The Presuppositionalist Challenge

[J_Lazarus]

The Transcendental Argument For The Existence of God caught Gordon Stein entirely off-guard in the "Great Debate", and because of that there is a general agreement that Bahnsen pretty much kicked his ass.

Indeed, atheists in general are unaware of what it is. A friend of mine, Greves, remarked: "I dunno, man, it sort of sneaks up on you...and when it does, it bites you in the balls and just won't let go".

I always notice with a bit of amusement that the argument itself is usually never formalized or presented directly in more than a simple vague paragraph. In Jones' essay, his conclusion *was* his positive argument (basically), and it was little more then a few sentences. The entirety of TAG rests on criticizing the atheistic worldview in the traditional theistic sense - the usual way the fundie or average god-believer perceives a reality devoid of a "God" (whatever that means ;) ).

TAG is a modern, popular argument that states that all non-Christians must necessarily presuppose the Christian worldview in order to posit knowledge claims. It is believed by TAG-advocates (Bahnsen, Jones, Van Til, etc.) that the atheist has no justification in his use of logic, morality, or science, and therefore is simply using "borrowed capital" from the Christian system to uphold any of his or her knowledge claims. Only the Christian epistemological system works out, not resting on the "futile epistemological autonomy of finite man" <-(Jones), like the atheist or non-believer falls prey to. The Christian recognizes that God can identify and understand reality, and therefore the believer trusts in His revelation to them, thus justifying approved methods and systems such as logic, morality, and science.

Presupposing the argument's validity, all attempts at criticizing or defeating the Christian viewpoint become self-refuting, because you must necessarily presuppose or borrow from that worldview in order to defeat it (the fallacy of the stolen-concept). Refutations of the Cosmological, Teleological, or Ontological arguments in an attempt to justify an atheistic position are futile because you have already admitted the validity of the Christian position upon your initial use of logic to disprove such arguments.

Bahnsen informed Stein that he had two failing options: 1) That Stein could simply stay silent about logic, or reject it (a position that falls into incoherence); or 2) Could try to justify logic because it is a logical thing to do, which is simply circular reasoning. Either way, Stein's atheistic position was screwed. In order to justify his employment of logical thought (so say presuppositionalists) he need have admitted the validity of Christianity.

TAGers do not say that atheists cannot or do not use logic, as some confuse this idea with the actual point of the argument. TAGers do submit that atheists use logic, use science, and can be moral individuals - but that we have no basis or justification for doing so - the atheist unwittingly concedes Christianity upon the use of such things, for only Christianity has the justification in God-belief.

As for why this argument can only apply to Christianity, don't ask. An extensive presentation of the TAG has really yet to be adequately provided (as noted). Jones gave a hint of an argument in his dialogue with his two opponents, but failed to really provide any in-depth justification.

Atheistic apologists have also dubbed TAG the "Argument From Desperation".


So, question: What do you make of this argument?


- JL

[Razorofoccam]

J_Lazarus

The arguement is another perspective that supports the position that humanity
cannot even define what a god is.
Let alone if it 'exists' as a direction, as occam proposes, or a god almighty, as religion does.

There are no end of logical arguements.
But a logical arguement is not a FACT.
Untill it can be shown to be so to any who wish to know.
If we ignor the tunnelling of perception into datastream.
That is..If reality is what our senses input.
Then we can verify according to the laws of reality. [as we define them trough math/physics.] For they are the only standards we have..
If we reject logic/reason... then this arguement is moot.
And occams words mean nothing.

Relativity can be 'shown' to be accurate.[to reality]
As can a thousand other concepts.
To ANY who wish to understand.
[and such as gravity, needs little instruction but for theory]

No human description of god has yet been verified to exist.
Let alone a specific god of religion of which there are many.

This doesn ot mean there is no god..
just that WE [not just you] hav'nt seen any verification yet.

So what?

We are little kids in a HUGE universe... We understand very little...
So far.

Occam

PS
" In order to justify his employment of logical thought (so say presuppositionalists) he need have admitted the validity of Christianity."

Yes. he would need to admit the validity of christianity as a religion that
proposses a god/heaven/hell/earth mythos that is not verifiable.
That christianity exists as a human structure. And no more.

How does the logical admisssion of such a structure, allow logically the factuallity of all its beliefs?

The trekkies exist..Does a real USS Enterprise?

Reason logic are a standard.
Based in our perception and group understanding of such.
If we dont use them.. If we say they are false.
Then switch the clock back fifty thousand years

And start again

For who can deny the reason and logic of reality.
To do so. Is to deny that which enables them to exist.
Reality is a structure.
Structures dont exist without laws.
We call those laws.......

[Jatom]

J_Lazarus, I believe it's false to say the argument can only be use in a Christian worldview. For the most part, it can be used in any theistic worldview, that is, any theistic worldview that contains an absolute being from which the absolute laws "flow". The strength of the argument lies in asking how the atheist can account for the absolute laws without there being an absolute law giver--either there must be an absolute law giver, or the laws themselves cannot be absolute. This same principle can be found in other theistic arguments. For example the argument from morality which states that absolute morals must come from an absolute being. The difference is, it's easy for an atheist to deny absolute morals, but it becomes VERY hard to deny absolute laws such as logic.

As far as the popularity of the argument among Christians, I believe (but am not sure) it's very similar to the ontological argument which some don't understand, others don't see point (such as Charles Hodge who concludes: "Theism therefore gains nothing from these metaphysical arguments) and still others who think it's flawed. ...but I personally like the argument.

[POPthree13]

The strength of the argument lies in asking how the atheist can account for the absolute laws without there being an absolute law giver--either there must be an absolute law giver, or the laws themselves cannot be absolute.
Atheists account for the absolute laws in the same way theist do.
#1 - An atheist may say the laws have always been there... that they are infinite and needed no creation. They are eternal and absolute.

Theists use the same argument... everything (except God conveniently) has a cause.
#2 - Therefore God created the absolute laws. He has always been there.. he is infinite and needed no creation. He is eternal and absolute.

Why, do you suppose, theist feel explanation #2 holds ANY more weight than explanation #1?

[Jatom]

Atheists account for the absolute laws in the same way theist do.
#1 - An atheist may say the laws have always been there... that they are infinite and needed no creation. They are eternal and absolute.

And by doing so the atheist is falling right into the presuppositionalist trap, because the atheist has no way to account for these absolute laws. Just our own finite ideas come from a finite mind, absolute and eternal ideas must come from an absolute and eternal mind. However, there is no absolute and eternal being in a atheistic worldview, therefore logically there can be no absolute and eternal laws all laws must then either necessary be relative, or the atheist must admit there is an absolute, eternal being. <--this is how a presuppositionalist would argue.

Theists use the same argument... everything (except God conveniently) has a cause.
#2 - Therefore God created the absolute laws. He has always been there.. he is infinite and needed no creation. He is eternal and absolute.


I see your confusion about the cosmological argument. Going through a regression of causes, one would logically arrive at a first cause. The theist says this first cause is God because the universe itself cannot be eternal i.e. it shows signs of finitude both scientifically and philosophically; therefore the regression would then logically need to continue past the universe until it reaches a first cause. The atheist on the other hand says that the universe is the first cause, or the uncaused cause of everything and no further regression is necessary. The idea of a first cause is a logically one, not one of convenience.

[POPthree13]

Just our own finite ideas come from a finite mind, absolute and eternal ideas must come from an absolute and eternal mind.
Who says? We ARE the ones who have come up with these absolute and eternal ideas, but this does not mean OUR minds are absolute and eternal. I see absolutely no connection between an absolute and eternal being and an absolute and eternal law. Seems homocentric to suggest that for something to exist there MUST be some sentient creature to account for it. Pi is a know infinite number... it is a function of mathmatics. Why do you suppose that this number needs a 'creator' who is infinite?

