Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 481 of 577 (569041)
07-19-2010 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Dr Adequate
06-26-2010 1:29 AM


Dr. Adequate,
It would seem advisable, therefore, to gain some knowledge about knowledge itself before trying to gain knowledge about anything else, especially such subtle and abstruse things as "the nature of reality". Without an epistemological program, you have no means of searching for such knowledge, nor indeed of identifying it if by accident you stumbled across it.
We already know about epistemology, and we already know about the nature reality. We don't have to go and relearn them. So when I say that I place metaphysics before epistemology, I am saying that when I formalize my philosophy, my epistemological beliefs stem from my metaphysical ones, and my most fundamental metaphysical belief is that God exists, and He reveals Himself to us through His holy Word. My epistemological beliefs stem from this: "For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight" (Ecc. 2:26) "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (this would include knowledge; Col. 1:17).
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 1:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2010 10:07 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 484 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 4:00 AM sac51495 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 482 of 577 (569044)
07-19-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by sac51495
07-19-2010 9:45 PM


We already know about epistemology, and we already know about the nature reality. We don't have to go and relearn them. So when I say that I place metaphysics before epistemology, I am saying that when I formalize my philosophy, my epistemological beliefs stem from my metaphysical ones, and my most fundamental metaphysical belief is that God exists, and He reveals Himself to us through His holy Word. My epistemological beliefs stem from this: "For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight" (Ecc. 2:26) "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (this would include knowledge; Col. 1:17).
Wonderful.
Let's see the evidence.
Not apologetics. Not ancient myths. Not philosophy or any of those squishy subjects. Real evidence.
Edited by Coyote, : A boo-boo.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by sac51495, posted 07-19-2010 9:45 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 483 of 577 (569064)
07-20-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by sac51495
07-19-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Dr Adequate's Wager
This kind of a world would obviously be insane.
As some people actually are.
You really can't get round that.
But without God, what reason do we have for ever thinking that our memory can be depended upon? You've already said that ultimately, you have none.
No, we have reasons. They are just not sufficient to produce the same sort of philosophical certainty that we get when contemplating the cogito of Descartes. This doesn't bother me.
Apparently it bothers you, so you try to fix the problem by introducing an unevidenced entity called "God" and a set of unevidenced statements called "Scripture" and trying to reason from these premises to the reliability of your memory.
But we can see that even if your premises were true, your reasoning must be fallacious. We can see this because someone whose memory was grossly, pathologically unreliable could use exactly the same reasoning.
By analogy, suppose I present a chain of reasoning which begins with the premise that unicorns exist, and which ends with the conclusion that I personally have blue eyes. Now, if the premise is true, then the reasoning must be faulty. Why? Because I could apply the same chain of reasoning if I had brown eyes.
I am arguing that you have no reason for thinking that there is even the slightest, most remote possibility that your memory even has the ability to be reliable (the word ability is important).
And you are wrong. The fact that I do not share your theological beliefs does not mean that I rule out, or have to rule out, the possibility of reliable memory a priori.
What I would rule out is the possibility of being (philosophically) certain that my memory is reliable --- and this would be true whether or not God exists, for reasons that I believe I have explained at sufficient length.
So what are my reasons? "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1); "The eternal God is your refuge," (Deut. 33:27); "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). These verses either imply, or state explicitly that God is eternal. This means He is outside of time. When is the "beginning"? The beginning is when time began, or when God created time. God is outside of time, therefore, it is impossible for His memory to be unreliable, because He really has no need of a memory, because He is not caught in the space-time continuum, and therefore, past events cannot be forgotten, because with God, there is no past, or future; eternalness. Since God created us in His image (Gen. 1:26), then He created us with the ability to be able to remember past events, just like He is unable to forget past events. Now of course, the reason God doesn't forget past events is different; He is outside of time, while we are created with the ability to remember past events.
And this line of reasoning could be produced just as well by a mental patient with access to a Bible. Or with the delusion that he had access to a Bible. Or with the delusion that there is such a thing as a "Bible".
The other errors in your reasoning are comparatively trivial and for now I shall let them pass without comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by sac51495, posted 07-19-2010 9:07 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 484 of 577 (569065)
07-20-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by sac51495
07-19-2010 9:45 PM


We already know about epistemology, and we already know about the nature reality. We don't have to go and relearn them. So when I say that I place metaphysics before epistemology, I am saying that when I formalize my philosophy, my epistemological beliefs stem from my metaphysical ones ...
This seems a bit confused. Either your epistemology is or isn't derived from your metaphysics. If in reality it isn't, but it is "when you formalize your philosophy", then you're formalizing all wrong.
... my most fundamental metaphysical belief is that God exists, and He reveals Himself to us through His holy Word. My epistemological beliefs stem from this: "For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight" (Ecc. 2:26) "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (this would include knowledge; Col. 1:17).
I don't see how you get a workable epistemology from that.
When you cross the road, you look to see whether a car is coming, yes? You don't think it just as good to keep your eyes shut and trust in God to give you the appropriate knowledge. So, when you derive your epistemology from your theology, where and how do you derive the proposition that in such cases it is better to rely on your own senses and judgment than to set them aside in favor of faith in an all-knowing God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by sac51495, posted 07-19-2010 9:45 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 485 of 577 (569358)
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Backtracking
There have been a lot of rabbit trails on this thread that, while certainly worthy of discussion, are a little bit off track from what the 1st message laid out. Also, I've got an awful lot of messages to respond to still, and since I don't like leaving messages unanswered, I'm just going to forget them all, and we'll start over right here with this message. Also, some of my arguments are scattered throughout my messages, so a number of people have complained that I'm not presenting my arguments for the impossibility of God's non-existence. So here, I'll attempt to bring as many of my arguments as I can together into one message, so this could end up being rather lengthy.
So what I'm going to do is present several topics of discussion, which will all center around the inability of any worldview without God in it to account for certain things. Not only this, but I will show that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can account for, ultimately, anything. I will also show how the Christian worldview accounts for these things.
First of all though, I'm going to talk some about metaphysics and epistemology.
