The Presuppositionalist Challenge

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

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?"

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

 

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

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.

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'?"

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

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...

 

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

 

I PM'd you.

 

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]

 

When I use the word God, I'm refering the God revealed in the Bible.

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.

That's fine, Jatom says your "religion" is load of bushwah too

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.

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?

You're not rational or consistent.

 

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)

 

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

 

"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

"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.

 

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

 

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

 

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