I see your confusion about the cosmological argument. Going through a regression of causes, one would logically arrive at a first cause. The theist says this first cause is God because the universe itself cannot be eternal i.e. it shows signs of finitude both scientifically and philosophically; therefore the regression would then logically need to continue past the universe until it reaches a first cause. The atheist on the other hand says that the universe is the first cause, or the uncaused cause of everything and no further regression is necessary. The idea of a first cause is a logically one, not one of convenience.
The idea of a first cause is logical and convenient, but NOT necessary. Humans assume everything must have a beginning and an end and this is the only reason some assume there is a first cause. Anything that is infinite has no need to start or end and therefore no need for a cause.

Arguing whether the universe is the the first cause or god is is symantics and there is no evidence either way in this particular vein of argument. Anything that we perceive will show signs of finitude becasue we are finite creatures with finite senses with finite experience. We can 'imagine' an infinite God no easier than we can 'imagine' and infinite universe.

Lets just assume the the universe is finite. We does this god live? Outside of the universe? Then the definition of the universe is not accurate because truthfully, the universe as it is imagined contains all. If he lives withint he universe then:
a) the universe is indeed infinite or...
b) god is finite.

The universe is not just what we see or can imagine.. the universe is the whole of everything... god included.

[Jatom]

Who says? We ARE the ones who have come up with these absolute and eternal ideas, but this does not mean OUR minds are absolute and eternal.

Pop, do you see the problem here? How can a finite mind "come up" with an absolute, infinite idea? This is a contradiction, "coming up" with an idea implies that it had a beginning, and by this very definition, it cannot be infinite or absolute. How does one create something infinite? No one came up with the idea that 1+1 equals 2, rather it was discovered. It's absolute meaning it applies to all at all times. If you find quarrel with this, try telling a math teacher that 1+1 really equals 3, then watch his reaction.

Arguing whether the universe is the the first cause or god is is symantics and there is no evidence either way in this particular vein of argument.

I happen to disagree with you there's plenty of evidence.

Lets just assume the the universe is finite. We does this god live? Outside of the universe?

Sure, so long as your not understanding "outside" to be in any physical, or temporal sense (which you appear to be doing).

Then the definition of the universe is not accurate because truthfully, the universe as it is imagined contains all.

This is your presupposition, not mine. If you want to modify the definition of "universe" to accommodate a spiritual realm, that's entirely up to you. :)

[POPthree13]

I didn't say we invented the infinite I said we came up with it... call it discovered if you will... it means the same thing. Pi has existed forever... it's just a function of a circle we do not need an infinite mind to 'discover' the infinite number Pi. You misread my words coming up with an 'idea' not creating the thing. I understand you 1+1=3 example, but 2 is a wholly invented concept which works in our wholly invented mathmatical system. Perhaps on some other planet the character 3 represents the sum of 1+1 in which case this becomes true. Our truths apply only to our system of thought and measurement. A mathematics teacher may argue with the statement that 1+1 = 3 but a philosophy teacher may very well see through the veil.

There is 0 evidence for God. Plenty of suggestion.. I for one beleive a God entity exists, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. Proove me wrong, please.

I mean 'outside' in any sense that you (or I) can imagine it. Spiritual aspects of reality still play by physical rules or...
1) the idea of a soul inhabiting a physical body is nonesense.
2) the idea of a spiritual being interacting in a physicla world is nonesense.

So assuming God lives in the universe (again):
A) God is finite or...
b) the universe is infinite.

It's not my assertion that the universe contains all... it is the definition. Even when you talk with scientists who beleive the big bang is but one of trillions of such events taking place simultaneously it is still encompassed by the definition 'universe'.

Universe (taken from dictionaries):
1) everything that exists anywhere
2) All that is
3) the whole body of things and phenomena observed that exists
4) the entirety of all matter and energy
5) Everything that we know exists and all that will be found in the future make up the Universe
6) The totality of all matter and radiation and the space occupied by same
7) the contents of the Universe, and the empty spaces in the Universe
8) all existing things, including the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and everything therein regarded as a whole

My presupposition? Hardly...

[Razorofoccam]

Jatom

You argue the theist/atheist cause well
[That is... you argue with a logic that seems logical..but is not.]


"The difference is, it's easy for an atheist to deny absolute morals, but it becomes VERY hard to deny absolute laws such as logic."

What have laws that reality exists by..to do with morals.?
Morals exist as NO THING in reality.
They are human definitions of human acts/positions.
SHOW occam a moral law enforced by other than human hands.

You cannot.


"absolute and eternal ideas must come from an absolute and eternal mind."
False.
The laws that govern reality are not 'absolute and eternal"
What fool told you they were?
Humans know of NO examples of absolute of eternal laws.
If you do... show one to occam.

"Pop, do you see the problem here? How can a finite mind "come up" with an absolute, infinite idea? This is a contradiction"

Exactly
So how do you come up the the idea of an absolute and eternal god.?
And absolute and eternal moral laws?

Maybe, a desire for such to exist?

Occam

[Jatom]

I think you making a error here occam. My argument was that there are absolute morals; the means by which these morals are enforced is completely irrelavent to the subject. And as far as examples of absolute laws how about the laws of logic?

[Razorofoccam]

I think you making a error here occam. My argument was that there are absolute morals; the means by which these morals are enforced is completely irrelavent to the subject. And as far as examples of absolute laws how about the laws of logic?
Jatom

You say
"My argument was that there are absolute morals"

Occam says,, by what evidence can you show occam, or anyone.
These 'absolute moral laws'
Show 'EXISTENT PHENOMENA'. That is..Things that HAPPEN according to these absolute moral laws.

Things that happen due to such laws would be the enforcement of such laws.
No?
Thus
"the means by which these morals are enforced is completely irrelavent to the subject."
Is true as far as the means go. But There is no existent examples of such moral laws being enforced.
Where is an example of 'absolute moral law' being enforced ?
The question was the 'existence of any enforcement'. Not how such
'hypothetically existent laws' such as absolute morality are enforced.

Moral laws are enforced by humans..Because they are human laws.
You wish to call a human law an absolute.
Beacuse.....[somebody must be in control? Again ,,desire]

Why? [must our moral acts not be 'our choice'?]

Occam

Enforcement of objective law is how we know they exist.

[J_Lazarus]

Jatom represents presuppositionalism well, and I can see that a couple people here seem to be having a difficult time with it.

The truth about presuppositionalism in regards to logic is that the TAG-advocate provides a false dichotomy. Bahnsen has been quoted to say that either the atheist must recognize that he has no grounds for holding to the laws of logic or that the non-believer may say that he embraces logic on the grounds that it is the logical thing to do - which is, of course, circular reasoning.

This, however, ignores a third option and the actual reality of logical process - this being that logic is axiomatic. Logic is a self-justified method - to attempt an argument against it is to argue into incoherency and self-refutation. Consequently, the atheist is entirely justified in using logic - as it is a method which is self-evident and justifies itself.

Michael Martin is also famous for his positing of TANG - the "Transcendental Argument For The Non-Existence of God". This argument places the burden of proof back onto the theist by revealing the theistic worldview as antithetical to necessary features of our human understanding.

For instance, logic as a method is considered necessary (this is a point that presuppositionalism also rests on). It simply cannot be that I am James and not James simultaneously, or that New Zealand may be south and not south of China - such things are entirely incoherent. However, theism claims that God is the creator of the universe and thus all things are contingent upon Him, including logic. Thus, God could make it so that A is ~A - (that I am James and not James). But, as said, such a thing is incoherent - and logic as being contingent goes against its necessary nature. Thus it is theism that fails when accounting for logic, not atheism.

