Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:37 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq (8 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,015 Year: 9,051/19,786 Month: 1,473/2,119 Week: 233/576 Day: 36/98 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5389
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 16 of 115 (66043)
11-12-2003 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by grace2u
11-12-2003 12:49 PM


While there are many reasons one could use, I simply use the existence of two universal, invariant, abstract entities know as the laws of morality and the laws of logic.
The laws of morality are universal and invariant? Now that's news! Why don't you tell my great-great-grandfather Ebenezer Dickey Junkin, D.D. - the minister. The one that wrote the catechism "for the instruction of coloured persons." Last time I looked around Texas, at least, chattel slavery wasn't universally, invariantly moral - but it was fine in 1850!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 12:49 PM grace2u has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2887 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 17 of 115 (66068)
11-12-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
11-11-2003 6:12 PM


Naturalism vs. Metaphysics
"To the contrary; it's grounded on the least assumptions. In fact it's grounded on only one assumption that could be said to be un-proven: that naturalistic methodology is the best way to find out about the universe we live in."

Kudos for this deduction, naturalism when applied to the real universe of you and I is mere assumption (AKA, junk science).

Now most of my universe I've observed to be metaphysical, i.e., 99% plus.

Our exchange of information here, for example, starts from a knower/known entity (myself) and transmits to a knower/known entity (you) in the William James or Augustinian sense. That is to say, you and I have what appears to me to be both huge and powerful cosmic-like psyches. These defy mere naturalistic explanation to a great extent (albeit psychologists everywhere attempt to oversimplify the psyche phenomenon and dehumanize what is really going on).

The same might be said for quantum theory with its oversimplified periodic table. Naturalistic chemistry only superficially deals with what is really going on inside matter. What do the 7 quantum levels in the periodic table really describe? Very little methinks, empirically.

Again, Light theory merely superficially describes and masters light phenomenon.

Etc., Etc.

In sum, 99%-plus of what I observe and master in my universe seems extremely metaphysical.

Now can I master the complex labyrinth of your will or my will and/or affections ?

See the problem ? It seems like its all metaphysical to me.

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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2003 3:03 PM Philip has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 115 (66072)
11-12-2003 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Philip
11-12-2003 2:48 PM


See the problem ? It seems like its all metaphysical to me.

Only if you expand the definition of "metaphysical" so broadly as to render the term meaningless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Philip, posted 11-12-2003 2:48 PM Philip has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 115 (66110)
11-12-2003 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
11-11-2003 6:23 PM


####
I think this possibly belongs in the "Is It Sciece" thread.
####
It is starting to evolve to that point. My intention however is not to fault science for it's methods but to simply propose that evolution can not make sense in a world that can not account for abstract entities. That is in an atheistic universe, evolution and the theories it suggests can not coexist since the laws of logic can not be accounted for.

#########
Point 1)
#########

The logical contradiction still exists however. The theory of evolution can not exist in a world that can not account for universal absolutes. Such as laws of logic. This debate has no meaning if the laws of logic are not universal, or if they are not invariant. If they are not universal, then I could stipulate any statement (such as God exists) to be a tautology and therfore it is true depending upon which culture I choose to arbitrarily create. If they are not invariant then it wouldn't matter anyway since the logic is changing and could possibly be different tomorrow. I maintiain that the laws of logic are universal and invariant. I also maintain that in a world apart from God, these types of entities can not exist. If they do, what is the justification for their existance? And why should I be confined to using them in this discussion? Within Christianity there is an answer to this question. The laws of logic (among other laws) reflect the nature and character of God. We must abide by them because if we did not, we would be operating in an incoherent manner, one contrary to the character and nature of God. Laws of morality are similar only far easier to prove for the theist.
####
Point 2)
How are either of these simply assumptions?
####
While I would agree that these laws of science are ultimately confirmed using aposteriori lines of reasoning, I would also argue that given the universal nature of them (as they truly are, not how we perceive them to be since our perceptions change), and their reluctance to change, these observed behaviors are an accurate reflection of matter as best as we can see fit. However, concerning the laws of logic, this same reasoning does not exist. Most laws of logic are not independently verified or observed in nature. There are many examples of laws of logic that are extremely complicated to grasp much less observe in the natural world. At a minimum, they are justified along a priori lines of reasoning, that is they are justified apart from experience. Since the laws of science are heavily dependent upon the laws of logic, I would suggest that the laws of science in the end are first pre-supposed along a priori lines and then confirmed to be true along the a posteriori lines of justification. I would also argue that given their universal, invariant and abstract nature, they can not be accounted for in an atheistic universe, therefore science can not make sense in an atheistic universe. Again, you will say they can be accounted for, I say in what way? Why should I be bound to your laws of logic? Why is it that you would not be able to explain to me why raping someone is wrong? I am not saying that you would take those positions, only that in an atheistic universe the stipulations you would make have no basis for truth. they are simply stipulations from your perception of reality. In a theistic universe it is wrong because God is the standard of goodness and committing these crimes would be behaving contrary to His nature.