It seems that most (if not all) of the atheists on this forum have taken the typical, naturalistic approach to epistemology: you elevate it above metaphysics, and refer to metaphysics as "mumbo jumbo", and think that the scientific method is the best - if not the only - way to go. But a number of things must be taken into account when one wishes to throw metaphysics down the metaphorical trash-can.
First, epistemological method (such as the scientific method) is not, nor can it be, neutral. Atheists will often claim that they are "neutral" when it comes to determining the correctness or incorrectness of certain subjects (such as the existence of God). But this is impossible. Either one's thinking is centered around himself and his reasoning, or it is centered around God. The universe is not centered around man and his reasoning, but around God, for God created the universe. Now if indeed God does exist, what would you expect to happen if you rely on your own reasoning? "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Cor. 1:20). Ruin will come if we rely on our own reasoning, that is, if it is apart from God. If the universe is not interpreted in terms of God, but rather, in terms of man and his reasoning, ruin will come to that person's philosophy. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad." (Matt. 12:30). So we conclude that either one assumes "the ultimacy of the human mind", or their reference point is God. There is no in-between. There is no neutral position. In claiming that there is a neutral position, you are setting yourself directly against God, because God said there is no neutral position.
Second, metaphysics is necessary to epistemology. To quote Van Til, "Our theory of knowledge is what it is because our theory of being is what it is....We cannot ask how we know without at the same time asking what we know". Something to note about the scientific method is that it presupposes some metaphysical matters. The scientific method says that observations are made and data is gathered, then a hypothesis is formed to explain said observations and data. Then that hypothesis is rigorously tested with more data and experiments. Note that the scientific method involves "observations about objects" and the "gathering of data", which are metaphysical issues.
Third Metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to reasoning. Every system of thought absolutely must have a foundation, or it would easily be carried away with a whirlwind. What is the foundation of atheism? It could be materialism, naturalism, or other such inherently anti-God philosophies. But you won't admit that such things are the foundation, or "presupposition" of your thought. Well what is the foundation of your thought then? You must have a foundation. Why? Well suppose you give me a standard for determining truth, such as the scientific method. I then ask "how do you know that that is the right standard". You have several options here. (1) - You can admit that your standard has no justification. (2) - You can argue that your standard is established by some other standard, thus destroying the argument that said standard is the ultimate standard. (3) - You can seek a more ultimate standard, capturing yourself in an infinite regress, which Huntard has quite explicitly done with the issue of the wrongness of murder. (4) - You can point to an ultimate, self-verifying standard that explains everything, a standard beyond which no appeal can be made. So we conclude that evaluation requires a standard, and one must eventually come to an ultimate standard when wishing to evaluate. I believe that ultimate standard to be God, and I believe that there can be no other. God is the only standard which is completely sovereign over the entire universe, and He is the only standard "beyond which no appeal can be made". "For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. 11:34-36); "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has taught Him?" (Isaiah 40:13).
I could list some more, but this will suffice for now.

Moral absolutes....
A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes. I assume all of you would say that there are no moral absolutes, because this would imply the existence of an absolute standard beyond this world. But what if there are no moral absolutes, what problems would arise from this? Well, if someone denies the existence of moral absolutes, they must adopt another standard that explains moral behavior and morals themselves. As a result, they may adopt a relativistic approach to morals, a consequential approach, or some other such anti-God approach to morals.
There is one glaring problem with moral relativism. If there are no moral absolutes, then how can a proponent of moral relativism say that I "should not" believe in moral absolutes? Is that statement absolutely true? If they believe that there are no moral absolutes, then how can they say that I have an obligation to believe in moral relativism? How can someone claim that relativism is absolutely (!) true.
Some will also say that good is determined by society. But suppose you lived in a society that accepted cannibalism, or human sacrifice, or infanticide, or widow immolation? What then? At this point, it become completely arbitrary as to what is good or bad. And why is it absolutely true that the morals of a given society can be imposed upon the people living within that society? Suppose the denizens of a society did not accept the morals of that society; is it absolutely right for the society to impose those morals upon those people regardless? Suppose there was a society that made it unlawful for anyone to skip church, or to not read their Bible? Would this be "wrong"? Is infanticide always wrong in any society, despite what that society has agreed upon? Is widow immolation? Hindu's still perform widow immolation; is it wrong?
Now what about consequentialism? Consequentialism takes a teleological approach to ethics, that is, it seeks a certain end which defines goodness. Here is an Internet article on "Teleology and Ethics":
The idea that the moral worth of an action is determined by the consequences of that action is often labeled consequentialism. Usually, the "correct consequences" are those which are most beneficial to humanity--they may promote human happiness, human pleasure, human satisfaction, human survival or simply the general welfare of all humans. Whatever the consequences are, it is believed that those consequences are intrinsically good and valuable, and that is why actions which lead to those consequences are moral while actions which lead way from them are immoral.
This is the link for the entire article.
The obvious question then is this: how do you know that the ends are good? Why is "human happiness" good? And how do you know that your actions in some way relate to the happiness of those around you? And suppose another society accepted different ends as being good, such as cannibalism; what then?
So we see the problem that arises. If indeed there are no moral absolutes, and really, no moral statement is absolute, how should we live our lives? How can we know that evildoers should be punished? How can we know the best way to live? How can we live at all, if we really don't know whether any given action is truly right or wrong? What of all this ambiguity brought on by moral relativism? It makes an entanglement out of that which should be clear. It makes difficult that which is simple. It makes hazy that which is clear. How can this web be untangled, this complexity made simple, and this haze made clear?...
God. Since God has a certain nature, and since He created this universe, we should only expect the universe to be in accordance with Him. What is His nature? "No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18b) so God is good, as is His law-word: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Rom. 7:12). Also, God is righteous "Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yes, our God is merciful. and the Law is righteous" (Ps. 116:5), and the Law is righteous "And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deut. 4:8). God is also just: "He is the Rock, His work is perfect; 'For all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He." (Deut. 32:4); "Tell and bring forth your case; yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me." (Isaiah 45:21); as is the Law: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Rom. 7:12). He is also holy: "And one cried to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory! (Isa. 6:3); as is His Law: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Romans 7:12); and perfect: "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48); as is His Law "But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:25).