John Frame and other presuppositionalists have attempted refutations of TANG, only to bring about the defeat of their own argument. Logic, they say, is an integral part of God's thought processes, and thus He cannot act against them - securing the necessity of logic. This, however, does away with God as being a foundation for logic, as God Himself becomes contingent upon logical process himself, thus defeating TAG.

The same goes with morality as with logic. Objective morality requires that its establishment is necessary and is not contingent upon any one being's desires, whims, etc. However, the Divine Command Theory posits moral law as contingent upon God. This would make it so that God could make rape suddenly morally permissible tomorrow, and charity a morally condemnable action next week. This also goes against the necessary nature of an objective moral system - pushing relativism one step back from man to God - as TAG does in general.

Apologists may object that God would never make rape good because God is good - but this presupposes the existence of an autonomously existing moral standard seperate from God that He himself may be compared to, thus defeating God as a valid foundation for an objective moral system.

There is also the Euthyphro Dilemma which must be answered to - asking the question of: "Is good holy because it is loved by God, or does God love good because it is holy?"

Inspired by Plato's, "Euthyphro's Circle", the evolved argument itself shows the necessity of the existence of an autonomously existing, objective moral standard. If the theist answers that good is holy because it is loved by God - they must answer why then does God love it. If they answer, "because it is good" or that "it is holy" then they are arguing circularly. One may say that He loves it because it is part of his plan - but then we may posit an inquiry as to whether or not His plan is good, revealing such a plan as faulty as a foundation and subject to good itself. Eventually a disgruntled admittance to the latter option of good existing independently from God and simply being recognized by Him, not decided by Him, occurs and becomes necessary.

TANG is by no means the only refutation of TAG. One may go by route of showing the statement "God exists and is the foundation for knowledge" as being reducible to numerous axiomatic concepts (existence, identity, consciousness). One may also note the confusing of an "explanation" vs. an "actual truth" in the TAG, as presuppositionalists regard this argument as a proof of God.

Finally, one may go by way of non-cognitivism (both definition-based and hypothesis-based arguments) to show "God" as a term itself or as a hypothesis as fundamentally meaningless.

TAG itself is based on numerous ignorant statements about human understanding, committing multiple fallacies in their various arguments such as the fallacy of composition, genetic fallacy, and others.

When all is said and done, the atheist is more then justified in regarding TAG as from its secular nickname, i.e. the "Argument From Desperation". With theistic arguments falling all around them, presuppositionalists have made a final desperate attempt to catch the atheist off guard, and once you've educated yourself on the nature of TAG, it can be seen as easily refuted.

- JL

[Jatom]

Thanks for your insights. He's a short response. The one error I see prevalent in TANG is the that it creates and thrives off a false dilemma. Either Logic is above God and He adheres to It, or Logic is below God and He 'could' have, for example, arbitrarily, decreed the law of Non-contradiction false (in which it would have be true). But TANG seems unable to grasp the true concept of the Christian God spoken by St. Augustine, and finds its root in Platonism. That Logic is neither above nor below God, but an intrinsic part of His divine nature. God did not create logic just like He did not created Himself, yet if God did not exist neither would logic, as logic merely exist as part of His nature.

But let me further examine what you say:

Logic, they say, is an integral part of God's thought processes, and thus He cannot act against them - securing the necessity of logic. This, however, does away with God as being a foundation for logic, as God Himself becomes contingent upon logical process himself, thus defeating TAG.

In light of my position, I equate this to affirming that God adheres to His own nature, which sounds a bit ridicules because what other options are there? That He is consistent with His own nature in no way presupposes an autonomous source for the foundation of His nature. God simply is, and if He is eternal, He always was. And in this sense presupposing an autonomous source is similar to asking what caused the first cause--it's simply being logically inconsistent.

[J_Lazarus]

Jatom said:

Thanks for your insights. He's a short response. The one error I see prevalent in TANG is the that it creates and thrives off a false dilemma. Either Logic is above God and He adheres to It, or Logic is below God and He 'could' have, for example, arbitrarily, decreed the law of Non-contradiction false (in which it would have be true). But TANG seems unable to grasp the true concept of the Christian God spoken by St. Augustine, and finds its root in Platonism. That Logic is neither above nor below God, but an intrinsic part of His divine nature. God did not create logic just like He did not create Himself, yet if God did not exist neither would logic, as logic merely exist as part of His nature.



and


In light of my position, I equate this to affirming that God adheres to His own nature, which sounds a bit ridiculous because what other options are there? That He is consistent with His own nature in no way presupposes an autonomous source for the foundation of His nature. God simply is, and if He is eternal, He always was. And in this sense presupposing an autonomous source is similar to asking what caused the first cause--it's simply being logically inconsistent.
My primary problem with your argument is that it rests on this assertion:


...If God did not exist neither would logic, as logic merely exist as part of His nature.

This assertion is antithetical to the basic nature of logic. Logic is necessary by way of its axioms. Existence is the way it is. By positing logic as non-existant by God's non-existence you would deny its remaining necessity in reality - something that TAG indeed tries to do, but as said, only because of a disregard of the method's axiomatic nature (The presuppositionalist's very claim is, of course, that God's existence is necessary due to the non-justification of logical process from a secular worldview - but as explained they only hold to this by way of pointing to their false dichotomy [secular non-justification by silence or circular reasoning]).

You can of course argue that existence is only possible because of God - but that is the Cosmological Argument, not the TAG, so that is a matter of another debate, and is fundamentally irrelevant to my above point either way.

Further, by positing logic as non-existant except as an integral part of God's nature, you supernaturalize the process itself. This is unjustified - you'll have to further explain and hold up this position, less it stand as simply a naked assertion, and nothing more.

Thanks for you response, Jatom. Good talking again.

- JL

[Jatom]

This, however, ignores a third option and the actual reality of logical process - this being that logic is axiomatic. Logic is a self-justified method - to attempt an argument against it is to argue into incoherency and self-refutation. Consequently, the atheist is entirely justified in using logic - as it is a method which is self-evident and justifies itself.

Remember, the idea behind TAG is that the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic, NOT that the he or she is not justified in using logic, after all, as you yourself affirm, logic is a self-evident truth--to argue in opposition to it "is to argue into incoherency and self-refutation." The question is not "can the atheist account for his use of logic," rather "can he or she account for logic." That logic is self-evident is not a rational account of such. How can these conceptual laws exist in a purely material world?

This assertion is antithetical to the basic nature of logic. Logic is necessary by way of its axioms. Existence is the way it is. By positing logic as non-existant by God's non-existence you would deny its remaining necessity in reality

Logic exist intrinsically in God’s nature. Logic is necessary, therefore it follows that God is necessary--logic presupposes God, and God presupposes Logic. My position is only antithetical to the nature of logic when one poses a dictonmy between God and logic. But God cannot be separated from logic and logic cannot be separated from God. It cannot be said that God is above logic, because He did not created it. It cannot be said that God is below logic because if God did not exist, neither would logic.

(The presuppositionalist's very claim is, of course, that God's existence is necessary due to the non-justification of logical process from a secular worldview - but as explained they only hold to this by way of pointing to their false dichotomy [secular non-justification by silence or circular reasoning])

This actually is not true. Perhaps some make that error (at least an error in my view), but the belief in the necessity of God is something that is pre-Van Tillian et al.--I mean need I bring the dreaded ontological argument? :)

Further, by positing logic as non-existant except as an integral part of God's nature, you supernaturalize the process itself. This is unjustified - you'll have to further explain and hold up this position, less it stand as simply a naked assertion, and nothing more.