########
Point 3)
You seem to say in point 2 that it isn't allowed to use things which haven't been proven or tested or whatever. However, in theism it is ok to do exactly that.
#######
I have not made this claim, nor would I. I am simply saying that the world can not make sense in an atheistic universe since it can not adequately deal with the neccessary conditions of human experience. The laws of logic and morality and science make total sense in a theistic universe. More specificaly a Christian universe. I presuppose the existence of God. This presupposition is grounded in evidence. The wonders of the bible are one example. Being able to account for the laws of morality and the laws of logic are other examples. In fact being able to in the most basic sense, make sense of the world are others. In an atheistic universe, we can not even begin to discuss these things since we would be forced to deal with countless a priori lines of reasoning.

########
Fine! That is why your approach isn't science at all. It also doesn't seem to be useful in telling us anything about the natural world around us.
########
This is more thrashing in the wind. My aproach is no different from yours. The only difference is that I presuppose the existence of a God, which is also evidenced (similar to the way you presuppose the laws of logic), you presuppose the non-existance of God. Since my world view can account for these universal, invariant abstract entities, it makes sense. We can begin to have a rational discussion. In a world were absolute truths do not exist, the same can not be said.

Thanks for the reply...

Christe eleison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 11-11-2003 6:23 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ::, posted 11-12-2003 6:58 PM grace2u has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15038
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 20 of 115 (66113)
11-12-2003 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by grace2u
11-12-2003 12:49 PM


OK so we have established that your complan that science cannot explain metaphysics is invalid.

And you are wrong - about atheism - atheism DOES allow certain basic beliefs as presuppositions on pragmatic grounds - including the laws of logic (although such a belief can be justified, if not proven). In fact it is Presuppositionalists who have the problem of circularity since they refuse to presuppose the laws of logic.

And atheism has no problems with logic or even morality. Indeed Hinduism includes an atheistic strand and their notions of karma and dharma encompass a form of morality as an absolute.

And I have discussed the issue of logic with Presuppositionalists before and you know what ? NONE of them can account for the laws of logic adequately, yet I can ! Isn't it interesting that the real situation should be the reverse of your claim ?

So, before I give my answer, lets see you explain how you can derive the laws of logic without presupposing them or an equivalent - as you have claimed you can do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 12:49 PM grace2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 11:33 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5349 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 21 of 115 (66117)
11-12-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by grace2u
11-12-2003 6:05 PM


grace2u writes:

The theory of evolution can not exist in a world that can not account for universal absolutes. Such as laws of logic.


The "laws of logic" are NOT universally absolute, despite how much calssical theists seem to wish that they were so. There in fact exists multiple logical systems that each have their own usefulness in describing certain aspects of reality, and each of them have their own "laws." Aristotlean logic is disctinct from Quantum logic, or "Fuzzy" logic, for example. In one system, a statement is either True or False. In another, the truth values of statements exist anywhere on a continuum between 0 and 1.

How could there exist multiple useful logical systems if any one of them were universally absolute?

grace2u writes:

If they are not universal, then I could stipulate any statement (such as God exists) to be a tautology and therfore it is true depending upon which culture I choose to arbitrarily create.


That's exactly the way Presuppositionalism operates, obviously.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 6:05 PM grace2u has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 115 (66130)
11-12-2003 9:05 PM


I have a question I wish to direct at Philip and grace2u.

Without using reference to a bible please state for me the nature of God i.e. what are his attributes?

