evident that these concepts are more than that.BTW, the simple fact that my philisophical system is more appealing does not mean or even imply that it is NOT true. I contend that the requirements atheists place on theists are unreasonable. It should be likened to a judicial case, not proving a scientific theory. The burden of proof is on the theist, however a formal proof should not be the requirement for acceptance. This again proves my point. How can you begin to verify this? This statement does not make sense in an atheist world. In an atheist world, they both would be equally altruistic if I granted every possible thing in your favor. Why do you even sense that if someone does something good for no personal gain, that it is better than if they do it for personal gain? This again, demonstrates my point. Again, why is this so in your worldview? How can it even begin to give an account?This discussion provides further evidence that these truths exist within each of us. Did you know that the concepts you are speaking of are concepts Christ taught? I'm sure you also know that Christianity teaches that God has placed these concepts within you. How can atheism account for your implied statement that being unselfish for no reason is better than being unselfish for gain? In either case, you are still acting out a good deed and society should benefit from the acts either one committed independent of the motives involved.This is another point theist philosophers have made. Atheists borrow from the theist world view even though the concepts borrowed do not make sense within the confines of atheism. While they do this, they deny the realities of the world in which we live. How can this be the high ground?Thanks for the reply..."Christe Eleison"

OK.. Let me address your comments Crashfrog.. I agree that they are, but how can these be universal and invariant in your worldview?? Is this not a struggle for you? I disagree they are central in a sense. At it is, one produce any number of arguments for the existence of God using any one of these. Perhaps it would be more clear if I said the laws of reason as opposed to laws of logic, to clear up any semantic related problems. When theists make these claims, that is in essence what we are saying. So when I use the term laws of logic, It can by synonomous with laws of reason. The laws of thought , laws of morality are others. my contention in this entire argument has been these laws exist outside of our own mind(universal) and that they are unchanging. I say the universe and our very discussion demands this truth be so.For the sake of discussion however, the laws of physics were derived using among other things laws of logic(reason) in a sense and laws of thought for certain. Why is it that you can reason that if something happens over and over again, then there is a high probability that it will continue to behave in this manner? If the laws of reason didn't exist these contentions could not be made, and as I've stated before(and yet to be refuted), science would be impossible. BTW, I am not contending that the laws of physics as man understands them are universal and invariant. THe laws of science are in their fullness(known by God at a minimum and parlty by man) Yes they are. I would imagine an astrophysicist would contend that at a minimum, the laws of thoguht are neccessary to begin the conversation and that the laws of logic are to deduce anything from any observations made. Nature itself is goverend by laws of logic(reason) in a sense. It behaves in an orderly way for the most part. Surely you meant something else by that statement....clarify? Again, this is one argument of many that one could produce.
I am sure you would agree that God either exists or He doesn't. If it can be demonstrated that He can not NOT exist, then He must exist. It is demonstrated that these facts are mutually exclusive. If absolute truths exist what are they? It is not enough to say they are just there. How can anything be unchanging and universal in an atheist world? Again please show me where I am wrong. Why is it no one is showing me how they can even begin to exist in an atheistic world? Even if you could, I would argue that this truth is in essence a type of god and yes I will demonstrate why when I respond to Paul. He is eternal. This is a presupposition as well as evidenced. Metaphysical realities can begin to make sense within theism since they in essence reflect the nature and character of God. I grant this. You obviosly do not find it to be reasonable. Why do you contend atheism is more rational? There have been over 100 formal arguments made for the existence of God. If just one is correct theism is valid. I have really never seen anything come close for atheism. At best, you might have a case against the inerancy of scripture(again, I am not granting this point). This is a philisophical debate more than a scientific one. How can atheism even begin to give an account for the metaphysical , nonmaterial realites of our world in a logical coherent manner? Again, it is forced to deny the realities of the world in which they live while they even use these realities and are dependent upon them. I understand that you are saying the same about me. I contend, that the theistic probabilities far outweigh the atheistic ones. I haven't really argued from morality as strong as I will in my next post but they are not changing and they are not local. I have demonstrated that the laws of logic(reason) apply outside the realm of mans mind. The universe is goverend by this, reflecting the nature character and glory of God. I agree on this one. Are you mistaking this for the laws of thought? The laws of thought are much different than what you are thinking they are. They are extremely common within the world of philosophy. Some contend they do not exist(although to my knowledge no rational philosopher would contend this), most agree they do.Thanks for the reply..."Christe eleison"[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-18-2003]

1)Identity — ‘A is A’
2)Contradiction — ‘A is not both B and not B’
3)Excluded Middle — ‘A is either B or not B’.