I find this interesting considering that:

Logic is conceptual by nature--it can neither be seen, heard, weighed, etc. Surely logic cannot be reduced to matter?
If logic is a property of matter it then follows that it would be contingent upon such, and thus, it seems to me that this would defect your whole argument.
If logic is confined to this material world, than it seems to me that you cannot argue one way or the other about the supernatural, because logic would not exist within that realm. Thus, logical, you can say nothing about the God of my system without first presuming that logic is transcendent by nature--again, defeating your own position.
So, how do you account for logic?

Thanks for your thought out responses J Lazarus, and sorry for my delay. I look forward to talking to you again

[Brocktoon]

Occam,


Whatever reply you choose is fine with me but I would greatly appreciate it if it did not include some statement using the words.

.. May be.. but does not therefore.. REALITY.

If you could even make it without using 'REALITY' in all-caps that would be fine too.

Thanks,
Brocktoon

[J_Lazarus]

Remember, the idea behind TAG is that the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic, NOT that the he or she is not justified in using logic, after all, as you yourself affirm, logic is a self-evident truth--to argue in opposition to it "is to argue into incoherency and self-refutation." The question is not "can the atheist account for his use of logic," rather "can he or she account for logic." That logic is self-evident is not a rational account of such. How can these conceptual laws exist in a purely material world?
You are quite right about TAG saying this. However – I did very briefly explain why this is. “Existence is the way it is” – basically, that existence is – and to exist, is to exist as something (identity and existence). Logic justified. Once again, a theist could introduce the Cosmo Argument, but that is not the TAG.



Logic exists intrinsically in God’s nature. Logic is necessary, therefore it follows that God is necessary--logic presupposes God, and God presupposes Logic. My position is only antithetical to the nature of logic when one poses a dichotomy between God and logic. But God cannot be separated from logic and logic cannot be separated from God. It cannot be said that God is above logic, because He did not created it. It cannot be said that God is below logic because if God did not exist, neither would logic.
Apologies, Jatom, but this is simply a re-assertion of your original statement. How is it that logic cannot exist without God – and how is it that it can be said that logic is an intrinsic part of God’s nature? I say this is antithetical to logical process because logic is axiomatic by way of how I put it above – and thus stating that “No God = No Logic” seems at odds with the necessity of the method itself concerning reality.



This actually is not true. Perhaps some make that error (at least an error in my view), but the belief in the necessity of God is something that is pre-Van Tillian et al.--I mean need I bring the dreaded ontological argument?
Lol – of course, you need not. I am not talking about theism as a whole – I’m talking specifically about presuppositionalism. Many presuppositionalists use this argument to prove God’s necessity.





I find this interesting considering that:



Logic is conceptual by nature--it can neither be seen, heard, weighed, etc. Surely logic cannot be reduced to matter?
If logic is a property of matter it then follows that it would be contingent upon such, and thus, it seems to me that this would defect your whole argument.
If logic is confined to this material world, than it seems to me that you cannot argue one way or the other about the supernatural, because logic would not exist within that realm. Thus, logically, you can say nothing about the God of my system without first presuming that logic is transcendent by nature--again, defeating your own position.




1) This is very much like the theistic argument concerning love. We know that “love” is what we call that when certain chemical reactions occur in the brain, thus stimulating certain feelings in the body, including sexual attraction, consequently bringing the person felt this emotion toward into significant or higher value for the individual experiencing this emotion.


Similarly, logic is descriptive of reality. It is not a thing in itself – but is simply necessary information contained in the brain about the nature of existence – the brain being a psychical construct.


2) Logic is contingent upon existence, but that goes without saying. Without existence, nothing is.


3) Agreed entirely except for the last parts. This only defeats the meaningfulness of your own claims about God and the supernatural, positing it beyond logic = P.




Looking forward to your reply




-JL

[Jatom]

You are quite right about TAG saying this. However - I did very briefly explain why this is. "Existence is the way it is" - basically, that existence is - and to exist, is to exist as something (identity and existence). Logic justified. Once again, a theist could introduce the Cosmo Argument, but that is not the TAG.

I still don’t think this is an adequate answer, however, for the sake of keeping the discussion narrow, I’ll leave this as is for now, and maybe we’ll return to it later (If you haven’t noticed, I prefer to keeps things very specific; when too many specifics are introduced I tend to get confused. Perhaps I’m not smart enough for a broad discussion ;) ).

Apologies, Jatom, but this is simply a re-assertion of your original statement. How is it that logic cannot exist without God - and how is it that it can be said that logic is an intrinsic part of God’s nature? I say this is antithetical to logical process because logic is axiomatic by way of how I put it above - and thus stating that "No God = No Logic" seems at odds with the necessity of the method itself concerning reality.

I have a feeling that the reason you have problems with this stance is because you have problem with: "Logic is necessary, therefore it follows that God is necessary--logic presupposes God, and God presupposes Logic." If logic exist intrinsically in God’s nature, and logic is necessary, then it follows that God is necessary. I see no problems with this. But certainly, if there are problems, I would like for you to point them out.

Lol - of course, you need not. I am not talking about theism as a whole - I’m talking specifically about presuppositionalism. Many presuppositionalists use this argument to prove God’s necessity.

Ah, my mistake.

1) This is very much like the theistic argument concerning love. We know that "love" is what we call that when certain chemical reactions occur in the brain, thus stimulating certain feelings in the body, including sexual attraction, consequently bringing the person felt this emotion toward into significant or higher value for the individual experiencing this emotion.


Similarly, logic is descriptive of reality. It is not a thing in itself - but is simply necessary information contained in the brain about the nature of existence - the brain being a psychical construct

Logic is not a physical "thing," it is conceptual, existing only in the mind. I can imagine myself with three arms, but my conception has no physical existence. Furthermore, my conception lacks any real validity. I may believe it to be true but others may believe it to be false. It’s not until logic is introduced that we can determine the truth-value my conception. This then leads me to believe that individual human-originated conceptions, in and of themselves, can neither be truth nor false, because no human conception has validity other the other, that is until an absolute standard is introduced. Therefore if logic is conceptual, it could not have originated in the human mind...

2) Logic is contingent upon existence, but that goes without saying. Without existence, nothing is.

Of course, how one interprets this depends on how he or she interprets "existence." In my position, existence includes God, and I therefore agree that "Without existence, nothing is." But what I was getting at is the relationship you pose between logic and the physical universe in comparison to the relationship I pose between logic and God - No physical universe=No logic verses No God=No Logic. You seem to be affirming the former, while denying the latter because "By positing logic as non-existant by God's non-existence you would deny its remaining necessity in reality." But why is this not applied to your own position? But I suppose it’s because you would deny the necessity of God’s existence, but as I noted above: "If logic exist intrinsically in God’s nature, and logic is necessary, then it follows that God is necessary."

3) Agreed entirely except for the last parts. This only defeats the meaningfulness of your own claims about God and the supernatural, positing it beyond logic = P.

But this defeats your position. If God exist, He exist outside the physical universe, and, by your reasoning, outside of logic. But the conclusion that God is therefore meaningless, is a conclusion made by logical process, therefore the conclusion can only be true if logic does apply to God. Take for example the sentence "I drew a square circle." The reason why we know the sentence is meaningless, is because logic applies to it. The law of contradiction tells us that a circle cannot both be round and at the sametime in the same sense have four sides. Thus, the conclusion cannot be reached if logic does not apply. I cannot, for example, conclude that the sentence is meaningless because it violates a law of logic, if there’s no logic for the sentence to even violate. In the same sense, there would be no laws for God to violate, thus one cannot conclude that He is meaningless. This means you must first presume logic is transcendental by nature, but in doing so you are going against your own position. In order for a logical argument against God to be true, one must first presume that logic applies to God, however, you cannot do this because you’ve already affirmed that logic does not apply to a supernatural realm, therefore you cannot logically maintain your strong atheism without first affirming logic’s transcendental nature--no logical argument can be given for God’s existence, and no logical argument can be given against God’s existence. Your only valid position, than, is of the camp of agnosticism which claims something like: "maybe God exist and maybe He doesn’t; man cannot know, because he cannot know anything that lies beyond natural phenomena" But the claim made about the supernatural in this position is epistemological in nature, not ontological, i.e, one cannot say the God does not exist, only that He is unknowable.