So good is defined by God's unchanging nature. God does not have to measure up to an outside standard of good, for good is embodied within Him.
Can a more unambiguous standard be found than this? Or will we continue to rely on man and his foolish reasoning, that reasoning which in many cases becomes illogical, arbitrary, and weakened by wicked desires?

The Uniformity of Nature ....
We would all agree I assume that science and the scientific method depend on the uniformity of our universe. Laws of physics could not be established if we found that there were changing principles of physical movement. Suppose the physical laws governing this universe were ever-changing? Suppose one day, we were attracted to the earth by gravity, but the next day we went floating into space? Do you realize how grossly primitive we would be if the laws governing this universe were not uniform? We would be unable to build houses, unable to eat food, unable to speak even, supposing the laws governing speech and sound were ever-changing. Also, take note of the word "universe". We do not live in a "multi-verse", but a "uni-verse". It is "one", in that its laws do not change. Another way in which nature is uniform is in our understanding of speech. How do we know that a given statement means the same thing from day to day? How do we know that other people can understand what we say?
The uniformity of nature is another one of those things that must be assumed. It cannot be proven, for in attempting to prove it, one would have to first assume that nature is uniform.
So when does the problem arise for an atheist? As with other things, he cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Why does it so happen that the universe is uniform?
One problem with an atheists belief is that he assumes that the future will be like the past. But how can he know this for sure? Some will claim that at times in the past, they believed certain things, and then in the future of those past times, they found those things to be true. But this only accounts for "past futures", or "futures that have already been experienced. It does not account for "future futures", or "futures that have never been experienced. How do you know that "future futures" will be like "past futures"? We always have the "future" to deal with, and to look forward at. But how can we ever know for certain that the future will indeed by like the past, for we will never truly experience the future, for once we get there, it will no longer be the future?
Another problem is that you cannot say that you know that all of nature is uniform. Have you investigated the entire universe, or even come close to doing so? Do you realize how small an area in the universe the earth takes up? And do you realize how limited our scope is? Just because nature is uniform here on earth, and from what we have seen in space, that doesn't mean that nature will be uniform in every single place, or at every single time. How do you know that way back in the past, things were like they are now? How do you know that the physical laws in some obscure corner of the universe are the same as they are here? What makes you think that the physical laws at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang were the same as they are now.
Another problem is that the Big Bang relies on the temporary transcendence of physical laws by nature, in that "something" came from "nothing". How can this be? The physical laws governing this universe do not allow for "something" to come from "nothing". Evolutionists admit that they don't know how "something" came from "nothing". The reason they don't know is because in order for the Big Bang to have happened, the physical principles which govern the universe must have been temporarily transcended. So what makes us think that the physical laws governing the universe won't be transcended again, as in the Big Bang? And how would the Big Bang, which relies on chance proceedings, produce uniform physical principles, such as the ones we see today?
How does God help with this problem?
Since the universe is created by God, and thus based upon Him, we expect to see uniformity, if indeed the Bible is true. "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17); The word "created" in this passage is a perfect tense, in that it describes a past work of God that was done completely, finished, at that is also binding throughout all of time. Nor was it by whim that God created the universe, but for the pleasure of His will. "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33a). God wouldn't, nor could He create a chaotic universe. The creation of the universe by God was a complete work, and one that is binding, and will not change. Something else of note is that God is outside of time. Therefore, to Him, there is no past, nor future. Therefore, He cannot just "change" laws, because this implies that there is future and past with Him. "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ God exists. He cannot change, because He just exists. In order for God to change, there would have to be a way that He was previously. But God was not any "way" previously, because with Him, there is no "previousness".

Universals....
First, let me define what a universal is: any truth of a general or abstract nature--whether it be a broad concept, law, principle, or categorical statement. Here are a few key points about universalst they apply to multiple things - meaning that they are not particulars - they are abstract, and they are general truths, rather than specific.
A good example a universal is "classes". Humanity is a class. The idea of humanity is an abstract concept. Now if you took a particular person who is contained within the class of humanity, that person is referred to as a "particular". What makes a human a human is an abstract concept however, in that it cannot be eaten, touched, or seen.
Another good example is numbers. Take the numeral "2". If we apply that to certain things and say, for example, "there are 2 trees", we are applying that abstract idea to certain things in nature. However, the concept of "twoness" is an abstract concept. What makes two trees two trees is abstract. If you have three pairs of shoes, each individual pair is within the class of "twoness". So the applying of numbers to objects is an abstract concept.
The best example of a universal though lies in the Laws of Logic. "They are the abstract, universal, invariant rules that govern human rationality." (pg. 202, Pushing the Antithesis).
So what is the problem with universals? The problem is that if you believe that the only thing that exists is that which can be seen, touched, tasted etc., then where did universals come from? We cannot make them out to be merely products of human thought, because they then become subjective. If you say that the Laws of Logic are products of human thought, then you fall in the danger of subjectivity. If they are merely arbitrary products of human thought, then how can we rely on them? Couldn't they change? We know that the laws of logic are universally true. There was never a society that decided that "an object is not necessarily the same as itself" (Law of Identity). No one ever even considered that possibility. No one ever takes the possibility into account that an object is not necessarily the same as itself, we all, always assume that to be true, in all places and at all times.
So how is it that the Laws of Logic came to be universally true, and how did they come about at all, if they are of an abstract nature?
And how does God help with this? God affirms the law of identity by stating "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). The laws of logic reflect God's unchanging nature, and since God created the universe, the Laws of Logic are seen strung throughout the universe, just as they reflect God's nature.

Personal Freedom and Dignity....
Most people tend to believe that humans have certain rights, and certain freedoms, and that, ultimately, everyone has personal dignity. Personal dignity leads to a general respect for people. Humans have a tendency to be polite (in one way or another), or to honor certain people, such as leaders, elders, kings, presidents, or even the dead, by performing funeral ceremonies. We would all agree that there is a certain respect of persons among us. But how can an atheist account for these things, if we are merely the product of biological evolution? Or how do we know that lower orders of primates do not have personal dignity? Or what about lower orders of mammals? Or what about lower orders of animals? Or what about lower orders of life? Where is the line drawn?
