Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism: an irrational philosophical system
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 151 of 171 (85478)
02-11-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Transcendasaurus
02-11-2004 12:42 PM


Re: Sorry for the delayed reply
quote:
No, I’m not describing laws of logic as a purely mental standard. As I stated in the previous post, laws of thought stem from God (as defined earlier), who sovereignly imposed uniformity that reflects the same consistency and logical coherence that is in His thinking.
When you say God's thinking is logically coherent, is this in a purely tautological sense since God is the standard for which logic derives? Or is there some other standard for which God can be called logical? If a God had all the qualities you suppose (universal and invariant), could the laws he "reflects" be different than the ones we use today? Would they be logical or illogical if they imply a contradiction, why or why not?
[This message has been edited by JustinCy, 02-11-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-11-2004 12:42 PM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 171 (85664)
02-12-2004 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
02-11-2004 5:26 PM


Re: Sorry for the delayed reply
Tran writes:
Are you not understanding what I said, or is this an admission of materialistic failure? I said _apartfrom_ the Christian world-view
PaulK writes:
All you were doing was repeating the assertions we are meant to be discussing in an rather insulting and arrogant fashion.
Real quick note here; this was a sincere question; which is why I underlined instead of used CAPS. I really wasn't sure if you missed what I said because it seemed like to took it the wrong way and ran with it. Sorry if you read it that way.
thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2004 5:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2004 2:58 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

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


Message 153 of 171 (85667)
02-12-2004 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Transcendasaurus
02-12-2004 2:47 AM


Re: Sorry for the delayed reply
Yes I understood what you said. I also understand that you are in no position to know if that claim is true or not. If you regard my reply as even possibly an "admission of materialistic failure" then you certainly don't understand what I said which was to point out exactly how arrogant and presumptuous your assertions were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-12-2004 2:47 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 171 (85673)
02-12-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by :æ:
02-11-2004 1:39 PM


Re: Sorry for the delayed reply
I apologize but I can't carry on more than one discussion at a time due to my work/home schedule. PaulK and I are in the middle of a dialog.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by :æ:, posted 02-11-2004 1:39 PM :æ: has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Phat, posted 02-12-2004 4:42 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 155 of 171 (85693)
02-12-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Transcendasaurus
02-12-2004 3:08 AM


Re: Sorry for the delayed reply
I am watching your dialogues with fascination! Are not posting boards wonderful thins? We can slow our conversations down a bit so that we actually get the chance to think before we speak. I am still learning!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-12-2004 3:08 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 156 of 171 (86052)
02-13-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by yumbrad
02-09-2004 9:50 PM


Re: For every question, another answer..another question.
quote:
My faith/worldview/belief system rests on the person of Jesus Christ. I got excited by the fact that He seemed to love me, and seemed able to communicate that love to me in myriad, diverse ways. I gave my life to Him because of that love, which I tested according to His invitation, and found to be infallible and true. The whallop of a bonus I got was a consistent worldview, a way to live and deal with things like the 'heat of the moment', and a way to love others (especially my wife - such that I am not using her for my own ends).
Um, eew.
You need religion to not see your wife as something to "use for your own ends"?
And here I thought that not using people for one's own ends was just common human decency.
Of course, depending upon which religious male I have spoken with, I have gotten several different views of how women should be treated, and they all said that their way was sanctioned by God.
So, what stripe are you? Do you believe that you are the leader in your marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by yumbrad, posted 02-09-2004 9:50 PM yumbrad has not replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 171 (86871)
02-17-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
02-11-2004 5:26 PM