Let me put my argument in hypothetical form:

If Logic only exist in the physical realm, than logic does not exist in a supernatural realm

You affirm the antecedent, therefore the consequent must also true. This means that you can come to no logical conclusion about God without first denying the consequent. Any logical stance for/against God becomes a denial the consequent, and a denial of your position (namely, an affirmation of the antecedent). Hence, you’re contradicting yourself (or to use presuppositionalist terminology, you’re "cheating" = P )

[J_Lazarus]

I still don’t think this is adequate answer, however, for the sake of keeping the discussion narrow, I’ll leave this as is for now, and maybe we’ll return to it later (If you haven’t noticed, I prefer to keeps things very specific; when too many specifics are introduced I tend to get confused. Perhaps I’m not smart enough for a broad discussion ).

These are the very fundamentals we are discussing that make logic necessary. It’s the only thing one need presuppose when positing knowledge claims. As said, God is irrelevant unless you wish to bring in the Cosmo Arg.

I have a feeling that the reason you have problems with this stance is because you have problem with: "Logic is necessary, therefore it follows that God is necessary--logic presupposes God, and God presupposes Logic." If logic exist intrinsically in God’s nature, and logic is necessary, then it follows that God is necessary. I see no problems with this. But certainly, if there are problems, I would like for you to point them out.

Nahh. The reason why I’m still trying to get you to justify your assertion is that it hasn’t been justified yet. You’ve posited the idea that logic is this way – but how could you back this up? Of course if you could provide a more detailed justification as to how this works this way, I couldn’t have any valid problem with, “If logic exists intrinsically in God’s nature, and logic is necessary, then it follows that God is necessary”. But, as said, this has been asserted, not backed up. And it seems to go against the necessity of logic as I have explained it is above – that logic works off of existence as axiomatic, not as existed in some supernatural realm as God’s thought processes (indeed, even Bill Craig admits that process is an impossibility for God, being transcendent and omniscient – God cannot go through a process of thought, his thoughts must necessarily be ontologically singular as transcendent, and as all-knowing). Logic is a process by which we weed out contradictions from our thinking (as said). You apply various assertions through this process to see if it adds up. God cannot go through a process of thought, as a process necessitates temporality – and temporality doesn’t fit with God being “Creator”.

Logic is not a physical "thing," it is conceptual, existing only in the mind. I can imagine myself with three arms, but my conception has no physical existence. Furthermore, my conception lacks any real validity. I may believe it to be true but others may believe it to be false. It’s not until logic is introduced that we can determine the truth-value my conception. This then leads me to believe that individual human-originated conceptions, in and of themselves, can neither be truth nor false, because no human conception has validity other the other, that is until an absolute standard is introduced. Therefore if logic is conceptual, it could not have could not have originated in the human mind...

Firstly, as said, the information about systematic laws descriptive of reality which we call logic is certainly contained within the brain. To say then, that such information contained in the brain is psychical, as the brain is purely psychical, is a no-brainer = P. Our brain is an organ that experiences the stimulation of chemicals and electricity which allow us to feel, perceive, conceptualize, and etc.

Secondly, you cannot disprove a human with three arms through logical process. It is not self-contradictory. Logical process can come up with some interesting conclusions should its premise be invalid, but not incoherent.

All apples are blue.

I have an apple.

The apple is blue.


This would come out perfectly fine after employing logic. We do not disprove this through this method but rather by observation and scientific study – noting that the apples we see are red or green, and they are this way because yada yada yada.

I may, however, have misunderstood your point here.

Of course, how one interprets this depends on how he or she interprets "existence." In my position, existence includes God, and I therefore agree that "Without existence, nothing is." But what I was getting at is the relationship you pose between logic and the physical universe in comparison to the relationship I pose between logic and God - No physical universe=No logic verses No God=No Logic. You seem to be affirming the former, while denying the latter because "By positing logic as non-existant by God's non-existence you would deny its remaining necessity in reality." But why is this not applied to your own position? But I suppose it’s because you would deny the necessity of God’s existence, but as I noted above: "If logic exist intrinsically in God’s nature, and logic is necessary, then it follows that God is necessary."

You see here my point that if logic is only necessitating of existence, and God is within existence, then logic is not necessitating of God – only that which God is already a part of: existence. God is already reducible to such axioms. To say “God exists and is the foundation for logic” is to already presuppose the logical axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness, - which have already been explained before. God becomes irrelevant.

You ask why my statement is not applicable to my own position – and that is because I hold to the idea that all there is, is psychical. I’m a materialist. Thus, without the cosmos, there is nothing. Whereas, without the supernatural realm and God, there is still something. This is of course presupposing the incoherency or invalidity of divine creation – but that is not really the subject at hand.

Certainly you could re-apply your assertion supporting Frame, but as said – that requires further justification and seems at variance with the necessary nature of logic as I have explained it.


But this defeats your position. If God exist, He exist outside the physical universe, and, by your reasoning, outside of logic. But the conclusion that God is therefore meaningless, is a conclusion made by logical process, therefore the conclusion can only be true if logic does apply to God. Take for example the sentence "I drew a square circle." The reason why we know the sentence is meaningless, is because logic applies to it. The law of contradiction tells us that a circle cannot both be round and at the sametime in the same sense have four sides. Thus, the conclusion cannot be reached if logic does not apply. I cannot, for example, conclude that the sentence is meaningless because it violates a law of logic, if there’s no logic for the sentence to even violate. In the same sense, there would be no laws for God to violate, thus one cannot conclude that He is meaningless. This means you must first presume logic is transcendental by nature, but in doing so you are going against your own position. In order for a logical argument against God to be true, one must first presume that logic applies to God, however, you cannot do this because you’ve already affirmed that logic does not apply to a supernatural realm, therefore you cannot logically maintain your strong atheism without first affirming logic’s transcendental nature. No logical argument can be given for God’s existence, and no logical argument can be given against God’s existence. Your only valid position, than, is of the camp of agnosticism which claims something like: "maybe God exist and maybe He doesn’t; man cannot know, because he cannot know anything that lies beyond natural phenomena" But the claim made about the supernatural in this position is epistemological in nature, not ontological, i.e, one cannot say the supernatural does not exist, only that it is unknowable.

Let me put my argument in hypothetical form:

If Logic only exist in the physical realm, than logic does not apply to a supernatural realm

You affirm the antecedent, therefore the consequent must also true. This means that you can come to no logical conclusion about God without first denying the consequent. Any logical stance for/against God becomes a denial the consequent, and a denial of your position (namely, an affirmation of the antecedent). Hence, you’re contradicting yourself (or to use presuppositionalist terminology, you’re "cheating" = P)

This gets into non-cognitivism, a position I certainly hold to. As logic is necessary, anything that would be beyond logic reveals itself as fundamentally meaningless (I’ll explain this further). To say, “A thing X, exists beyond logic” is to say nothing at all. Thus, supposing my justification of logic is valid – Non-cognitivism itself becomes the necessary conclusion in regards to the god-concept.

Incoherency arguments from atheism presuppose that God would fit the criteria of a meaningful being; they show that even IF “God” could meet such requirements, it still fails as a coherent being.

To say, “The supernatural realm” is to say, “aiegfbjhaoduawiasobev”

You cannot even say it is “unknowable” because that would presuppose some sort of meaning, unjustified by the consideration of logic’s necessity.