It seems fairly obvious that in the animal world, there is no dignity. We do not see anything like a funeral for the deceased. Lions eat their dead relatives, and it doesn't seem to bother them. So just why would humans have funerals? Natural selection would not bring this about, because the performance of funerals has no survival benefits whatsoever, and is of no value for our species as a whole.
Some people though, such as Albert Schweitzer, were consistent with their humanitarian and evolutionary philosophy. Schweitzer did not keep his hospital very clean, in large part because he respected the life of insects and bacteria. So how far does dignity extend into the animal kingdom? If it extend to monkeys, why not to lions? Then why not to birds, and then fish, and then insects? And then, why not to fungus, and bacteria? Bacteria are just single-celled organisms, while humans are merely multi-celled organisms. What constitutes a difference between single-celled and multi-celled organisms? Or is it the development of our brain? Does this mean that the only reason we have personal dignity is because of chemicals in our head? So suppose I found someone without a brain, would it then be proper to commit the grossest of atrocities on them out in public?...You get the idea. Charles Darwin once said in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" What an excellent observation. So what makes us think that we have personal dignity, any more than do apes, or fish, or bacteria? If it is just a value judgment, then it can just be thrown out the window...who cares about human dignity, does it really matter? Oh wait, people sure make it out to matter...makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why would such a high order of primates construct something (human dignity) that doesn't really exist? Our brain is made up of chemicals...that's all. Our body is made up of chemicals...that's all. Why would a combination of chemicals, no matter how complex it might be, have personal dignity? Does a strand of DNA have personal dignity? Would the chemicals that make up the brain, if mixed together in a bowl, have personal dignity? Why then do we have personal dignity? Why should we arbitrarily think that our species is any better than another species? It's just our own arbitrary opinion that determines what makes a certain species more "advanced" than another. Suppose in a fish's world, the most advanced species are those with the most efficient gills, what then? And besides, what constitutes a species is a completely arbitrary classification of man.
So why don't bacteria have funerals? What about fish? Why don't lions have funerals, or any respect of kin? Why don't monkeys have funerals? Why do humans have funerals? Why do we have a sense of dignity, as though there were some worth to our life? How can chance (the Big Bang) produce something with a purpose? Do we have a purpose, or are we just a complex arrangement of various molecules, placed in the last metaphorical micro-second of the geologic column, floating around in a seemingly endless universe on a ball of molten rock and dirt? How can we have personal dignity, and a purpose in life?...
God. God created us in His own image: "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. From our very Creator, we have the mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth and subdue it". This constitutes a purpose, and an incredibly meaningful one at that.
Is it not clear now that the Christian worldview provides, not only the best, but the only foundation for philosophical thought? For the way we function in our universe? For our reliance on the uniformity of nature, universals, and personal dignity, without which we would be utterly unable to function in this universe?

Sources: About.com, Pushing the Antithesis (c) 2007 American Vision, Inc.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by nwr, posted 07-21-2010 3:38 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 487 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2010 6:43 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 488 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2010 8:24 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 489 by jar, posted 07-21-2010 9:04 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 491 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 12:42 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 492 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 1:21 AM sac51495 has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 486 of 577 (569371)
07-21-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Backtracking
sac51495 writes:
So what I'm going to do is present several topics of discussion, which will all center around the inability of any worldview without God in it to account for certain things. Not only this, but I will show that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can account for, ultimately, anything. I will also show how the Christian worldview accounts for these things.
Let us know when you begin
I hope that you were not saying that the post to which I am replying did those things, for I failed to see them there.
sac51495 writes:
..., and refer to metaphysics as "mumbo jumbo" ...
If you are able to show that there is some evidentiary basis for metaphysics, I will look forward to that exposition.
sac51495 writes:
First, epistemological method (such as the scientific method) is not, nor can it be, neutral.
What does "neutral" mean here?
sac51495 writes:
Second, metaphysics is necessary to epistemology. To quote Van Til, "Our theory of knowledge is what it is because our theory of being is what it is....
I don't have a theory of being. Yet I seem to be able to know things. So there must be something wrong with that claim.
sac51495 writes:
Note that the scientific method involves "observations about objects" and the "gathering of data", which are metaphysical issues.
In my way of looking at things, objects and data are epistemic issues.
sac51495 writes:
Every system of thought absolutely must have a foundation, or it would easily be carried away with a whirlwind.
As a mathematician, I am inclined to think of mathematics as a system of thought. And, indeed, mathematics does have a foundation. However, the foundations of mathematics are only a little over 100 years old, whereas mathematics itself is thousands of years old. So it seemed to manage without foundations, and was rather successful at that.
Consider me skeptical of your claimed need for foundations.
sac51495 writes:
Well suppose you give me a standard for determining truth, such as the scientific method. I then ask "how do you know that that is the right standard".
That's a strange request, given that neither philosophy nor theology can come up with a standard of truth.
Science is not a truth seeking enterprise. It is a pragmatic enterprise. It does come up with its own standards of truth (measuring standards, for example), but this is mostly a matter of adopting the term "truth" as a name for its own standards.
sac51495 writes:
We would all agree I assume that science and the scientific method depend on the uniformity of our universe.
I don't assume that. As far as I can tell, the evidence is against it. The surface of the moon is very different from the surface of the earth. And it is probably a lot hotter in the sun than anywhere on earth. It seems to me that nature is lumpy, not uniform.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has not replied

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


Message 487 of 577 (569405)
07-21-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Backtracking
quote:
It seems that most (if not all) of the atheists on this forum have taken the typical, naturalistic approach to epistemology: you elevate it above metaphysics, and refer to metaphysics as "mumbo jumbo", and think that the scientific method is the best - if not the only - way to go.
I don't believe that that is a fair statement. Certainly there are good reasons for placing epistemology before metaphysics and you need to address those (something you have sadly failed to do). And if you believe that you have any better method of learning about external reality than the scientific method - with it's obviosu successes - it is up to you to present it.
quote:
First, epistemological method (such as the scientific method) is not, nor can it be, neutral.