Now I want you to tell us the evidence you have that leads you to believe there is a God with these attributes.Since it seems neither of you are adverse to science please try to explain it in relation to known science.

And then I am going to see if we can see where the errors occur.

------------------
"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."

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


grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 115 (66154)
11-12-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ::
11-11-2003 6:56 PM


All of the so-called "laws of logic" are founded on a priori postulations which constitute the axioms of the logical system.

While they are founded on what we would describe to be a priori lines of justification, this does not provide much information as to the nature of these a priori postulations. At least you agree that they are presupposed apart from experience (since most laws of logic can not be experienced).

Finally, the only a priori assumption that these laws are founded on is that solipsism is false.

I disagree with this statement. It is true that another one of the a priori assumptions that the laws of science use is that solipsism is false, however the laws of science are dependent upon the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic by your own admission are a priori, it should easily follow that the laws of science have a primary a priori assumption, that is that the laws of logic are indeed logical. To reiterate, I am not claiming that the laws of science are illogical, quite the contrary. My point is only that with out the theistic interpretation of the universe (again, Christianity in particular), these laws can not exist and therefore to assume that God does not exist is simply irrational. IMHO this places an atheist in the same camp as those who defend solipsism. No rational scientist would defend solipsism for it would make science irrelevant and meaningless.

As I gather from your posts, you seem to be concerned that in the atheistic view of things an individual has no way to guarantee the validity of these a priori assumptions,

I am simply stating that the world view can not account for universal, invariant abstract entities. I am also suggesting that these laws of logic which are embraced by science along a priori lines or even along a posteriori lines of reasoning for some of the more simpler, provable through experience laws of logic, are universal, invariant and abstract. In atheism, this can not make sense since nothing can be universal and anything postulated to be universal and invariant using a priori lines of reasoning is meaningless since this could account for any statement ever made. Anyone could make any statement APART FROM EVIDENCE and declare it to be a tautology. .

and you seem to feel that a postulated God can provide such a guarantee, but this just isn't the case.

In a Christian universe, this problem does not exist since universal invariant abstract entities can exist. They can exist because they reflect the nature of God and His created order. A postulated God that exhibits the characteristics that the Christian God does, can in fact provide such a guarantee since it is a necessary property of the Christian God. That is, God is moral(accounts for morality and the fact that what God says to be true is in fact true). So if you postulate a similar construct within atheism, that is some governing authority that is by definition all of the absolute truths contained within that system ,that clearly do exist(laws of morality,logic, science, etc,) then you are left with a various charecteristics or properties of this entitiy that would begin to look like the Christian God. For instance, you can postulate a universe that has some governing absolute law of morality in order to solve the morality dilemma athesits have. In doing this you would start to paint the picture of God that the theists do. You caould then postulate that this entity is logical since the laws of logic exist. Therefore this all moral being would have to be logical and not capable of being illogical. It would then follow that this perfect, all moral being is greater than ourselves and the universe itself since it is that by which we measure everything else by. This would in effect be postulating that the Christian God exists since these are the characteristics and properties of Him. Atheism would do no such thing since this would obviously make atheism non-existant, therefore atheism is left with an logical dilemma that I would suggest is far greater a dilemma than any problem of alleged evil, or flood, {fill in the blank}. The atheist dilemma is that it can not deal in a logical and coherent manner with the realities of the world in which we live. In the Christian world, universal, invariant abstract entities do exist since they are in a sense the shadow of God, therefore I maintain that atheism can not deal with this problem in a rational manner.

How do we know we can trust this entity?

We know we can trust this entity because one of the characteristics of this entity (required for the universe to make sense) is that this entity is moral. A characteristic of morality is that one doesn't lie. Since this entity can not lie, we can trust it because it has said we can trust it. This is a necessary presupposition in the theistic universe that is pre-supposed as well as evidenced.

Saying that the answers to these questions are inherent in your God's characteristics or "nature" merely begs the question since you must first posit that he's revealed that nature to you accurately

With the original presupposition, The Christian God exists , one can deduce that He has revealed that nature to us accurately. If He has not, then the Christian God does not exist. I've just demonstrated that the universe does not make sense apart from the theistic interpretation since any other system can not account for universal invariant abstract entities, therefore I would say with a high degree of certainty that the Christian God does exist and that He has revealed His nature to us accurately.