....

[J_Lazarus]

This is not an application of logic – as logic deals with coherency or lack thereof. Cognitivism goes a step further – not asking whether or not a term refers to something coherent, but whether to term refers to anything meaningful at all.



When you say, “I draw a square circle” – this sentence is not meaningless, but rather incoherent, as we know what a square and a circle are and can understand it, but “anything” (for lack of a better word) posited as beyond logic and understanding becomes gibberish to us. It doesn’t even have the ability to be contradictory in our minds.



If Logic only exist in the physical realm, than logic does not apply to a supernatural realm



Translation: If Logic only exist in the psychical realm, then logic does not apply to a aegijubsoiugvbaiw bviwbdvoeaubebvousb bvoausbvioaefnbnonodvb.”



-JL

[Jatom]

Alrighty, I'm back to these forums after a little break

These are the very fundamentals we are discussing that make logic necessary. It’s the only thing one need presuppose when positing knowledge claims. As said, God is irrelevant unless you wish to bring in the Cosmo Arg

Fair enough. The argument is that logic cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview, only in a theistic one, so God is relevant. Now, the reason why I said your "account" of logic was inadequate was because you merely explained what is--that logic is axiomatic, thus the atheist is fully justified in appealing to it. Fact is, no theist in their right mind argues against this, myself included! But this actually isn't the question, I'm wasn't asking for "what is," rather how "is" is possible; I'm asking for an ontological foundation. I further question how one is able to know "what is." You've stated earlier that logic is "simply necessary information contained in the brain about the nature of existence." How does this information get there? It cannot be that it is observed because (1) If logic is the necessary precondition of intelligibly, than one cannot make sense of the external world without it, and (2) we know that observation is not infallible, empirical data is falsifiable, but logic, on other hand, is a prerequisite of such falsifications. If, however, the information is innate in every man, the next questions that follow are "how," "why" and "for what purpose?"


Nahh. The reason why I’m still trying to get you to justify your assertion is that it hasn’t been justified yet. You’ve posited the idea that logic is this way - but how could you back this up?

I actually did. Logic is conceptual and absolute, conceptions exist in the mind, any human-created idea, by very implication, cannot be absolute, therefore logic originates in the mind of an absolute Being


not as existed in some supernatural realm as God’s thought processes (indeed, even Bill Craig admits that process is an impossibility for God, being transcendent and omniscient - God cannot go through a process of thought, his thoughts must necessarily be ontologically singular as transcendent, and as all-knowing

I agree, notice how I never stated that logic is a part of God’s "thought process." But to fair, I'd venture to say that most theist (Christian theist anyway) know that God is unchanging (within his own nature) and their use of the word "thought process" is merely an analogy. I'm sure they in no way mean it in any finite sense. That is, the context in which the phase is used is to be understood within the context of the nature of God (but this can cause confusion, which is why I never used "thought process"). As a side note on William Lane Craig, he actually states that God exist in time with us.


Logic is a process by which we weed out contradictions from our thinking (as said). You apply various assertions through this process to see if it adds up. God cannot go through a process of thought, as a process necessitates temporality - and temporality doesn’t fit with God being "Creator".

It can also be said that God exist within His own time "strand" as St. Augustine said or that God exist in time with His creation as Craig has said. But this is actually beside the point.


Firstly, as said, the information about systematic laws descriptive of reality which we call logic is certainly contained within the brain. To say then, that such information contained in the brain is psychical, as the brain is purely psychical, is a no-brainer = P. Our brain is an organ that experiences the stimulation of chemicals and electricity which allow us to feel, perceive, conceptualize, and etc.

This seems highly presumptuous. Right now, I'm imaging a small red ball bouncing up and down on my spacebar. I see it, yet it isn't really physically there. It's bouncing hard enough to depress my space bar, yet my cursor is not moving. There is no empirical verification for this ball, but I "see" it nonetheless. I'd venture to say that 'chemical secretions' in my brain do not resemble this red bouncing ball.


Secondly, you cannot disprove a human with three arms through logical process. It is not self-contradictory. Logical process can come up with some interesting conclusions should its premise be invalid, but not incoherent.

All apples are blue.

I have an apple.

The apple is blue.


This would come out perfectly fine after employing logic. We do not disprove this through this method but rather by observation and scientific study - noting that the apples we see are red or green, and they are this way because yada yada yada.

I may, however, have misunderstood your point here

Sorry, let me clarify my jumble here. One had nothing to do with the other - the conception of a human with three arms had nothing directly to do with logic disproving such notions. I merely adapted it to show that conceptions have no physical existence, that is, a conception cannot be observed by the senses. And that no human-originated conceptual alone has validity over the other, that is, they cannot be universal. Since logic is a validating first principle, it follows that logic could not have originated in the minds of humans


You see here my point that if logic is only necessitating of existence, and God is within existence, then logic is not necessitating of God - only that which God is already a part of: existence. God is already reducible to such axioms. To say "God exists and is the foundation for logic" is to already presuppose the logical axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness [and I would add to this "God" as well], - which have already been explained before. God becomes irrelevant.

But J Lazarus, you have yet to account for logic in your world view--it hasn't been shown that logic is even possible without God! Until then I'll continue to state that Logic presupposes an absolute being for the reasons I mentioned above.


You ask why my statement is not applicable to my own position - and that is because I hold to the idea that all there is, is psychical. I’m a materialist. Thus, without the cosmos, there is nothing. Whereas, without the supernatural realm and God, there is still something. This is of course presupposing the incoherency or invalidity of divine creation - but that is not really the subject at hand.

My view is that without God there is nothing. You state that this makes logic contingent, and goes against the very nature of logic. On the other hand you state that without the physical there is nothing. But this places logic in the same position as in my system.


Certainly you could re-apply your assertion supporting Frame, but as said - that requires further justification and seems at variance with the necessary nature of logic as I have explained it.

I'm not really familiar with John Frame's exact position..

[Jatom]

This gets into non-cognitivism, a position I certainly hold to

...hmm, I smell logical positivism...


As logic is necessary, anything that would be beyond logic reveals itself as fundamentally meaningless (I’ll explain this further). To say, "A thing X, exists beyond logic" is to say nothing at all. Thus, supposing my justification of logic is valid - Non-cognitivism itself becomes the necessary conclusion in regards to the god-concept.

Only if God is placed beyond logic. But I don't think your conclusion logically follows. If logic is necessary, and God exist, then God necessarily exist "within" logic. You'd have to further explain why the supernatural is impossible. I can say a square circle cannot exist because it is, by it's very definition, a violation of the law of contradiction--because a square is square, not a circle--on the other hand, such an accusation has not been made about the supernatural. The supernatural does not contain a contradiction. And if contradictions are found within, it only disproves the part not the whole.


Incoherency arguments from atheism presuppose that God would fit the criteria of a meaningful being; they show that even IF "God" could meet such requirements, it still fails as a coherent being.

It sounds as if your position that a 'thing' is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified (please correct me if I'm wrong). This of course renders many sentences meaningless, sentences such as: "Giving is good." "She has much love for him." "Murder is evil" "This sentence has meaning" (ironically enough). One could ask "what is 'Good'?" "What is 'Love'?" "What is 'Evil'?" "And what is 'meaning'?"