Universality and laws of thought
Tran writes:
No, I’m not describing laws of logic as a purely mental standard. As I stated in the previous post, laws of thought stem from God (as defined earlier), who sovereignly imposed uniformity that reflects the same consistency and logical coherence that is in His thinking. As far as we are concerned, laws of thought exist outside of our material brains (gray matter). The reason this standard works is just because it does derive ultimately from God who is above man, that all men can apply the same laws which come from Him.
PaulK writes:
Well I've already raised the point that saying that the lws of logic are imposed denies their necessity and creates the very sort of problems you claim other world views suffer from.
I said imposed uniformity (, i.e. design). Even if I implied that to mean that laws are the kinds of things that are outside of God and are applied to creation like frosting on a cake, how does that deny their necessity in creation for us? If a hypothetical rendering of necessity makes them optional outside of our experience, so what? We live in experience. Regardless, I don’t view laws of thought in that way.
My position is that God is not contingent on laws of thought; rather laws of thought originate in/from God Himself; they are a reflection of God’s character. God is rational by Christian definition, and He created man in His image, such that man could understand Him and reason like Him. Because God cannot lie, and man is made in God’s image, man also cannot lie without giving up the very justification he rests on for reason. Being irrational is breaking away from objective truths, which are founded in and grounded on God Himself as Creator. Attempting to justify reason outside of God results in subjectivism and or incoherence because of this.
But I have to ask how "conceptual standards of reason" "employed...in the way of an intellectual appeal" could be considered anything other than a mental standard.
By mental, I mean the mind as opposed to the brain (gray matter - physical brain). By standard, I mean that which is common to all minds such that all minds can come to some objective, common ground outside of themselves in evaluating obligatory claims.
Tran writes:
We have a changing material world around us, yet apart from all of this change that we experience, there are unchanging aspects to it that are necessarily so if we expect to be able to trust laws of thought as yielding predictable truths about our experience. This is why I find materialism as a world-view to be inadequate, because it doesn’t have a place for them in its world-view. They are assumed, but in assuming them, they contradict their own theory that the world is material only
PaulK writes:
Presumably you mean a strict materialism that includes nominalism. But to what depth have you investigated nominalism ? How can you condemn a worldview as inadequate without knowing what it actually claims ? For all you know they could have quite good alternatives to accepting that abstract entities exist. Or maybe they just define "existence" more strictly than I would.
I defined the position that I indicted in the same paragraph that I used it. If the nominal-ism that you are referring denies the existence of abstract universals (outside of the particular, physical brain) then I would include that world-view as well.
Just to clarify, when I use the term universal, I am not referring to the notion of commonality among all particular individuals, such as calling a nose a universal trait. Using universal in that way to describe the universality of laws ultimately boils down to subjectivism because you cannot rationally justify any attempt to appeal to anything outside of your own particular gray matter brain. You couldn’t justifiably claim that the laws you experience in your own brain apply to all other brains outside of your own.
Tran writes:
I don’t think my appeal to God would be irrelevant at all, since the biblical claim is that God is eternal and infinite, and laws stem from Him ultimately, so abandoning God would be the same as abandoning the possibility of intellect. God is not contingent on laws of thought laws of thought have their meaning and origin in the mind of God.
PaulK writes:
I very much doubt that this is genuinely a Biblical claim.
I think it can be deduced from scripture, but regardless, it’s the claim I’m making and the claim you’ll have to deal with.
Tran writes:
I do assume logic is necessary, in the same manner that I assume God is necessary. See above.
PaulK writes:
But you assume that logic is NOT necessary - it is quite clear. If you assumed it was necessary then it would make no sense to say that God imposed it or that it stemmed from God or that God chose to create a universe where logic applies. So if you also assume that logic is necessarily true then you are assuming a contradiction and your worldview is incoherent. QED.
My position has been from the beginning, that laws of reason are necessary for human understanding. These same laws of thought are not independent of God, that is to say, they do not exist apart from God.
Tran writes:
I do assume that logic is necessarily true. I say necessarily in the sense that it is incoherent to say that logic does not exist because the assertion itself relies on logic to make any sense. The power of claims, and concept of knowledge rely on logic.
PaulK writes:
But that is not necessity - that is a case for pragmatically assuming that logic is true and perhaps for assuming that it is necessarily true. Indeed the TA relies on assuming that the laws of logic are not necessarily true since if that were the case there would be no need to invoke God to account for them.
No, the TA relies on assuming that logic is a precondition of intelligibility, just as you must, unless you can come up with a way of understanding our experience apart from it. The TA is simply a challenge for a rational justification for laws of reason, and any argument that keeps laws of thought on the same level as the individual (like materialism which places the intellect within the confines of the individual’s physical brain) results in subjectivism.
Tran writes:
Why can some presuppositions be accepted as ultimate and require no account? When did I say they don’t require an account? The way in which you prove a presupposition would be to demonstrate necessity of that presupposition to maintain coherence. All presuppositions that are not ultimate are built on top of, ultimate presuppositions, so they must all in a sense be accounted for.
PaulK writes:
Great ! In that case before we finish dealing with your worldview you need to account for God.
Without God, you cannot provide (rationally, consistently and justifiably) the preconditions of intelligible experience.
[This message has been edited by Transcendasaurus, 02-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2004 5:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 02-17-2004 3:03 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2004 3:06 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 158 of 171 (86878)
02-17-2004 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Transcendasaurus
02-17-2004 2:06 AM


Re: Universality and laws of thought
Transcendasaurus writes:
quote:
Without God, you cannot provide (rationally, consistently and justifiably) the preconditions of intelligible experience.
And yet, the mere existence of atheists proves you wrong.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-17-2004 2:06 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

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


Message 159 of 171 (86879)
02-17-2004 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Transcendasaurus
02-17-2004 2:06 AM