Yet, science IS largely neutral. The vast majority of people who have problems with science are those who follow religious dogmas which the findings of science contradict. You have no method that is either as neutral or as reliable.
quote:
Either one's thinking is centered around himself and his reasoning, or it is centered around God.
Of course, this is over-simplified. You must start with your own thinking to find out about God - or choose to trust the thinking of other humans (as you choose to do). But even then, some matters will come down to your own thinking.
[quote] iSecond[/i], metaphysics is necessary to epistemology. To quote Van Til, "Our theory of knowledge is what it is because our theory of being is what it is....We cannot ask how we know without at the same time asking what we know". [/quote]
And thus he admits to having chosen a poor way to build an epistemology. Assumptions are a poor foundation for knowledge.
[quote] iThird[/i] Metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to reasoning. Every system of thought absolutely must have a foundation, or it would easily be carried away with a whirlwind. [/quote]
Presuppositions are simply assumptions, they are not a sound foundation.
quote:
What is the foundation of atheism? It could be materialism, naturalism, or other such inherently anti-God philosophies. But you won't admit that such things are the foundation, or "presupposition" of your thought. Well what is the foundation of your thought then? You must have a foundation.
The foundation would surely be in epistemology. Both empiricism and rationalism have roles to play. Experience and reason are the foundation, making only those assumptions which have sufficient pragmatic value to offset the risk of error - and those always open to refutation, if it should be possible.
quote:
You must have a foundation. Why? Well suppose you give me a standard for determining truth, such as the scientific method. I then ask "how do you know that that is the right standard". You have several options here. (1) - You can admit that your standard has no justification. (2) - You can argue that your standard is established by some other standard, thus destroying the argument that said standard is the ultimate standard. (3) - You can seek a more ultimate standard, capturing yourself in an infinite regress, which Huntard has quite explicitly done with the issue of the wrongness of murder. (4) - You can point to an ultimate, self-verifying standard that explains everything, a standard beyond which no appeal can be made.
Or we can deny that there is an ultimate standard. We may have a number of standards, none of which is ultimate. Deductive logic is perfectly reliable but limited in applicability. Science has wider applicability but less reliability. Other standards are less reliable but can go into areas where science cannot go.
A more reliable standard should always take precedence over a less reliable standard. Thus the less reliable method cannot be considered "ultimate". It follows then that if your argument is correct, there cannot be a truly ultimate standard.
Your 4th option as written is not truly an option. You cannot point to an absolute standard - only what you have chosen to set up as an absolute standard. And it is not God, but the teachings of men.
[quote] iMoral absolutes[/i]....
A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes. I assume all of you would say that there are no moral absolutes, because this would imply the existence of an absolute standard beyond this world. [/quote]
Your assumption is wrong. I reject the idea of moral absolutes because there is no adequate foundation for them, no viable idea of what makes a moral absolute - and also because we have no way of reliably identifying a moral absolute.
Thus, either there are no moral absolutes or there might as well be none.
quote:
There is one glaring problem with moral relativism. If there are no moral absolutes, then how can a proponent of moral relativism say that I "should not" believe in moral absolutes?
If I said that, then I would not mean it in a moral sense, thus your argument does not touch my position.
quote:
So we see the problem that arises. If indeed there are no moral absolutes, and really, no moral statement is absolute, how should we live our lives? How can we know that evildoers should be punished? How can we know the best way to live? How can we live at all, if we really don't know whether any given action is truly right or wrong? What of all this ambiguity brought on by moral relativism? I
If there are moral absolutes and we do not know them - as is the case - then the same problem arises. It is not moral relativism that is the real issue, it is a lack of knowledge. In my view the only way to deal with these issues is to acknowledge what morality really is, an intersubjective code for living together, founded on the evolution of a social species and developed over many millennia as cultures developed and changed.
quote:
So good is defined by God's unchanging nature. God does not have to measure up to an outside standard of good, for good is embodied within Him.
Of course this simply runs into the problem that you have DEFINED "good" as God's nature (whatever that should be - even Christians disagree amongst themselves). Personally I would rate it as highly ambiguous and with plenty of potential for rationalising "wicked desires".
quote:
The uniformity of nature is another one of those things that must be assumed. It cannot be proven, for in attempting to prove it, one would have to first assume that nature is uniform.
Of course it cannot be absolutely proven, however the mere fact that science works is strong evidence that it is true. This is not a dogma held without evidence, let alone in spite of the evidence.
quote:
So when does the problem arise for an atheist? As with other things, he cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Why does it so happen that the universe is uniform?
In fact there is a bigger problem for a Christian. A Christian believes that there is an unpredictable entity with the capability to change how this universe operates. They may even believe that such changes have already occurred (e.g. the creation of the rainbow).
The atheist does not have that problem and can simply appeal to the nature of the universe itself.
quote:
Another problem is that you cannot say that you know that all of nature is uniform. Have you investigated the entire universe, or even come close to doing so?
In fact astronomers have done so. Indeed, astronomy is probably one of the disciplines best suited for finding basic changes to the laws of physics, since so much of it deals with basic physics. Astronomical observations span a huge stretch of space and time. Some years ago there was an argument that the speed of light was different in the very early universe - my understanding is that the evidence came down against it, in the end - but nevertheless it serves to illustrate my point.
quote:
Another problem is that the Big Bang relies on the temporary transcendence of physical laws by nature, in that "something" came from "nothing".
You are simply in error here, and thus this is another non-problem.
quote:
How does God help with this problem?
God doesn't. God just makes it worse, as I have pointed out.
Pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could but simply making more assumptions is not the way. You are just proposing to "solve" the problem by making more assumptions - which contributes nothing (other than an increased chance of being wrong).
Worse, the Christian doctrine of the ineffability of God tells us that we cannot predict God's actions. So unless you reject that doctrine God cannot provide a certain guarantee of uniformity of nature - which relies on predicting that God will not miraculously change the laws of nature.
Thus, if we needed to assume a firm foundation (and we do not), then atheism plus the assumption that the genuine regularities are part of the nature of the universe is far superior. It is more parsimonious and offers a genuine guarantee. Thus this is a clear win for the atheist.