To say, "The supernatural realm" is to say, "aiegfbjhaoduawiasobev"Your position is that God cannot exist because He’s positioned beyond logic do to a lack of empirical validation(?). Therefore any statement about God, or perhaps more precisely, "religious language," is meaningless. Thus "...then logic is not necessitating of God - only that which God is already a part of: existence," becomes a violation of your position, because you must first assume that God is not beyond logic to make a such a statement. I dare not make a similar assertion about, "aiegfbjhaoduawiasobev." Furthermore, how can one argue that something meaningless exist, or doesn't exist? After all, if the sentence "God exist" is meaningless, so is the sentence "God does not exist" since a cognitively meaningless sentence is neither be true nor false. To say that God does not exist, then, "is to say nothing at all." It seems to me, then, that this renders you own position meaningless


This is not an application of logic - as logic deals with coherency or lack thereof. Cognitivism goes a step further - not asking whether or not a term refers to something coherent, but whether to term refers to anything meaningful at all. When you say, "I draw a square circle" - this sentence is not meaningless, but rather incoherent, as we know what a square and a circle are and can understand it, but "anything" (for lack of a better word) posited as beyond logic and understanding becomes gibberish to us. It doesn’t even have the ability to be contradictory in our minds.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. You state that anything beyond logic is cognitively meaningless. Yet a square circle (which is beyond logic - the law of contradiction) is not meaningless--just incoherent--because we know what both a square and circle are. In the case of a square circle, true you know what a square is, and you know what a circle is, but neither abstraction is in question here, rather a square circle is. Can you describe a square circle? Or suppose I replaced the word "God" with the word "book." Could you no longer say that God (book) is meaningless since we know what a book is? But I suppose I'm not fully understanding you here.

Until next time James...

[J_Lazarus]

Jatom:

Due to lack of ability to sleep, I decided to check out these forums again just for a brief "whats-up". I had thought you had abandoned this thread, but I was pleased to see you responded after a short break.

Unfortunately, though, I cannot come to these forums often. I would very much like to start this conversation on TAG again with you, though, and thus I'm wondering if you'd be up for an e-mail exchange? Perhaps something formal, that I might post it up on my website?

Secondly, I'm looking to start an #Apologetics sections on SA.com. I'm looking for theistic intellectuals such as yourself to submit articles. If you'd be interested and feel secure in your ability to meet the formal requirements for submission (similar to the Secular Web requirements), then I'd be happy to correspond with you for a few articles supporting theism.

So what do you say? Formal e-mail exchange and a few publications? Can't go wrong, right? =P :-)

- Laz

[Jatom]

I PM'd you.

[Razorofoccam]

Jatom

GOD is a word you use to explain your existence.

Occam does not use that word.

Is he a devil incarnate. Or a poor misguided fool??

Or maybe .. A rationalist...ohhh hate that word....ohh yukkk
rationalists dont need a god ...poor fools.

Occam IS. Your explanation of why he IS.. is unsatisfactory by the
tennets of reason.
Reason is that which your god supposedly gave us to use to make the choice between good and evil.
It backfired. We use reason to say there is no choice.
Good and evil are OUR choices. not any god's
God could NOT POSSIBLY be so stupid as to not see this.
He MUST know that the average Joe will not put the mental effort into such a distinction

You say occam is here because of a religious god
Occam says that is a load of bushwah

There is NO VERIFICATION FOR A RELIGIOUS GOD.
That is.. no EVIDENCE.
That is NOTHING WE CAN SEE. Or see effects of.
So ALL stories about a religious god are FICTION.

SHOW occam ONE FACT that turns the fiction of religion into.... FACT



Occam

PS Please note.. ALL refferences to god in the above are religious descriptions. Occam has no beef with a god existing.
He simply finds the religious descriptions of god to be purile crud.

[illogical, irrational, contradictory and boring]

[Jatom]

Jatom

GOD is a word you use to explain your existence.

Occam does not use that word.

Is he a devil incarnate. Or a poor misguided fool?? When I use the word God, I'm refering the God revealed in the Bible.

It backfired. We use reason to say there is no choice.
Good and evil are OUR choices. not any god's
God could NOT POSSIBLY be so stupid as to not see this.Why must God be stupid for allowing some sort of freewill? I mean, would it not be tyrannical for Him to do the opposite? Also, you sound like a moral relativist. If we really do choose our own right and wrong, than ultimatly the moral choices Hitler made are no more wrong than the choices Mother Theresa made.

You say occam is here because of a religious god
Occam says that is a load of bushwahThat's fine, Jatom says your "religion" is load of bushwah too :)

There is NO VERIFICATION FOR A RELIGIOUS GOD.
That is.. no EVIDENCE.There's also NO evidence for the proposition "all that we believe must be supported by evidence." And so as of yet, your own position remains defeated by it own principle, it's self-deafeting, and I'm, therefore, under no obligation to "produce" any such evidence. The only one under any obligation to produce evidence in support of there position is you. However, I believe there are evidencies for God all around. Try taking a stab at accounting for logic without God.

That is NOTHING WE CAN SEE. Or see effects of.Is seeing a precondition for believing? Have you actually seen love, hate, good, evil? As far as an affect of God, well you exist right?

So ALL stories about a religious god are FICTION.You're not rational or consistent.

[Sera Michele]

Well here's my take on this.

EVOLUTION

Evolution is not only the evolving of life, but how that life lives in relation to the ecosystem, and relation to the other life like it. ALL species have devoloped some sort of order, a way of doing things. We are no different. We're just a little smarter, thats all, and that's where our term/idea of morality, good and evil, etc...comes from.

We devoloped these as a natural process of evlution to be able to live together in the society that we created.


(BTW, i didn't read through all the lenghty posts, so sorry if this may have already been mentioned)

[J_Lazarus]

To Sera:

The way you seem to have gone about justifying evolutionary morality comes into conflict with numerous philosophical problems.

To give a quick overview: simply because we've developed a tradition of action does not mean we necessarily ought to act in such a way.

secondly, "good" and "evil" are different in their meaning from simply that which is preferred and not preferred by a society. When one supports moral objectivism, they support the existence of good actions and evil actions. If good and evil actions are dependent on benefitting the society - ask yourself, what if the society is bad? Does your moral system cover that?

To Occam:

I find Jatom's response to you to be well put. While I would pin you as a reasonable person, I think you're failing to see the consequences of TAG if it is in fact valid.

Occam: For a bit of fun, would you like to formally debate the subject of religion? I can take the theistic stance, and you the agnostic atheist :-).

- Laz

[Sera Michele]

To Sera:

The way you seem to have gone about justifying evolutionary morality comes into conflict with numerous philosophical problems.

To give a quick overview: simply because we've developed a tradition of action does not mean we necessarily ought to act in such a way.

secondly, "good" and "evil" are different in their meaning from simply that which is preferred and not preferred by a society. When one supports moral objectivism, they support the existence of good actions and evil actions. If good and evil actions are dependent on benefitting the society - ask yourself, what if the society is bad? Does your moral system cover that?


- Laz
"To give a quick overview: simply because we've developed a tradition of action does not mean we necessarily ought to act in such a way."


I completely agree. I am not sure if I understand how that affects my idea of evolutionary morality.


All creatures have some sort of set way that they interact with their kind.
Just because other creatures don't have the term "morals" that they use, they seem to follow a type of "code of ethics" given to them as well. Instinct, I guess.

Some species eat their young, some do not. Some mate for life, some do not. Etc...As their ecosystem, environment, and circumstances change, so do they. (albeit, most of the time it is a slow change)



When we started living differently and forming socities people needed to be given new roles and direction. We gave them laws, rules, morals, etc...to replace what we lost when we lived more naturally.

People didn't evlove naturally to become CEO's and cashiers. When you look at a natural society like ants, everyone already has a job and direction. They don't have to worry about this type of shit.

When you look at people....we have to make up our direction, to create it. Thats where the laws, morals, etc comes in. We were never intended to live in large societies like ants, or bees, or such do. We have to almost create our own evolution. Evolution just isn't keeping up with us :p

"secondly, "good" and "evil" are different in their meaning from simply that which is preferred and not preferred by a society. When one supports moral objectivism, they support the existence of good actions and evil actions. If good and evil actions are dependent on benefitting the society - ask yourself, what if the society is bad? Does your moral system cover that?"