So in this case not only can't we absolutely verify the original a priori assumptions I described at the top of this post, but we cannot rely on the only means we have for assessing our confidence in those assumptions: our observations.

I disagree again, the only possible way we can rely upon our observations is if the laws of logic are invariant and universal. I have demonstrated that it is impossible for these abstract entities to exist in an atheistic universe, since they do exist, they must exist within the confines of a theistic universe.

These must be presumed free from supernatural manipulation if we are to rely on them as accurate descriptors of reality.

I am only speaking rationally here. I am simply deducing that God must exist and that He exhibits the necessary properties required for this universe to exist. This is not doing a dis-service to science. In fact it compliments science at an intellectual level far deeper than most modern atheistic scientists care to go. By interpreting science through the lens of a God centered universe, man will reach intellectual depths far superior than any atheistic interpretation of science could ever offer.

Thanks for the replies....
Christe eleison

[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-12-2003]

[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-12-2003]

[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ::, posted 11-11-2003 6:56 PM :: has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ::, posted 11-13-2003 2:15 AM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 11-13-2003 3:48 PM grace2u has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 115 (66157)
11-12-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
11-11-2003 11:46 PM


Message 9 at your convinience, Grace.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2003 11:46 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5349 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 25 of 115 (66168)
11-13-2003 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by grace2u
11-12-2003 11:02 PM


grace2u writes:

...however the laws of science are dependent upon the laws of logic.


No, they aren't. In fact, it was through scientific investigation that we uncovered aspects of reality that could not be sufficiently described in elementary logic, and we therefore devised new logical systems to describe them. Logic is a means of describing our observations, however making observations (science) does not require a single, universal and invariant language in which we can formulate descriptions. It's the other way around. Our observations dictate how we formulate our descriptive languages.

grace2u writes:

A postulated God that exhibits the characteristics that the Christian God does, can in fact provide such a guarantee since it is a necessary property of the Christian God.


This is hardly a guarantee since this "necessary" attribute is part and parcel of the original presupposition. The definition of your God is ALSO an a priori postulation. You not only presuppose the existence of a supernatural entity, you ALSO presuppose that it does not deceive us for inscrutable reasons.

grace2u writes:

With the original presupposition, The Christian God exists , one can deduce that He has revealed that nature to us accurately.


No, this presupposes that he has revealed the nature accurately. It still begs the question. This God may in fact be deceiving us and there would be no way to uncover this deception.

grace2u writes:

I disagree again, the only possible way we can rely upon our observations is if the laws of logic are invariant and universal.


Not at all. The formulations of logic are made in accordance with our observations, not the other way around. First-hand experience requires no other presupposition.

grace2u writes:

I have demonstrated that it is impossible for these abstract entities to exist in an atheistic universe, since they do exist, they must exist within the confines of a theistic universe.


Abstract entities do not exist as objective features of the universe. If they did, they would be emprical and not abstract.

grace2u writes:

I am simply deducing that God must exist...


That's odd... just two paragraphs ago you said you presupposed this God's existence. Presuppositions are not deduced.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 11:02 PM grace2u has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 115 (66280)
11-13-2003 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
11-11-2003 10:00 PM


1How does the presuppositon of God's existence show evidence through the concept of evil?

The very fact that athesist pose a question of alleged evil or injustice allowed or committed by a postulated God provides evidence fot the existence of such a concept (evil). In order to do this, the atheist must jump out of their worldview and in essence borrow from the theistic interpretations. By asking or posing the question, you are acknowledging the existence of such a concept-evil (otherwise you wouldn't use it in any argument since the concept alone is irrational to an atheist. ). But this isn't the case. Time and time again, atheists and agnostics bring up the alleged problem of evil. One more time, in doing this, they are admittiing the existence of evil even though there worldview can not account for it. The question posed is typicaly "How can evil exist in the world and a loving God, who is omni-this,omni-that,etc" This is an irrational question in an atheist world since evil does not exist in their world. Again, atheism demonstrates it's inability to account for the realities of the world in which we live and it furthermore confirms the obvious, that is the existence of evil. Now a Christian theist is justified in asking this question since evil does exist in the world he believes in. He can then look at the alleged problems and at least begin to deal with them.