Re: Universality and laws of thought
Well the first problem seems to be that you fail to understand the concept of "necessity" as I am using it. Which also means that whatever idea of necessity you are putting forward fails to deal with the problem I raised. The whole concept of "imposing" logic is incoherent since you cannot assume logic when applying it. That is why the view that logic is necessarily true is to be preferred.
My position is that God is not contingent on laws of thought; rather laws of thought originate in/from God Himself; they are a reflection of God’s character. God is rational by Christian definition, and He created man in His image, such that man could understand Him and reason like Him. Because God cannot lie, and man is made in God’s image, man also cannot lie without giving up the very justification he rests on for reason. Being irrational is breaking away from objective truths, which are founded in and grounded on God Himself as Creator. Attempting to justify reason outside of God results in subjectivism and or incoherence because of this.
So we have not an argument but a dogma - and one that labels dissent as automatically irrational. Which really explains why the TA is alleged to exist when in fact there is no such argument.
quote:
But I have to ask how "conceptual standards of reason" "employed...in the way of an intellectual appeal" could be consideredanything other than a mental standard.
By mental, I mean the mind as opposed to the brain (gray matter - physical brain). By standard, I mean that which is common to all minds such that all minds can come to some objective, common ground outside of themselves in evaluating obligatory claims.
This doesn't address the question - indeed it seems to confirm that we are dealing with a mental standard.
quote:
Presumably you mean a strict materialism that includes nominalism. But to what depth have you investigated nominalism ? How can you condemn a worldview as inadequate without knowing what it actually claims ? For all you know they could have quite good alternatives to accepting that abstract entities exist. Or maybe they just define "existence" more strictly than I would.
I defined the position that I indicted in the same paragraph that I used it. If the nominal-ism that you are referring denies the existence of abstract universals (outside of the particular, physical brain) then I would include that world-view as well.
I doubt that nominalism could be called a worldview in that there have been Christian nominalists (e.g William of Occam). But your reply makes it lear that you are not concerned with the reality of their views, simply on finding some excuse to fit them into your dogmatic schema. Once again we see that the TA does not exist - because it rests on supposed comparisons which have not been done and which wll not be done since the results are prejudged (here's a hint have you considered that the difficult problem of whether abstracts *exist* is simply a sideshow - the real question is whether logic *works* and THAT is what has to be accounted for)
quote:
But that is not necessity - that is a case for pragmatically assuming that logic is true and perhaps for assuming that it is necessarily true. Indeed the TA relies on assuming that the laws of logic are not necessarily true since if that were the case there would be no need to invoke God to account for them.
No, the TA relies on assuming that logic is a precondition of intelligibility, just as you must, unless you cancome up with a way of understanding our experience apart from it. The TA is simply a challenge for a rational justification for laws of reason, and any argument that keeps laws of thought on the same level as the individual (like materialism which places the intellect within the confines of the individual’s physical brain) results in subjectivism.
Well I note that while your first word is "no" the rest of the sentence goes on to produce exactly the same sort of pragmatic appeal I referred to. And it has yet to be established that the TA offers any rational appeal - indeed the point we are discussing is that necessity offers a clearly better answer since it leaves no point where we would have to set aside logic in our account.
quote:
Great ! In that case before we finish dealing with your worldview you need to account for God.
Without God, you cannot provide (rationally, consistently and justifiably) the preconditions of intelligible experience.
That is not an account. That is a purely pragmatic appeal and one that has yet to be shown to be true. Indeed you have implicitly admitted that you CANNOT show it to be true.
So to sum up the position so far, you cannot account for God and you have yet to offer a satisfactory account of logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-17-2004 2:06 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2004 3:27 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 160 of 171 (87763)
02-20-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PaulK
02-17-2004 3:06 AM


Accounting
Perhaps thign swill be a little simpler if I go back to basics.
An account in these terms is an explanation of why logic does apply. Which leads us to the first major problem - any such account must assume that logic DOES apply. That rules out any possiblity of getting an airtight proof immune to any skepticism all we can hope for is a plausible explanation, and that I beleive is possible.
The second serious problem is that logic must apply to every entity involved in the account. This is where the concept that logic is imposed falls down. If logic must be imposed, it follows that prior to that imposition logic does not apply the entity it is to be imposed on. But in that case we cannot conclude that any attempt to impose logic on it will work - even if a failure is a logical impossibility. In short such a view starts by assuming incoherency - and even assuming that incoherency is the "natural" state of affairs, and once that assumption is made there is no escape from it.
A God-based account could avoid that trap by asserting that God created the universe so that logic would apply - by assuming no state that can be considered prior the trap is evaded. However such an account must still explain why logic applies to God, and that is the real difficulty.
An account based on the idea that logical truths are necessary truths avoids the problems of both the above approaches and is more parsimonious than assuming a God.
To work, then, the TA needs to show that no such account is possible and that a God-based account is possible if and only if the God involved is the Christian God. In all this discussion there has been no serious argument for either. If there IS a TA why am I still waiting to see it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 02-17-2004 3:06 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-23-2004 3:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 171 (88063)
02-23-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by PaulK
02-20-2004 3:27 PM


