TAG

Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
TAG

The Transcendental Argument for God attempts to show that all systems of thought other than Christian theism collapse into unintelligibility.

I'm going to use this thread to administer TAG therapy to the sick of the forum. If you feel like coming in for a checkup, make a response to this OP that outlines your worldview, including any clashes with the Christian worldview.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Why is it the case that what works (A) cannot also be that which does NOT work (~A)?

I think you may be the one not reading carefully, Fortunate_Son. Natural said -- Sometimes it is.

Which, incidentally, leads directly into answering your last question to me.

You are living testimony that simply because one possesses a gigantic forehead does not automatically entail that s/he has a large brain.

Wow, killer point about my looks there, Fortunate_Son, totally applicable to the subject under debate. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wow natural - that's cool!

natural wrote:

You are further evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quote:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".

QFT

 

Does this mean those people who lack the creative ability to believe in an imaginary space monkey and his talking anaconda are actually suffering from a mental deficiency?

I guess that kicks the concept of freewill squarely in the nuts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Logic and Hammers

The problem is that the argument FS puts forth is based on the idea of a priori knowledge.  Sorry, but I simply don't see the evidence.  If a priori knowledge existed, then there would be things that ALL humans would know to be truth across the board.  Yet there are numerous cultures that have core differences in what truth is.  Hmmm...

Even if we want to go with the idea of a priori knowledge, the "laws of logic" would not fall into this category; otherwise, it would not need to be taught.  It would simply be known.  And yet so many people not only do not use logic, many people do not have the capacity to use it.  Take those with brain damage.  They may have a mind, but not one that is capable of logical thought.  They aren't using an if/then statement when they go to the bathroom; they simply go because they have been told to use the toilet when they need to go, the same way a dog knows to go outside.

This is why logic is more like a hammer.  It is a tool that was created by humans to help with reasoning, just like a hammer is used by humans to construct complex objects made of wood.  The existence of a tool such as logic is no more a "proof" of the existence of god than the existence of a hammer.  And there may be other worlds where a hammer doesn't exist, just like there may be other worlds that do not use logic.  And if all humans were to die off tomorrow, the hammers would remain, and logic would remain, but there wouldn't be any critters using them. 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I love threads with FS in

I love threads with FS in them.  Take an idea, add a stubborn prick to it, and bam!

 

Never having studied this stuff in college, is it accurate to say that the argument boils down to:

Side A: Logic is an actual thing, like an apple, that exists in reality.  Since it exists, something must have made it and we call that thing God.  You can't argue with me because Logic exists.

Side B: Logic is what humans call the formal ruleset that we created to help analyze reality.  It is not a 'thing', you cannot lick it.  It is a concept invented by humans that attempts to model the way the universe works, applied by humans, and there is no reason to call what it models 'God' just because we don't understand where reality came from.

 

Is this fair?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Eloise

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

That's a very strange definition of God. Please Explain.

God is a sentient being whose existence is not contingent on any external factors.  There are no conditions under which God could not exist. 

 

I would also add the definition from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: 'God is a spirit; infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.' 

Speaking of TAG; Dr. Greg Bahnsen was one of the best proponents of that system developed earlier by Kuyper and Van Til.  Most atheists dodge the major components (i.e. Sapien's ad-hominem), as their worldview can never justify absolutes and universally binding laws transcending the material realm.

 

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:TAG fails

nigelTheBold wrote:

TAG fails for the same reason Fortunate_Son is so easily taken in by it. It is the masked man fallacy. It posits that logic exists (that is, matter and energy behave in coherent, predictable ways), and also posits that mind is required for logic (logic this time the conceptual abstraction of the ways in which matter and energy behave predictably and coherently). There is a quick substitution of "logic" in the first sense (the coherent, predictable interaction of matter and energy) with logic in the second sense (the concept of logic in our own skulls), and a quick non sequitur suggesting god must've always been there for the concept of logic to always have existed. You get a logical fallacy two-fer.

There is nothing that amazing about us being able to figure out that reality behaves in a coherent, predictable manner. Hell, my dog does that every time I throw her a ball and she catches it unerringly in her mouth. Does that mean Roscoe understands Newton's Laws? No. Does it mean that nature behaves in a way consistent with Newtons Laws? Yes.

You have confused physical laws with philosophical ones; a major category fallacy.


 

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Fortunate_Son

Eloise wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Eloise wrote:

That's a very strange definition of God. Please Explain.

God is a sentient being whose existence is not contingent on any external factors. 

What scripture defines the Judeo-Christian God this way?

P.S. sounds like a description of Brahman

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

There are no conditions under which God could not exist. 

 

So that would provide 'God' can exist in all possible worlds, so how do you provide that 'God' does.

 

The Christian God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary.  That is; without an absolute/personal being, logic and ethics are not universally binding and we are left with arbitrary whim.  Natural law cannot be justified as to its general uniformity without begging the question. 


 

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:
Okay.  Where in the universe is the law of non-contradiction located?

(Seriously, debating logic with scientists is too easy.  They falter everytime for the same reason.)

 

Except he explicitly included the heisenberg uncertainty principle as an example, and you ignored it.