I have already dealt with the issues around logic earlier in this thread. and I do not propose to add to a long post by repeating points already made. Again, this is an issue where presuppositionalism fails badly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 PM PaulK has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 488 of 577 (569443)
07-21-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Continuing the moral discussions
A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes.
My position: There are moral absolutes. But two people can hold contradictory but absolute moral positions. Neither is objectively 'true'.
I assume all of you would say that there are no moral absolutes, because this would imply the existence of an absolute standard beyond this world.
Which might be true - if I was also conceding objective moral truths.
There is one glaring problem with moral relativism. If there are no moral absolutes, then how can a proponent of moral relativism say that I "should not" believe in moral absolutes?
Moral relativism is best used descriptively rather than normatively. And I have no moral issues with your belief in moral absolutes.
If they believe that there are no moral absolutes, then how can they say that I have an obligation to believe in moral relativism?
You don't. Observing the spectrum of moral positions in the world should oblige you to accept it as a description.
Some will also say that good is determined by society. But suppose you lived in a society that accepted cannibalism, or human sacrifice, or infanticide, or widow immolation? What then?
Then you live in a society that accepts those things. You can try and persuade your fellows to change - if you do not accept them.
The obvious question then is this: how do you know that the ends are good?
You don't. You just have to muddle through as best you can and judge others on their intentions (where confidently accessible) as well as their acts.
Why is "human happiness" good?
I personally feel that it is good. Others agree with me therefore we try and structure our interactions so as to promote it.
And how do you know that your actions in some way relate to the happiness of those around you?
Rational empiricism. We look at the world and make conclusions about it.
If indeed there are no moral absolutes, and really, no moral statement is absolute, how should we live our lives? How can we know that evildoers should be punished?
If they do what we think is evil, then we know it must be dealt with. Punishment is one option that springs very quickly to mind isn't it? If it isn't dealt with, everyone's happiness is in danger of plummeting as repeat offences occur.
What of all this ambiguity brought on by moral relativism? It makes an entanglement out of that which should be clear.
If there is a grey area - it's because human interactions are complex things. Those that claim the solution to a sticky moral quandary that affects thousands of people is simple and clear need to have very fine reasons for doing so.
quote:
Because an unobservable entity in an unobservable place created everything and it said we must not use condoms.
Is not sufficient.
So good is defined by God's unchanging nature. God does not have to measure up to an outside standard of good, for good is embodied within Him.
Yes - but this tells us nothing about what is right or wrong without making epistemological claims about an unobserved entity in an unobserved realm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by sac51495, posted 07-25-2010 10:40 PM Modulous has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 489 of 577 (569457)
07-21-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Absolutes
sac51495 writes:
A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes.
At least one Christian on this board has said that no one has ever been able to show that there are any moral absolutes either.
I'm still waiting for someone to show that there is some Moral Absolute.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 490 of 577 (569467)
07-21-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by PaulK
07-21-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Backtracking
PaulK,
And if you believe that you have any better method of learning about external reality than the scientific method - with it's obviosu successes - it is up to you to present it.
I'm not arguing for the validity or invalidity of the scientific method. I'm arguing that any epistemological method (such as the scientific method) must be derived from some sort of metaphysical framework. The metaphysical presuppositions contained within the scientific method are obvious and numerous. So if someone claims that any epistemological method can stand alone as a means of determining truth apart from any other beliefs, they are seriously deluded, because any subject relating to epistemology necessarily entails a number of metaphysical assumptions.
science IS largely neutral
What do you mean by "science"? I'm talking about epistemological methods. Science is not an epistemological method. The scientific method is an epistemological method.
And thus he admits to having chosen a poor way to build an epistemology.
I'm willing to wager that you can not make any epistemological method whatsoever that does not first assume certain things about what we know. It is impossible. This is why I wagered.
The foundation would surely be in epistemology. Both empiricism and rationalism have roles to play. Experience and reason are the foundation
And yet, no epistemological method can be made that does not have assumptions of its own..."Experience and reason are the foundation"...so you admit that your epistemological method is not neutral? Relying solely on personal experience and personal reason is deeply anti-God: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor. 1:20). It's no wonder you're an atheist, seeing as how your very foundation (which I don't really believe is a foundation) is anti-God. So much for neutrality.
We may have a number of standards, none of which is ultimate.
But if I ask you about the truth of such standards, you must, in turn, refer back to a "more ultimate" or merely "a different" standard, to prove the truthfulness of the aforementioned standard. You have now caught yourself in an infinite regress. Or, if you chose to end the infinite regress, by referring back to an already mentioned standard, you would be committing the error of circular reasoning.
If I said that, then I would not mean it in a moral sense
Do you think that I am wrong in making the assertion that there are moral absolutes, or right?
what morality really is, an intersubjective code for living together
How subjective is this code?
In fact astronomers have done so [investigated the entire universe].
It is difficult to have an argument when the limits of the universe can not even be agreed upon. I don't think any astronomer would say we have reached the end of the universe. We certainly have not found the end of the universe.
In fact there is a bigger problem for a Christian. A Christian believes that there is an unpredictable entity with the capability to change how this universe operates. They may even believe that such changes have already occurred (e.g. the creation of the rainbow).
You have a seriously deluded view of God's nature. Your argument can be responded to with five words said by God himself: "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). If you don't understand this argument, try reading my entire message #485.
Pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could but simply making more assumptions is not the way.
Pragmatically, all we need is that the great and mighty Pink Elephant is taking a shower. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could account for the big guy down under (and prove his existence). But making more assumptions is not the way....you get my point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2010 6:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 1:40 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 494 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2010 2:20 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 501 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 11:58 AM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 491 of 577 (569511)
07-22-2010 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Backtracking
Either one's thinking is centered around himself and his reasoning, or it is centered around God. The universe is not centered around man and his reasoning, but around God, for God created the universe. Now if indeed God does exist, what would you expect to happen if you rely on your own reasoning?
I'd expect to get to the other side of the road.
Let us know when you plan to use a faith-based method of knowing when it's safe to cross.
Now if indeed God does exist, what would you expect to happen if you rely on your own reasoning?
I'd expect to find out that God existed.
Second, metaphysics is necessary to epistemology.
Not at all. I can, obviously, learn about the way the world works without knowing, or indeed caring, whether or not it is (for example) the dream of the Red King in Alice.