A society can't be "bad" because "good" and "bad" are all relative. To our wolf pack, it is good when they find an elk or something to kill, but simotainously bad for the elk. It is good and bad at the same time. No "good" or "bad" is absolute, is it all relative, or in the eye of the beholder.


Now, good and evil actions - you mean like stealing? Stuff like that? Cause we aren't the only things in the world that steal, that kill, etc...

"When one supports moral objectivism, they support the existence of good actions and evil actions."

Could you calrify how this statement would be true? I would say that if you support moral objectivism that you support the fact that actions can be good or bad for something...but not that someone's actions are necessarily good or bad.

[BlackGuardXIII]

No one ever need defend their beliefs or explain them, since your friends need no explanation, and your enemies won't believe you anyway.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Occam, you posted this
There is NO VERIFICATION FOR A RELIGIOUS GOD.
That is.. no EVIDENCE.
That is NOTHING WE CAN SEE. Or see effects of.
So ALL stories about a religious god are FICTION.

SHOW occam ONE FACT that turns the fiction of religion into.... FACT

I have seen lots, therefore it is not all fiction to me, though there certainly seems to be a good quantity of it.
To me, the facts are the things I have witnessed with my own eyes and heard with my own ears that defy scientific, logical explanation.
You have neither heard, nor seen these things, so they are not fact to you, but they are to me.
Spirit exists in my world, if not in yours, and I accept your belief as equally true and valid as mine, and hope you do the same for me.

[Razorofoccam]

Occam, you posted this
There is NO VERIFICATION FOR A RELIGIOUS GOD.
That is.. no EVIDENCE.
That is NOTHING WE CAN SEE. Or see effects of.
So ALL stories about a religious god are FICTION.

SHOW occam ONE FACT that turns the fiction of religion into.... FACT

I have seen lots, therefore it is not all fiction to me, though there certainly seems to be a good quantity of it.
To me, the facts are the things I have witnessed with my own eyes and heard with my own ears that defy scientific, logical explanation.
You have neither heard, nor seen these things, so they are not fact to you, but they are to me.
Spirit exists in my world, if not in yours, and I accept your belief as equally true and valid as mine, and hope you do the same for me.
Blackguard

Spirits exist in YOUR world...subjective no?
The word 'fact' relates to the world we can verify through multiple
subjectve perspectives..
Occam totally supports your right to believe anything you wish .
And believes that you believe it,,,
But as it cannot be shown to other perspectives... [anyone else]
It is not a fact...but a belief.

Religion says that god and heaven and hell are real and as they describe..
They can show no 'phenomena' or realworld events that can be pecieved
by any who wish to..
The only verification is words [spoken or in books.]
Not, existent phenomena.

Thus.. religion is fiction.

When religion CAN show such existant phenomena...Then the equation
changes... untill then...Occam allows that the fiction MAY be existent.
But not percievable.
And as there are hundreds of religions...The probabillity of any one being
real drops through the floor...

As occam has said before in illustration..The absurd concept of hell and it;s irrational supportive arguements and total lack of evidence. Condemn it in his method to being as likely as elvis being alive and living on mars.

Occam gives the existance of spirits a MUCH higher likelyhood of being real than any religion...For what have spirits to do with religion?
Religion lays claim to them but have the spirits laid any alliegence to a religion??


Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Blackguard

Spirits exist in YOUR world...subjective no?
The word 'fact' relates to the world we can verify through multiple
subjectve perspectives..
Occam totally supports your right to believe anything you wish .
And believes that you believe it,,,
But as it cannot be shown to other perspectives... [anyone else]
It is not a fact...but a belief.

Religion says that god and heaven and hell are real and as they describe..
They can show no 'phenomena' or realworld events that can be pecieved
by any who wish to..
The only verification is words [spoken or in books.]
Not, existent phenomena.


Thus.. religion is fiction.

When religion CAN show such existant phenomena...Then the equation
changes... untill then...Occam allows that the fiction MAY be existent.
But not percievable.
And as there are hundreds of religions...The probabillity of any one being
real drops through the floor...

As occam has said before in illustration..The absurd concept of hell and it;s irrational supportive arguements and total lack of evidence. Condemn it in his method to being as likely as elvis being alive and living on mars.

Occam gives the existance of spirits a MUCH higher likelyhood of being real than any religion...For what have spirits to do with religion?
Religion lays claim to them but have the spirits laid any alliegence to a religion??


Occam
I cannot dispute what you say, you are right, of course. It is subjective. I can only make my decisions based on my experiences. Why I write reluctantly, is that though I am very thankful to read you believe that I believe it, that leaves me somewhat disheartened. I should not be, I know.
The reason being, I have had maybe six precognitive dreams in my life. What this means, it is not deja vu, or premonition, cuz I did not feel like it happened before, and I did not know these particular dreams would come true later. It just so happened that these few did, to the letter. You are one of the more accepting and, to me, compassionately logical (if that is a phrase), people who post here. I just want you to know that the exactitude of the detail of these dream scenes was such that I cannot help but try to understand why I had them, and how this could be possible at all. It almost erases the free will option for me, though I still have the choice to believe whether or not Jesus died on the cross to wash away my sins, and I still do not believe that.

[Razorofoccam]

I cannot dispute what you say, you are right, of course. It is subjective. I can only make my decisions based on my experiences. Why I write reluctantly, is that though I am very thankful to read you believe that I believe it, that leaves me somewhat disheartened. I should not be, I know.
The reason being, I have had maybe six precognitive dreams in my life. What this means, it is not deja vu, or premonition, cuz I did not feel like it happened before, and I did not know these particular dreams would come true later. It just so happened that these few did, to the letter. You are one of the more accepting and, to me, compassionately logical (if that is a phrase), people who post here. I just want you to know that the exactitude of the detail of these dream scenes was such that I cannot help but try to understand why I had them, and how this could be possible at all. It almost erases the free will option for me, though I still have the choice to believe whether or not Jesus died on the cross to wash away my sins, and I still do not believe that. Blackguard..

Excellent...thank you
You speak from the heart...with the voice of understanding.
Of course occam believes that your experiences are believed 'as truth by you'. He has not had them...And you have not had his...
But if we agree to accept such as personal truth..And work from there to UNDERSTAND..then is that not the first step towards TRUTH that all can understand?
What we do is COMPARE...our perspectives...
Occam also has had subjective experiences that cannot be explained by current human understanding.
Just about every human has...
And there are MANY phenomena as well that multiple human perspectives call MYSTERY...[that which WE do not understand. And the list of such is HUGE...the majority having no religious overtones at all...]

Precognition/premonition...May be simply a subconscious unerstanding of the world and free will.
As occam suggested before..Quantum theory suggests that all possibillities occur..And our 'superposition' is but one of them...
What if your mind can see the possibillities and weed out the unlikely ones..
without you consciously knowing it?
You may simply have the facility to predict our 'future superposition'
And label it a mesage from god for want of understanding your abillity.

Occam an only say that he is like you..A very small thing in a titanic
reality..One that does not seem to care a whit if we fall to earth and rot.

Religion to occam creates a facade of purpose to this reality..But it does a poor job of it...Much of it;s writings are true wisdom..But the rest....

Occam takes jesus as an example to follow...But he is but one of many...
So many have spoken into the darkness of ignorance, stupidity and evil...hoping above hope to meet a fellow mind....
Occam has met you
Wellmet my friend.

Wether we disagree, agree or agree to disagree :)
We strive to understand...
And to love...
For WE are all US.
Conscious beings of mind and heart..

How or why did we happen..Occam believes we 'Know' not...YET.

Occam