Thanks for the correction. Yes it is a typo. Correction follows :If it can be demonstrated that He can not NOT exist, then He must exist.

ae, I will respond to both you and Paul as time permits. Thanks for your patience. BTW, what does :ae: mean?[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-18-2003]

Nice try :ae: Lets go through this again(in as simple terms as possible)
A=spin of an elementary particle .
x=spin up
y=spin down
{A=x or y}... {A=x|y}... {A=x+y} depending on how you want to put it. Reality says that A can be x or y as my equation demonstrates. The identity theorem does not say that x needs to equal y. This is the sloppiest attempt to debunk my statement yet. Originally I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you meant something else. Do you mean something else yet again? BTW where are all the unbiased mathematicians now? You guys can't let him get away with this can you??? How is {the spin of a particle} not equal to {the spin of a aparticle}???? Again, are any mathematicians or even logicians going to correct him? You have demonstrated by this statement that you do not fully grasp the concepts I am describing. For a third time, you have been sloppy and made statements that any unbiased scientist,engineer or logician would error you in.I am not trying to insult your intelligence, if you mean something else please clear that up.Again I apologize if I sound rude but I am simply speaking the truth as I see it.At any rate, I do appreciate the comments and will continue to respond to them as time allows me to."Christe eleison"

Ok.. I don't want to turn this into an argument of semantics which it is quickly becoming.By the statement you made: I can see why we are not connecting. The laws of thought as I have mentioned (and did not intend to get on a tangent with), are different than the identity axiom seen within boolean logic, propositional logic ,etc, as you have been (I think)assuming. The axioms are more {self-evident postulates} for aplying the concepts the laws define. I am not arguing that the AXIOMS contained within the various logical(or nonlogical) systems are universal and invariant, rather that there are in existence a set of universal and aboslute laws(reflected by laws of thought and laws of logic(reason)) that make these laws perceivable and useful to us. From what I can gather from your post, you seem to think that I am arguing that propositional logic is binding in quantum physics. If so, this is not the case. I recognize the need for differing models at the quantum level. The point I am laboring is that all the logical and mathematical systems that govern our science is dependent upon these universal and invariant truths. The truths being laws of thought and laws of logic(reason). Without them, communication would be impossible and science would certainly be nonexistent.Please understand that almost no rational philosopher will argue that the laws of thought are not valid. Arguing contrary to this is like arguing that we do not exist. It is a difficult position to argue since there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise. Now I have used the laws of thought as an example. These are laws that are philisophical in nature, not scientific, although science uses and is somewhat dependent upon them. The foundation the laws of thought provide, allow for a starting block if you will from which all of science can begin from. They are subtle and most scientists take them for granted and don't analyze them. When they do, they fall error similar to what has happend here.This thread is starting to wear itself out I'm afraid. I will continue to respond as time allows and will shortly be devoting my attention to another topic similar to this one(from morality).I think that this discussion comes down to wether or not you believe that these laws are universal and invariant. I maintain they are, you disagree. You produced counter arguments using examples from quantum physics. I maintain that the laws are still valid at that level and that you were merely misunderstanding me. Perhaps you still would contend that they are invalid even after I have clarified my statement, and pointed out where I think we are misunderstanding one another. If so, thats fine. For the sake of discussion however and in order to continue with efficiency, I will attempt to move on and perhaps address Paul.Thanks for the discussion...Even still, Christ have mercy on us all..

Some quick comments for you.. We can determine God is logical because He in a sense has declared Himself to be. Circular? Yes. Evidenced? Yes. Just like logic itself. Circular argument, but it is still true. Most non-material realities exist in a similar way. Their existence can not be proved in any conventional manner, however evidence of their existence is observed. Again, the demands atheist place on theists are far to unrealistic. You might contend to be an atheist(I don't know). What is your proof that God does not exist?We can reason God is logical because a logical universe demands a logical force to be behind it. In the same way the existence of absolute moral truths demand an arbitrator of these truths, otherwise the alleged moral truths would not exist. And I agree. I am not contending that we should simply invoke God into every scientific theory, in fact it should not be allowed(I'm sure Newton and Pascal would concur as well). IMHO this would not be using the gifts of reason that God has given each of us, to their full potential. I am contending however that there are these truths hidden in the universe and that atheism proper can not account for them. Even if you forget about logic or reason, the existence of morality alone is reason enough. We continue to discover these truths and in doing so, are demonstrated more and more the glory and reality of God. Again, this is no disservice to science rather it compliments it. Are you asking why we would delve further into this alleged God, since it is meaningless in the sense that this God could feed us anything we want and we would have no idea if it is true or not, since we presuppose the laws of logic are whatever He dictates? If so, we delve into the realities of this world because the mysteries are as eternal as God Himself. God would not feed us false data since in doing so, He would be behaving contrary to His nature(i.e. lying). When we as Christian scientists/engineers begin to understand the world in which we live, it draws us closer to God since we catch glimpses of the eternal wisdom He possesses. We see His glory and beauty not only in the metaphysical but also in the physical, that is, His creation and the wonder of it. So really, the example you provide(if I understood you correctly) could not happen in the Christian world since God could not lie. The theist contends the same thing. The only difference is the theist sees this universal and invariant truth as FURTHER evidence for the existence of God. Furthermore, the theist maintains that this type of reality is unimaginable within the confines of atheism. You no doubt would argue that this is simply the way the universe is. But why would a universe be subject to any type of law whatsoever? Why would the laws of logic, math and science hold repeatedly in the realm of experience(this quote not my own)? Atheism simply seems far more unlikely to me. Why do you contend it is MORE likely?I appreciate the thought provoking replies..."Christe eleison"