Re: Accounting
Well the first problem seems to be that you fail to understand the concept of "necessity" as I am using it. Which also means that whatever idea of necessity you are putting forward fails to deal with the problem I raised. The whole concept of "imposing" logic is incoherent since you cannot assume logic when applying it. That is why the view that logic is necessarily true is to be preferred.
You still seem to be stuck on this even though I thought I addressed it in my last post (see below for the quote). God is not contingent on laws. When I spoke of imposing it was in the context of creation, not tied to nor contingent on it. If God had not created the world, laws of thought would still exist in the person of God Himself. God did not create laws of reason, and as I stated in my previous post, they emanate from Him. You cannot separate reason from God; they do not exist independently of each other on the Christian world-view.
Tran writes:
My position is that God is not contingent on laws of thought; rather laws of thought originate in/from God Himself; they are a reflection of God’s character. God is rational by Christian definition, and He created man in His image, such that man could understand Him and reason like Him. Because God cannot lie, and man is made in God’s image, man also cannot lie without giving up the very justification he rests on for reason. Being irrational is breaking away from objective truths, which are founded in and grounded on God Himself as Creator. Attempting to justify reason outside of God results in subjectivism and or incoherence because of this.
PaulK writes:
So we have not an argument but a dogma - and one that labels dissent as automatically irrational. Which really explains why the TA is alleged to exist when in fact there is no such argument.
You still don’t understand what the TA involves. I tried telling you that it is a world-view comparison, but you insisted on labeling it as a bunch of assertions, which really isn’t the nature of what is going on. The TA, once again, is aimed at justifying how (in this case) the laws of reason are possible in one’s world-view. I’m telling you how the Christian world-view can account for laws of reason which is what you insisted I do. The Christian can account for laws of reason because they (universal, invariant, abstract entities — in the Christian world-view) are not foreign to the Christian conception of reality. We have God the creator, and the immaterial aspects of Creation such as the human soul, laws of reason, spirits and various other immaterial aspects to our view of reality. Because we believe in such immaterial aspects to the world, there is no internal inconsistency in saying there are such things as laws in the sense of invariant abstract entities, because they depict the same elementary attributes of invariance, abstractness and universality of at least God who we affirm. Saying that laws of reason are such is nothing strange or out of place in the Christian world-view. Obviously different schools of thought, or world-views, have differing opinions on the nature of reason and how reason is possible, and will have to at least account for it on their (and your) world-view.
Tran writes:
I defined the position that I indicted in the same paragraph that I used it. If the nominal-ism that you are referring denies the existence of abstract universals (outside of the particular, physical brain) then I would include that world-view as well.
PaulK writes:
I doubt that nominalism could be called a worldview in that there have been Christian nominalists (e.g William of Occam). But your reply makes it lear that you are not concerned with the reality of their views, simply on finding some excuse to fit them into your dogmatic schema.
I’m not arguing for the Christian nominalist world-view, which I happen to think is unbiblical. I don’t doubt they hold such views of reality, but I think that if you inspected such views carefully, you would find they deny the very foundations of that which is necessary to affirm their views. For instance, the definition of nominalism as defined by Mr. Webster is The doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names. If the nominalist world-view were true, then there would be no reason on that view to expect that anyone outside of their own particular mind/brain viewed those names the same particular way since there is no universality (common objective ground) by which to come to some common conclusion. Ridding oneself of abstract universals boils down to subjectivism.
Once again we see that the TA does not exist - because it rests on supposed comparisons which have not been done and which wll not be done since the results are prejudged
The Transcendental Argument does exist, whether or not you agree with that methodology for examining claims. People use it all the time, and just dismissing an argument as not existing is just plain absurd.
Everyone presupposes at base that everyone understands everyone else and adheres to the same laws of reason when formulating some conclusion about a claim. The TA breaks this assumption down into those fundamental elements and asks the question, if everyone can rely on the same laws of reason, then what must be true of those laws of reason? The TA claims that those laws of reason must by necessity be universal (which implies abstract), and invariant. If these laws of reason are in fact this way, then certain world-views that hold any position that say or imply that laws of reason are not invariant, universal and abstract are not justified world-views since they entail something that cannot exist on their own terms. The Christian world-view sees such laws this way, and because such entities are the foundational elements for that world view, the Christian world-view can at least account for laws of reason.
The comparisons are of world-views that claim to be able to justify laws of reason. I have shown you in a no-nonsense manner how invariant, abstract, universal entities can exist in the Christian world-view. They originate in God, and because they are immaterial as is God, they fit into the Christian world-view, conceptually and reasonably if the Christian world-view is correct. The only missing part in the comparison now is how you deal with reason. Do you consider reason as dependent on universal, invariant laws in order to obtain objective knowledge? If not, then you need to show how a materialistic world-view can accommodate laws of reason. If you do, then you need to explain your world-view and from whence you think they came. That is the comparison I’m speaking of. Which world-view can account for reason without relying on something outside of its own world-view? That is, the worldview that accounts for reason has to do so using those elements found only within the domain of that world-view. For instance, it would be inconsistent to say only material exists and then go on to say that laws of reason are immaterial.
(here's a hint have you considered that the difficult problem of whether abstracts *exist* is simply a sideshow - the real question is whether logic *works* and THAT is what has to be accounted for)
Account for whether logic works? Wow this is getting pretty weird. To doubt that logic works seems to be kind of an absurd stance to take. I would say that denying that logic works would result in incoherence. If you want to support this position, I would really be interested to see what an argument that doesn’t use laws of logic looks like J