2The created order implies a prior suppositon to the existence of God since you obviously have the concept of a creation as evidence to back up your contention that there is a God.

We all have our own set of a priori lines of justification we use. We come to the debate with a set of preconceived notions. We all interpret the evidence we see through this looking glass. At a minimum, a naturalist presupposes that he himself even exists and that he is not the only creature in the universe (someone on this thread made this claim).

I am merely stating that in this universe, there is a set of absolute truths. morality, science and laws of logic to name 3. These absolutes can not be accounted for in an atheisitc universe since to do this, you would have to presuppose a world that contains these universal invariant abstract entities. In doing this, I would have to ask what evidence do you have and what proof is there in your method. The only rational explanation is that these truths exist because they make up all that the universe is. This in essence is admitting to the existence of a God. Some type of governing entity provides the order of the universe and the morality we can not deny exists. Therefore, atheists can not admit to universal invariant abstract entities for in doing so, they would be admitting the existence of God.

3How do you arrive at a impossibility of atheism which is simply a point of view taken by certain people and since that is a subjective thing I do not see how you consider this tyo be evidence.

Let me explain in one more way:
Proposition1. absolute morality exists.
Proposition2. absolute moralty can not exist in an atheistic world.
Proposition3. The world is either atheistic or theistic. Logic demands that both can not be true.

If absolute morality exists and absolute morality can not exist in an atheistic world, the world is theistic. There are many other similar arguments that could be produced that would indicate similar things. Since it can be demonstrated that atheism is illogical, theism is the only rational choice and the world should be interpreted within the confines of a theistic universe.

Thanks for the reply... I will address your other posts as soon as possible.

Christe eleison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 11-11-2003 10:00 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ::, posted 11-13-2003 2:13 PM grace2u has not yet responded

:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5349 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 27 of 115 (66282)
11-13-2003 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by grace2u
11-13-2003 1:53 PM


grace2u writes:

I am merely stating that in this universe, there is a set of absolute truths. morality, science and laws of logic to name 3.


How many times will I have to correct you until you cease making these false claims?

Moral values are not absolute, and they are not objective properties. If they were, they could be measured in the same way mass or length are, and there would be no disagreement about moral issues such as the morality of abortion or homosexual marriage.

Scientific "laws" are not absolutely true either. Newton's laws of motion were superceded by quantum mechanics for example. Any of these "laws" can be invalidated at any moment by new observations. This fact is precisely why scientists ceased naming their descriptions of their observations as "laws" and instead call them "theories" like the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution.

The "laws of logic" are laws of our language and have and still may be molded to symbolize and communicate new observations. There in fact exist many logical systems that each have their own "laws." Claiming that one of these systems is absolute is like claiming that one must abide by the rules of Monopoly when playing Scrabble or Bridge.

EDITED TO ADD:

grace2u writes:

This is an irrational question in an atheist world since evil does not exist in their world.


This is patently false. Good and evil exist in an "atheist world" in the same way beauty and ugliness exist -- as individual, subjective judgements of events. They are concepts which are useful for communicating the relationship of our experiences with reality to our unique personal values.

[This message has been edited by ::, 11-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by grace2u, posted 11-13-2003 1:53 PM grace2u has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 115 (66297)
11-13-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by grace2u
11-12-2003 11:02 PM


Grace2u:

Am I getting your argument right here:

1. There is no Logic without God.

2. Presuppose God.

3. The evidence to presuppose God is the existence of Logic.

Doesn't this sound circular to you?

Second, you must also proove that logic is universal and invariant, both of which you haven't done. Science uses logic until it is proven wrong by observation. Science says that "we are pretty sure" while you have science saying "we know absolutes."

Thirdly, this whole argument doesn't pass the PU test. I could as easily invoke the Pink Unicorn, claim she is moral and logical, and also claim that without the Pink Unicorn logic couldn't exist. The belief in the supernatural Pink Unicorn gives me the ability to call on logic because the PU is an abstract entity. You can insert any diety you want, insert the qualities you want, and out of the blue you have justification for anything you want. Presto, new metaphysical beliefs and possibly a new religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 11:02 PM grace2u has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6619
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 29 of 115 (66310)
11-13-2003 4:18 PM


This is supposed to be a thread in inconsistencies within the theory of evolution. The topic has now become some confused mishmash of whether the existence of logic and/or morality implies the existence of God. Nothing in the present thread warrants its inclusion in the evolution forum. May I suggest it be moved to another forum?
Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-14-2003 1:04 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 115 (66317)
11-13-2003 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
11-11-2003 11:46 PM


Clearly they exist, but can't be explained(or proven to exist) in the same way we would explain(or prove) any other naturalistic entity.
Then they don't exist, do they? They're just in our heads. I mean, does English exist?