Such questions are doubtless of interest to sophomores who have looked upon the weed when it is green, but they are irrelevant to scientific enquiry.
Third Metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to reasoning.
No, for reasons I just explained.
So we conclude that evaluation requires a standard, and one must eventually come to an ultimate standard when wishing to evaluate.
And we both end up depending on the same standard --- the observations that we can actually make. Though you have not yet explained your route for arriving at that destination.
There is one glaring problem with moral relativism. If there are no moral absolutes, then how can a proponent of moral relativism say that I "should not" believe in moral absolutes?
In the colloquial sense that one "should not" believe something which is wrong, not in the absolute sense of moral philosophers.
But suppose you lived in a society that accepted cannibalism, or human sacrifice, or infanticide, or widow immolation? What then?
Suppose someone like you did? Then you would, of course, be explaining to us that cannibalism and human sacrifice and infanticide and widow immolation were the will of God, and you'd be trying to shock moral relativists by asking them "what if you lived in a society that didn't allow you to burn widows?"
The idea that there is a God whose will is objectively just is an interesting one, but it's no help to us --- our morality is what we make it.
God. Since God has a certain nature, and since He created this universe, we should only expect the universe to be in accordance with Him.
But it isn't. People have widely differing moral opinions. They think that it is right to burn widows. Or Protestants. Or Catholics. They practice infant sacrifice conscientiously, because they think God wants it. They wage holy wars --- in which at most one side can be right. They eat their parents as a funeral rite. They starve themselves to death --- a sin if you're a Catholic, but a virtue if you're a Jain.
If the universe was in accordance with God, then people would be in accordance with each other. The fact that we are not shows that whether or not there is a God, everyone is inventing their own moral standard. Perhaps some people devise a moral standard which is nearly in accordance with that of this hypothetical God, but if so, this would just be a matter of luck.
Since the universe is created by God, and thus based upon Him, we expect to see uniformity, if indeed the Bible is true.
So if we saw the regular laws of the universe being violated --- for example a man walking on water or turning water into wine --- this would be a reason to disbelieve in God and the Bible?
Another problem is that you cannot say that you know that all of nature is uniform. Have you investigated the entire universe, or even come close to doing so? Do you realize how small an area in the universe the earth takes up? And do you realize how limited our scope is? Just because nature is uniform here on earth, and from what we have seen in space, that doesn't mean that nature will be uniform in every single place, or at every single time. How do you know that way back in the past, things were like they are now? How do you know that the physical laws in some obscure corner of the universe are the same as they are here?
I could ask you the same questions. The actual laws of nature are by definition constant. But what you think the laws of nature are might be specific to the small patch of time and space you're living in. In this respect you're in just the same boat as an atheist.
One problem with an atheists belief is that he assumes that the future will be like the past. But how can he know this for sure? Some will claim that at times in the past, they believed certain things, and then in the future of those past times, they found those things to be true.
Again, the same goes for you. Because you have only studied a short period of time, you don't know whether you know the actual laws of nature or a temporarily good approximation to them. And adding a hypothetical invisible man in the sky doesn't help.
So when does the problem arise for an atheist? As with other things, he cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Why does it so happen that the universe is uniform?
The immediate cause is that it has a limited number of different types of building blocks. Since you ask.
Universals....
First, let me define what a universal is: any truth of a general or abstract nature--whether it be a broad concept, law, principle, or categorical statement. Here are a few key points about universalst they apply to multiple things - meaning that they are not particulars - they are abstract, and they are general truths, rather than specific.
Which is exactly why anyone trying to reify them and account for their "existence" as anything other than useful linguistic conventions is going to make a darn fool out of himself.
If they are merely arbitrary products of human thought, then how can we rely on them? Couldn't they change?
Yes, and they have.
Nowadays, for example, it is considered correct to deduce from the premise "there are no unicorns" the conclusion "all unicorns are pink". In the nineteenth century it was not. Would you like to tell us which side God takes on this one?
Other "universals" have also changed. For example, the category "fish" no longer includes whales; the category "mammal" now includes some species that lay eggs; the category "plants" no longer includes fungi ...
These things are not written in stone.
If you think they are, then please tell us what God thinks. Is a fungus a plant, or not a plant?
As with morality, even if he has a very definite opinion on this which we can take to be objective, we still have no way of finding out what it is.
And how does God help with this?
Well, you could pray to him to help you stop reifying abstract nominal clauses. Apart from that, he seems to be no use whatsoever.
Natural selection would not bring this about, because the performance of funerals has no survival benefits whatsoever, and is of no value for our species as a whole.
Seriously?
Me, I think it would be unhygienic to have a lot of rotting corpses lying about stinking up the place.
Does this mean that the only reason we have personal dignity is because of chemicals in our head? So suppose I found someone without a brain, would it then be proper to commit the grossest of atrocities on them out in public?
The public have brains.
You have no problem with people whose brains have ceased to work (i.e. dead people) being eaten by worms and other creepy-crawlies, do you? Which is pretty darn gross and atrocious when you think about it. If you made that happen to someone with a functioning brain, you'd be a monster. But you're happy for it to happen to someone without a functioning brain --- you just want this to happen where people with functioning brains don't have to look at it.
Our brain is made up of chemicals...that's all. Our body is made up of chemicals...that's all. Why would a combination of chemicals, no matter how complex it might be, have personal dignity?
By virtue of forming a person with a sense of dignity.
Does a strand of DNA have personal dignity? Would the chemicals that make up the brain, if mixed together in a bowl, have personal dignity?
Ah, yes, the fallacy of composition.
Would the chemicals that make up the Mona Lisa, if mixed together in a bowl, still have artistic merit? Would the chemicals that make up a car, if mixed together in a (large) bowl, still be a form of transport?
No. But we don't have to imagine that the car has an invisible "transport-soul" that makes it a form of transport, and which wings its way to heaven when we reduce the car to its constituent atoms. Rather, we note that the fact that a car is a form of transport is a consequence of the way that the atoms are put together.
Is it not clear now that the Christian worldview provides, not only the best, but the only foundation for philosophical thought?