PaulK writes:
But that is not necessity - that is a case for pragmatically assuming that logic is true and perhaps for assuming that it is necessarily true. Indeed the TA relies on assuming that the laws of logic are not necessarily true since if that were the case there would be no need to invoke God to account for them.
Tran writes:
No, the TA relies on assuming that logic is a precondition of intelligibility, just as you must, unless you can come up with a way of understanding our experience apart from it. The TA is simply a challenge for a rational justification for laws of reason, and any argument that keeps laws of thought on the same level as the individual (like materialism which places the intellect within the confines of the individual’s physical brain) results in subjectivism.
PaulK writes:
Well I note that while your first word is "no" the rest of the sentence goes on to produce exactly the same sort of pragmatic appeal I referred to. And it has yet to be established that the TA offers any rational appeal - indeed the point we are discussing is that necessity offers a clearly better answer since it leaves no point where we would have to set aside logic in our account.
Assuming that logic is a precondition of intelligibility is a pragmatic appeal? You’re going to having to explain what you mean by this Paul, because you go on to say that necessity offers a clearly better answer which I think is what I said, no? How are you taking me to say that I’m setting aside logic? You need to read a little more carefully, because I’m saying that logic is a necessary precondition. You can’t set it aside or decide whether you wish to accept it as true because it makes thing easier if it is said to be necessary for reason.
PaulK writes:
Great ! In that case before we finish dealing with your worldview you need to account for God.
Tran writes:
Without God, you cannot provide (rationally, consistently and justifiably) the preconditions of intelligible experience.
PaulK writes:
That is not an account. That is a purely pragmatic appeal and one that has yet to be shown to be true. Indeed you have implicitly admitted that you CANNOT show it to be true.
I don’t think you’re using the term pragmatic in the common sense. I certainly don’t take the existence of God to be a matter of practicality. It’s much more severe a claim: it’s that without God, there could be no experience as the very source of laws of reason would not exist which means incoherence. That’s not a pragmatic appeal, but an appeal to a logical necessity the impossibility of the contrary.
So to sum up the position so far, you cannot account for God and you have yet to offer a satisfactory account of logic.
Well, I can see that it is not satisfactory to you because you don’t want to attribute its origin to a diety that you don’t believe exists. Whether or not you agree with my justification for the laws of logic as I defined them is irrelevant to whether or not the claim is justified. To demonstrate that the position is not justified, you would need to show how the steps involved in the justification lead to subjectivism, incoherence or skepticism.
You can have more than one justification for any given proposition, and as such, the way in which you would go about discerning between which justification is the most reasonable would be to show that such an account or justification is internally inconsistent on its own terms. That is, you would need to show that the steps involved in justifying the position breaks laws of reason in order to justify the claim.
The TA challenges your ability to come up with an account that is not internally inconsistent or leads to subjectivism.
Perhaps thign swill be a little simpler if I go back to basics.
An account in these terms is an explanation of why logic does apply. Which leads us to the first major problem - any such account must assume that logic DOES apply. That rules out any possiblity of getting an airtight proof immune to any skepticism all we can hope for is a plausible explanation, and that I beleive is possible.
Well I’m glad we agree that logic does apply, but it doesn’t stave off skepticism concerning how those laws are possible.
The second serious problem is that logic must apply to every entity involved in the account. This is where the concept that logic is imposed falls down. If logic must be imposed, it follows that prior to that imposition logic does not apply the entity it is to be imposed on. But in that case we cannot conclude that any attempt to impose logic on it will work - even if a failure is a logical impossibility. In short such a view starts by assuming incoherency - and even assuming that incoherency is the "natural" state of affairs, and once that assumption is made there is no escape from it.
Moot point since I expressly stated in my post what I meant by imposed. I didn’t mean it to imply that God is contingent on laws. Read it again.
A God-based account could avoid that trap by asserting that God created the universe so that logic would apply - by assuming no state that can be considered prior the trap is evaded. However such an account must still explain why logic applies to God, and that is the real difficulty.
So that logic would apply? NO! Read it again. Logic emanates from God. You’re restating your imposed argument which I don’t hold. Logic doesn’t apply TO God. Logic emanates from God; as His creation, we are made in His image that think God’s thoughts after Him on a less comprehensive scale. We think like God because we were Created in God’s image is the Christian claim.
An account based on the idea that logical truths are necessary truths avoids the problems of both the above approaches and is more parsimonious than assuming a God.
The existence of laws of thought aren’t in question, but rather how they can exist given what you believe to be true about the world. Assuming a disconnected invariant abstract entity is simpler than assuming one that is connected to a God only because there is one less entity involved. That simpler assumption however fails to give meaning, origin and context! So the simplicity or parsimony you wish to attribute to the laws of thought existing merely because they must is nothing more than to say you haven’t got an answer, or at least you don’t want to give one.
Assuming them doesn’t account for them. It’s just a blind appeal to it’s just that way, which anyone can make.
To work, then, the TA needs to show that no such account is possible and that a God-based account is possible if and only if the God involved is the Christian God. In all this discussion there has been no serious argument for either. If there IS a TA why am I still waiting to see it ?
The point of this discussion is to account for them, not just assume their existence. We both believe they exist and necessarily so. I’ve explained in detail how the Christian world-view can account for their existence, why they exist, where they come from, and how they apply to creation. You don’t believe this to be the case, but apart from disagreeing, you haven’t shown there to be any internal inconsistency in holding this, the Christian world-view.
So what are laws of logic and how do they fit into your world-view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2004 3:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2004 4:28 AM Transcendasaurus has replied
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 02-23-2004 6:04 PM Transcendasaurus has not replied