By stating this you are implying that if something can not be proven to exist using naturalistic processes, then it does not exist. This is a fallacious statement. There are many things that can not be proven in that way, yet they are not denied to be true claims. The method used to prove a statement/concept should be dependent upon the nature of the entity in question. The existence of God is a question of metaphysics(far more complex than any naturalistic entity we could try to prove or disprove), therefore the tools used to prove or disprove His existence can not be primarily derived from naturalistic methods. While naturalistic techniques should confirm or disconfirm any allegations that are made about said entity, they are not sufficient in and of themselves, in fact if this entity can transcend our time and space continuom, naturalistic methods could produce misleading results. I have demonstrated repeatedly how philosophically the concepts of atheism can not sustain rational debate, yet Christian theism can. Atheism denies absolute truths which are clearly in existence. In doing this, atheism violates many principles of logic and reason -Occams's razor to name one{By choosing a far more complex and irrational answer to the philisophical questions that have plagued mankind, that is atheism instead of theism}.

The very argument you use is using logic. If the laws of logic do not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. They do exist and they exist external to us.

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

I disagree with your conclusion. Equating logic to a cultures language is oversimplified rational and simply untrue. Languages are conventional. Languages are not universal and they are not invariant. While they are abstract, I am not arguing that the existence of abstract entities constitute the necessary evidence to believe that God exists. Logic however is universal and it is invariant. If logic was conventional then I could stipulate a society or culture in which it was valid to say whatever I wanted to such as (~P)=P. This is non-logical and nothing would make sense in the world. This debate would certainly not. Therefore a necessary property of the world in which we live-taken perhaps on a priori lines of reasoning, is that this universe contains abstract invariant universal truths. If it doesn't then the universe is nonsensical.

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

1)Impossibility of the contrary. The existence of the Laws of morality alone justify on a philosophical realm the need for a governing moral being(God). The fact that it is wrong to torture your child is wrong not because our culture dictates this, but because it violates this moral beings principles.
2)Complexity of Gods word, universal order, rapid growth of Christianity amidst tremendous persecution, archeological evidence confirming biblical claims, fulfilled prophecies, the teachings of Christ when looked at in context with the culture He walked in, logical coherency of theology.etc.,etc.
3)Changed lives. One changed life alone is enough evidence to at least suggest the claims it make should be examined to be true or false, in an unbiased nature. There have been many such claims throughout history.

If anyone of these claims is proven to be true, then the system in question is true. While I believe 2-3 can hold up to rational debate, I wish to limit this debate to points on transcendental truths.

I don't agree that any of those exist

I appreciate your honesty with regard to this, however if you do not agree that the laws of logic exist (or perhaps better put that they are not laws), then this debate is meaningless. If your position is that the laws of morality do not exist, and therefore it is not wrong for a culture {to torture their young,rape their women/men, steal from others, whatever horrible act I can think of} if this culture says it's ok, then I would have to say you are denying the realities of the world in which we live. You are using the laws of logic when they are convenient and denying solipsism, which are rational decisions, yet you deny the other simple reality of the world in which we live(morality is absolute) in order to fit the world into what your a priori assumption is (God does not exist). The theist does not do this. A rational theist has examined the universe and noticed these universal invariant truths. They have seen that these truths can only exist in a theistic universe. Since they do exist, the theist can conclude that his decision is rational and is in fact the only logical solution. In order to get around this fact, the atheist is forced to eliminate the concepts of absolute truth. In doing this they are denying reality and are therefore following an irrational system of thought.

Thanks for the replies...
I do appreciate the points you are raising.

Christe eleison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2003 11:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ::, posted 11-13-2003 5:08 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2003 5:15 PM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2003 6:57 PM grace2u has not yet responded

Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019