It is clear that your worldview (which is no more the Christian worldview than you are the Christian) is muddled and inconsistent; occasionally just plain silly; divorced from the facts; and of no use in solving the philosophical problems for which you offer it as a panacea.
Indeed, you don't seem to have thought very hard about these philosophical questions; your interest in them seems not to be so much for their own sake as for the sake of invoking a God to solve them --- a role which, as I have shown, he is not able (or at the very least not willing) to fill.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 492 of 577 (569514)
07-22-2010 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Schweitzer?
Some people though, such as Albert Schweitzer, were consistent with their humanitarian and evolutionary philosophy. Schweitzer did not keep his hospital very clean, in large part because he respected the life of insects and bacteria.
Would that be Albert Schweitzer the ordained Christian minister? The same Albert Schweitzer who said:
Day by day we should weigh what we have granted to the spirit of the world against what we have denied to the spirit of Jesus, in thought and especially in deed.
Or are we talking about a different Albert Schweitzer and a different hospital?
Me, I don't think it is "humanitarian" to put mosquitoes on the same level as humans; and what you think this has to do with evolution I have no idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 493 of 577 (569518)
07-22-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by sac51495
07-21-2010 9:51 PM


Re: Backtracking
Relying solely on personal experience and personal reason is deeply anti-God ...
Well, next time you stop, look, and listen before crossing the road I guess you can make it up to God with a really prickly hairshirt and extra flagellation.
And your blasphemies don't stop there. For example, like me you believe in the existence of giraffes and eggplants and unicycles, and for exactly the same reason --- data acquired through the senses.
And what else is there to go on? Even if God turned up and told me what to think, that would also be a personal experience. When you read the Bible, that is a personal experience, not an a priori deduction. Everything we know about the external world is a posteriori, since there would be no logical inconsistency in the world being quite different.
If you had not relied on personal experience you would have had no reason to think that the Bible exists, let alone that you know what it says. It's no use now for you to try (or, in your case, to assume that you have succeeded in) reversing the dependence, because as a matter of biographical fact, you adhered to my epistemology of look-and-see before acquiring your theology.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 PM sac51495 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 494 of 577 (569522)
07-22-2010 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by sac51495
07-21-2010 9:51 PM


Re: Backtracking
quote:
I'm not arguing for the validity or invalidity of the scientific method. I'm arguing that any epistemological method (such as the scientific method) must be derived from some sort of metaphysical framework.
So in fact you agree that the scientific method is the best way that we have for learning about external reality ?
quote:
The metaphysical presuppositions contained within the scientific method are obvious and numerous. So if someone claims that any epistemological method can stand alone as a means of determining truth apart from any other beliefs, they are seriously deluded, because any subject relating to epistemology necessarily entails a number of metaphysical assumptions.
I would disagree with the idea that they are numerous. The existence of some sort of external reality is one. That our senses give us access to external reality (mediated by our sensory apparatus) is another. I doubt that there are many more.
quote:
I'm willing to wager that you can not make any epistemological method whatsoever that does not first assume certain things about what we know. It is impossible. This is why I wagered.
Which only shows that you fail to understand the point. Every assumption made is a weakness, a possible flaw that can contaminate and ruin the whole enterprise. Without an epistemology of some sort, all you can do is make assumptions. That is why epistemology must take precedence over metaphysics.
quote:
And yet, no epistemological method can be made that does not have assumptions of its own...
And those assumptions are part of the epistemology, that is the only point of making them.
quote:
..so you admit that your epistemological method is not neutral? Relying solely on personal experience and personal reason is deeply anti-God: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor. 1:20). It's no wonder you're an atheist, seeing as how your very foundation (which I don't really believe is a foundation) is anti-God. So much for neutrality.
Simply saying that your religion demands that we subject ourselves to the dogma propounded by your human leaders hardly indicates a lack of neutrality in MY methods.
quote:
But if I ask you about the truth of such standards, you must, in turn, refer back to a "more ultimate" or merely "a different" standard, to prove the truthfulness of the aforementioned standard. You have now caught yourself in an infinite regress. Or, if you chose to end the infinite regress, by referring back to an already mentioned standard, you would be committing the error of circular reasoning.
This simply ignores my point that no method is truly "ultimate". If we are forced to resort to less reliable methods in some cases that does not make those methods superior, just applicable to areas where more reliable methods cannot venture. And all methods terminate with assumptions so there is no infinite regress either.
quote:
Do you think that I am wrong in making the assertion that there are moral absolutes, or right?
If you had actually read on a little further you would have found the answer - with reasons why I believe that.
[quote] qsIn fact astronomers have done so [investigated the entire universe].[/qs]
It is difficult to have an argument when the limits of the universe can not even be agreed upon. I don't think any astronomer would say we have reached the end of the universe. We certainly have not found the end of the universe. [/quote]
I did not say that astronomers have investigated the WHOLE universe, but they have observed a very large fraction of it.
quote:
You have a seriously deluded view of God's nature. Your argument can be responded to with five words said by God himself: "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). If you don't understand this argument, try reading my entire message #485.
I am sorry that you regard standard Christian doctrine and the Bible as "deluded". So does your God lack the capacity to perform miracles or is He simply unable to think of doing so ? Your (silly) argument) which tries to transform evasiveness into some sort of proof of the law of identity doesn't deal with that issue.
quote:
Pragmatically, all we need is that the great and mighty Pink Elephant is taking a shower. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could account for the big guy down under (and prove his existence). But making more assumptions is not the way....you get my point?
All I see is that you are completely unable to answer my point. Reciting nonsense while falsely implying that it is a parallel to my position is not a valid response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2010 3:18 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM PaulK has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 495 of 577 (569526)
07-22-2010 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by PaulK
07-22-2010 2:20 AM


Re: Backtracking
I would disagree with the idea that they are numerous. The existence of some sort of external reality is one. That our senses give us access to external reality (mediated by our sensory apparatus) is another. I doubt that there are many more.
Well, in the sense that those are assumptions (i.e. the ontological sense) it is not necessary to make them. I could be a solipsist and still practice science.
In another sense they are not assumptions --- they are discoveries made by observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2010 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2010 3:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024