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


Message 162 of 171 (88076)
02-23-2004 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Transcendasaurus
02-23-2004 3:08 AM


Re: Accounting
On reading your reply I strongly suggest that you go back and THINK about the issues. As it is you seem to be repeating doctrines without any consideration of how yout argument fits together.
In fact the best response you could make - if you are serious is to go back to my "Accounting" post, read it properly and focus your post on actually producing an account instead of trying to raise objections to my argument.
quote:
Well the first problem seems to be that you fail to understand the concept of "necessity" as I am using it. Which also means that whatever idea of necessity you are putting forward fails to deal with the problem I raised. The whole concept of "imposing" logic is incoherent since you cannot assume logic when applying it. That is why the view that logic is necessarily true is to be preferred.
You still seem to be stuck on this even though I thought I addressed it in my last post (see below for the quote). God is not contingent on laws. When I spoke of imposing it was in the context of creation, not tied to nor contingent on it. If God had not created the world, laws of thought would still exist in the person of God Himself. God did not create laws of reason, and as I stated in my previous post, they emanate from Him. You cannot separate reason from God; they do not exist independently of each other on the Christian world-view.
I note that this does not address my point in the slightest. It does not even touch on the concept that the laws of logic may be imposed - which was your assertion. Instead it goes off on a tangent which is not based on what I said at all. You still need to either address the point or withdraw that idea that the laws of logic may be imposed.
I also note that claiming that the laws of logic are an inseperable part of God is not an explanation. As you say "The point of this discussion is to account for them, not just assume their existence".
You still don’t understand what the TA involves. I tried telling you that it is a world-view comparison, but you insisted on labeling it as a bunch of assertions, which really isn’t the nature of what is going on.
That is EXACTLY what is going on. No real comparison has been done - all we see are assertions about the result. Yet to know the result without making the comparisons you would need a REAL TA - but where is it ?
The TA, once again, is aimed at justifying how (in this case) the laws of reason are possible in one’s world-view. I’m telling you how the Christian world-view can account for laws of reason which is what you insisted I do. The Christian can account for laws of reason because they (universal, invariant, abstract entities — in the Christian world-view) are not foreign to the Christian conception of reality. We have God the creator, and the immaterial aspects of Creation such as the human soul, laws of reason, spirits and various other immaterial aspects to our view ofreality. Because we believe in such immaterial aspects to the world, there is no internal inconsistency in saying there are such things as laws in the sense of invariant abstract entities, because they depict the same elementary attributes of invariance, abstractness and universality of at least God who we affirm. Saying that laws of reason are such is nothing strange or out of place in the Christian world-view. Obviously different schools of thought, or world-views, have differing opinions on the nature of reason and how reason is possible, and will have to at least account for it on their (and your) world-view.
Of course this argument fails - and fails badly. Firstly it contradicts the assertion of the TA that ONLY the Christian worldview CAN account for the laws of reason - if simply beleiving in anything with the listed properties is enough then the TA must be false. Secondly as I have pointed out the listed properties can represent VERY different things in the nature of God (where you use "abstract" to refer to a concrete entity composed of a non-material substance) whereas the laws of logic are genuine abstract entities which are not composed of any substance. Nor do you explain why simply beleiving in something similar shows that you can produce an account (because, of course it does not - if it DID you could simply assume two such entities and use each as an argument that you could account for the other !). Nor do you even offer any explanation of why you chose the listed properties or why they are so vague as to include such different entities.
In short this is not an account nor even a reasonable argument that you do have an account.
I’m not arguing for the Christian nominalist world-view, which I happen to think is unbiblical. I don’t doubt they hold such views of reality, but I think that if you inspected such views carefully, you would find they deny the very foundations of that which is necessary to affirm their views. For instance, the definition of nominalism as defined by Mr. Webster is The doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names. If the nominalist world-view were true, then there would be no reason on that view to expect that anyone outside of their own particular mind/brain viewed those names the same particular way since there is no universality (common objective ground) by which to come to some common conclusion. Ridding oneself of abstract universals boils down to subjectivism.
That is a very simplistic analysis, and one that does not go into the real depths of philosophy. It simply shows - yet again - that you are prepared to prejudge the results of your "comparisons" instead of doing the necessary work.
The Transcendental Argument does exist, whether or not you agree with that methodology for examining claims. People use it all the time, and just dismissing an argument as not existing is just plain absurd.
But neither you nor any of the Presuppositionalists I have encountered have been able to produce a REAL TA. You go on about "comparisons" - but they haven't been done and they require YOU to produce an account of logic which you have so far failed to do.
If there really WAS a TA you could and should have produced it in your first reply to me. But there isn't.
Everyone presupposes at base that everyone understands everyone else and adheres to the same laws of reason when formulating some conclusion about a claim. The TA breaks this assumption down into those fundamental elements and asks the question, if everyone can rely on the same laws of reason, then what must be true of those laws of reason? The TA claims that those laws of reason must by necessity be universal (which implies abstract), and invariant. If these laws of reason are in fact this way, then certain world-views that hold any position that say or imply that laws of reason are not invariant, universal and abstract are not justified world-views since they entail something that cannot exist on their own terms. The Christian world-view sees such laws this way, and because such entities are the foundational elements for that world view, the Christian world-view can at least account for laws of reason.
Of course "universal" does not imply "abstract" since space is "universal" yet not abstract. And as I have pointed out simply beleiving in vaguely similar entities is not an account nor an argument that you do have an account. So if there is a real TA this is certainly not it.
Account for whether logic works? Wow this is getting pretty weird. To doubt that logic works seems to be kind of an absurd stance to take. I would say that denying that logic works would result in incoherence. If you want to support this position, I would really be interested to see what an argument that doesn’t use laws of logic looks like
I guess that you ddn't read my post fully before writing this. You didn't even manage to fully understand the quote - my point was simply that applicability is the question - not "existence". I also made it clear that by taking the view that the laws of logic are necessary truths I do not need to deal with a situation where they do not apply. It is you that assumes otherwise and therefore needs to be able to deal with that "possiblity". And sicne you have never seen such an argument it is clear that you have never seen an adequate account of logic which does not assume that the truths of logic are necessary truths, which refutes the TA.
Assuming that logic is a precondition of intelligibility is a pragmatic appeal? You’re going to having to explain what you mean by this Paul, because you go on to say that necessity offers a clearly better answer which I think is what I said, no? How are you taking me to say that I’m setting aside logic? You need to read a little more carefully, because I’m saying that logic is a necessary precondition. You can’t set it aside or decide whether you wish to accept it as true because it makes thing easier if it is said to be necessary for reason.
Yes, while we would like to beleive that we live in an intelligible universe we have no basis for assuming otherwise unless we accept that the laws of logic do apply. Yet if the laws of logic are not necessarily true we need an assurance that that is the case before we come to any such conclusion. Therefore your appeal to intelligibility must be purely pragmatic - the alternative is undesirable, not shown to be false.
As I have shown an argument that assumes that the truths of logic are not necessarily true must at some point set aside logic to offer an account of logic. Your insistance that you will not do so implies that you have no such account - which establishes my point that assuming that the truths of logic are necessary truths is the superior alternative. And my point that the TA does not exist since it must include such an argument in its account of logic.
I don’t think you’re using the term pragmatic in the common sense. I certainly don’t take the existence of God to be a matter of practicality.
And yet I am making precisely the claim that that is what your ARGUMENT amounts to. It certainly does not explain WHY God exists.
It’s much more severe a claim: it’s that without God, there could be no experience as the very source of laws of reason would not exist which means incoherence. That’s not a pragmatic appeal, but an appeal to a logical necessity the impossibility of the contrary.
Yet it is not a logical necessity. You cannot draw any conclusions about a state where logic does not apply - THAT would be incoherent. Yet your argument demands precisely that.
And I note that your CLAIM has yet to be substantiated and even if it had been it would at best be an argument that God DOES exist, even without the problems I have noted. It is certainly NOT an account, which must explain WHY God exists.
Well, I can see that it is not satisfactory to you because you don’t want to attribute its origin to a diety that you don’t believe exists. Whether or not you agree with my justification for the laws of logic as I defined them is irrelevant to whether or not the claim is justified. To demonstrate that the position is not justified, you would need to show how the steps involved in the justification lead to subjectivism, incoherence or skepticism.
No, I just have to how that your justification fails. And I have done so. Of course by assuming that the truths of logic are not necessary truths your argument does lead to skepticism since you can never be sure that they do apply. And you have to assume that since if you assume otherwise then you must accept that the truths of logic would still be true even if God did not exist - refuting the TA.
quote:
The second serious problem is that logic must apply to every entity involved in the account. This is where the concept that logic is imposed falls down. If logic must be imposed, it follows that prior to that imposition logic does not apply the entity it is to be imposed on. But in that case we cannot conclude that any attempt to impose logic on it will work - even if a failure is a logical impossibility. In short such a view starts by assuming incoherency - and even assuming that incoherency is the "natural" state of affairs, and once that assumption is made there is no escape from it.
Moot point since I expressly stated in my post what I meant by imposed. I didn’t mean it to imply that God is contingent on laws. Read it again.
I suggest you read my point again. You claimed that God imposed logic on the universe. And that is what I am responding to. It is not at all a moot point.
quote:
A God-based account could avoid that trap by asserting that God created the universe so that logic would apply - by assuming no state that can be considered prior the trap is evaded. However such an account must still explain why logic applies to God, and that is the real difficulty.
So that logic would apply? NO! Read it again. Logic emanates from God. You’re restating your imposed argument which I don’t hold. Logic doesn’t apply TO God. Logic emanates from God; as His creation, we are made in His image that think God’s thoughts after Him on a less comprehensive scale. We think like God because we were Created in God’s image is the Christian claim.
I am certainly NOT reiterating the problems of "imposing" logic since I explicily said that I offered an alternative that got around that problem - and then showed the problem that THAT alternative still had to deal with.
And you really must try to understand what you are saying - when you say "Logic doesn’t apply TO God" you are saying that "God" is incoherent. Is that REALLY what you want to say ?
The existence of laws of thought aren’t in question, but rather how they can exist given what you believe to be true about the world. Assuming a disconnected invariant abstract entity is simpler than assuming one that is connected to a God only because there is one less entity involved. That simpler assumption however fails to give meaning, origin and context! So the simplicity or parsimony you wish to attribute to the laws of thought existing merely because they must is nothing more than to say you haven’t got an answer, or at least you don’t want to give one.
Nonsense. You need to explain what "meaning, origin and context" there would need to be. And to start with you would need to explain how a necessary truth CAN have an "origin". You would also have to explain why we would want to answer those points with mere assumptions.
Assuming them doesn’t account for them. It’s just a blind appeal to it’s just that way, which anyone can make.
Indeed so now you need to provide more rather than just building additional assumptions around the original assumption.
The point of this discussion is to account for them, not just assume their existence. We both believe they exist and necessarily so.
But you DON'T beleive that they necessarily exist. Not in the relevant sense - as I have pointed out. And if you did your worldview would be incoherent since it demands that the truths of logic are NOT necessarily true.
I’ve explained in detail how the Christian world-view can account for their existence, why they exist, where they come from, and how they apply to creation. You don’t believe this to be the case, but apart from disagreeing, you haven’t shown there to be any internal inconsistency in holding this, the Christian world-view.
Even if your view as presented was internally consistent that wouldn't make it an account. And you have NOT explained why logic applies - assuming that something is part of God is still just assuming that it exists. You need to explain WHY God has that part. Until you do that you don't have a "why". All you have are assumptions.
As I have stated my account will wait until you either provide an account of your own or admit tha you cannot. So far neither has occurred.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-23-2004]
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-23-2004 3:08 AM Transcendasaurus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Transcendasaurus, posted 03-01-2004 3:07 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 163 of 171 (88204)
02-23-2004 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Transcendasaurus
02-23-2004 3:08 AM


Whi I say that there is no TA
Firstly the usual presentation of the "Argument" is just to cite the conclusion. That is the CLAIM that the ONLY worldview that can account for the tree items listed is the "Christian" worldview.
That is assertion, not argument.
Then you tell me that the argument rests on "comparisons". But comparisons absolutely cannot show that the Presuppositionalist worldview CAN accoutn for any of the items listed. Nor would they be able to show that no other worldview could do so. But worse than that there has not even been a serious attempt to do such comparisons.
So all we have is assertions about what the comparisons would show.
So there is no such argument.
If you want to disagree then PRODUCE THE ARGUMENT
Don't fob me off with "comparisons" that haven't been done.
Don't insist that it's "obvious" that there is such an argument when you can't produce one
Don't insist that you can "account" for logic just because you beleive in something vaguely similar.
Don't insist that you have produced an account of logic when you contradict yourself even on the point on whether the tuths of logic are necessary or contingent truths.
Produce a real account of logic and a real argument that supports the claim that no other worldview can produce such an account.
Or admit that I was right, and that there is no such argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-23-2004 3:08 AM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 171 (88941)
02-26-2004 9:36 PM


to: grace2u
Dear grace2u:
I would agree with you that atheism is irrational. Often professed atheist claim they want evidence yet they often are unwilling to really listen to evidence and become angry when it is presented.
I once heard that when truth and error compete on a fair playing field that truth will always prevail. I have noticed, however, that often truth is attempted to be suppressed. One just has to look at history and see that in the early days of Christianity, the reformation, and even recent history the Bible has been burned and banned. Sadly, when those who do not want to be faced with truth will take suppressive measures to extinguish the truth rather than ultimately face it. I believe, however, that ultimately you can run away from the truth but ultimately it has to be faced. Of course, many would like to take the easy way out and take measures that are ultimately self defeating. In the long run, however, the easy way is the hard way and the hard way is the easy way.
I have learned, however, not to listen to men's excuses in regards to their responses to the truth but to watch their actions. JP Morgan wisely said, "A man always has two reasons for doing anything--a good reason and the real reason."
So this brings us to the question on how atheism has been promulgated in history or communities where it has power. I think you will invariably find suppression. I have certainly find this to be the case in my own personal obversations. I have also found it to be the case in my study of history. The commmunist, for example, where they have adopted atheism which often seems to be the case, make no delay in shutting down churches and using other tactics that are less obvious. It seems as if the professed atheist know they cannot win on logical grounds and thus use other means. Of course, religionist often do the same. Yet, I have found in history no materialist martyrs. I have also found that genuine Christians are open to discussion that is conducted in a reasonable manner. I realize that debate can sometimes get heated and satire is used. But it just seems that the professed atheist cannot handle this. Often the proudest cannot stand to deal with satire although they are not adverse to using it.
I guess I am from Missouri. Please, if you are a professed atheist, do not tell me you are not adverse to real debate but show me with your actions. I cannot say I have seen this as to date. I have just seen the opposite. I believe that a true willingness to debate and reflect on what is being debated reflects true moral courage. I also feel a lack of willingness is a sign of cowardice. I also realize that many among us, even the most bravest among us, may have acted in a cowardly way at some point in their life. This is the human condition. I would hope though that a change of heart would be seen as an act of true courage if any of those among us have acted in a less than courageous way in regards to showing a true willingness to debate. I would ask that this courage be demonstrated through their actions and they would consider change the results of any actions they may have taken so that true debate can occur.
I realize that some may wish to debate me on this but I would like to see some action and a gesture of good faith in this regard. I cannot say that anything less will do. Words will just not suffice and a change in action is necessary. If those among us who have used suppressive measures wish to look back on their actions and make changes in regards to those actions it would be a step in the right direction. So if you feel this message applies to you and you are willing and able to reverse an action that you made so true debate can continue I do think it would be the right thing to do. I would also ask those who agree with me, whether they be professed atheist or Christians to encourage those who they see acting in a obstructionist manner in regards to debate to ask those particular individuals to act in a more noble way and reverse any action they may have taken to impede true debate so true debate may occur or continue. I also realize that those individuals who are obstructionist may not listen to those who ask them to change at first. Yet history shows us that persistence can and often does change those who act in a obstructionist manner by asking them not merely to give mental assent to the idea of true debate but to show it through their actions. I will certainly encourage you in this regard because it simply should not be tolerated in any place that it is occuring.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-26-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 02-26-2004 10:54 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 165 of 171 (88953)
02-26-2004 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by kendemyer
02-26-2004 9:36 PM


Re: to: grace2u
quote:
So this brings us to the question on how atheism has been promulgated in history or communities where it has power. I think you will invariably find suppression.
Oh, yeah, and the suppression of differing views was never undertaken by Christains or other dominant religious groups. The forced conversions of native peoples by Christian missionaries all over the world? Never happened, right?
quote:
and even recent history the Bible has been burned and banned.
Can you give some examples of Bible burnings or bannings? I could only find one report of the Bible being banned in Malaysia, but no reports of burnings. Certainly, nothing in the US.
By contrast, there have been many, many Christian-led book bannings and some book burnings (Harry Potter books were burned) in just the US diring just the last couple of decades. In fact, several of the most commonly banned books were those that I was required to study in high school.
quote:
Yet, I have found in history no materialist martyrs.
Um, isn't that an oxymoron?
A materialist, by definition, would have a greater stake in staying alive than a religious martyr, as the materialist does not believe that by sacrificing themselves that they will get a great reward in the afterlife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by kendemyer, posted 02-26-2004 9:36 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024