That principle is only an hypothesis at the micro-level, yet has not been demonstrated at the macro-level.  If it was, then someone would be able to say that Obama is our President and not our President at the same time and instance. 

 

 

Chazmuze


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Side B:

mellestad wrote:

Side B: Logic is what humans call the formal ruleset that we created to help analyze reality.

This. But...

Quote:
It is not a 'thing', you cannot lick it.  It is a concept invented by humans

It's not a thing you can lick, but to the extent that 'ideas' are things, then 'logic' is also a thing. Specifically, it physically exists in the minds/brains of people who understand it. There are even different kinds of logic. They are ideas, concepts, symbols, relationships, procedures, systems, processes. All of these are legitimate 'things' in physicalism.

The presupper TAG-ist will claim that this logic is not the 'real' logic, and that the real logic is whatever makes the universe conform to those logic concepts. But then they'll conveniently ignore when nature defies our logic (e.g. QM, as Eloise so well explained in another thread), or the limitations of our logic (Goedel, etc.), or the fact that humans aren't really that logical most of the time, etc. Still, they will claim that 'axioms' are a fundamental part of reality (namely 'god').

Quote:
Is this fair?

I think you captured both sides* quite well. *There are more than two sides, so I guess I mean the two usual sides that clash here on RRS.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze

chazmuze wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:
Okay.  Where in the universe is the law of non-contradiction located?

(Seriously, debating logic with scientists is too easy.  They falter everytime for the same reason.)

 

Except he explicitly included the heisenberg uncertainty principle as an example, and you ignored it.

That principle is only an hypothesis at the micro-level, yet has not been demonstrated at the macro-level.  If it was, then someone would be able to say that Obama is our President and not our President at the same time and instance. 

 

 EDIT:  It isn't a hypothesis either.  It arises due to the duality of particles (they are delivered in waves), and as precision regarding position goes up, precision regarding momentum goes down.  Not a hypothesis.  See wiki for more details.

 

Quantum Mechanics are so unlike classical physics that we have no other route than to question our beloved determinism.  Your example is a gross extrapolation, as I am sure even you will admit.  When you change things by that magnitude of scale, vast differences arise, similar to how an ant can carry so much of its body weight while we cannot.  (that change is on the order of 1000x, while obama --> electron is roughly 10^29)


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
With respect Chaz

chazmuze wrote:

 

"I would also add the definition from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: 'God is a spirit; infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.' 

(Supplied definition)

 

 

Who the fuck was ever, could ever, will ever be in a position to clarify a definition as outlandish as this one? By what standards of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth is god being measured up against here? What is a spirit? What is eternity, what is infinite and who in the name of all that's unholy ever ventured out to the borders of human comprehension to check? Give me a break.

Ayn Rand was right. God is a being the sole definition of which is that he is 'inconceivable to the human mind'. What a joke. We cannot know god. We can't even talk about him without spouting invented doctrine or total shit.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:mellestad

natural wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Side B: Logic is what humans call the formal ruleset that we created to help analyze reality.

This. But...

Quote:
It is not a 'thing', you cannot lick it.  It is a concept invented by humans

It's not a thing you can lick, but to the extent that 'ideas' are things, then 'logic' is also a thing. Specifically, it physically exists in the minds/brains of people who understand it. There are even different kinds of logic. They are ideas, concepts, symbols, relationships, procedures, systems, processes. All of these are legitimate 'things' in physicalism.

The presupper TAG-ist will claim that this logic is not the 'real' logic, and that the real logic is whatever makes the universe conform to those logic concepts. But then they'll conveniently ignore when nature defies our logic (e.g. QM, as Eloise so well explained in another thread), or the limitations of our logic (Goedel, etc.), or the fact that humans aren't really that logical most of the time, etc. Still, they will claim that 'axioms' are a fundamental part of reality (namely 'god').

Quote:
Is this fair?

I think you captured both sides* quite well. *There are more than two sides, so I guess I mean the two usual sides that clash here on RRS.

 

Ok, cool.  It gets confusing because no-one just says that.  The last thread between Eloise and FS was a series of essays of increasing complexity, but I did not see any changes to the original point, just obfuscation.

extremist wrote:

Ayn Rand was right. God is a being the sole definition of which is that he is 'inconceivable to the human mind'. What a joke. We cannot know god. We can't even talk about him without spouting invented doctrine or total shit.

And it is funny how God always seems to agree with the preconceptions of the person spouting doctrine and shit.

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:
Okay.  Where in the universe is the law of non-contradiction located?

(Seriously, debating logic with scientists is too easy.  They falter everytime for the same reason.)

 

Except he explicitly included the heisenberg uncertainty principle as an example, and you ignored it.

That principle is only an hypothesis at the micro-level, yet has not been demonstrated at the macro-level.  If it was, then someone would be able to say that Obama is our President and not our President at the same time and instance. 

 

 EDIT:  It isn't a hypothesis either.  It arises due to the duality of particles (they are delivered in waves), and as precision regarding position goes up, precision regarding momentum goes down.  Not a hypothesis.  See wiki for more details.

 

Quantum Mechanics are so unlike classical physics that we have no other route than to question our beloved determinism.  Your example is a gross extrapolation, as I am sure even you will admit.  When you change things by that magnitude of scale, vast differences arise, similar to how an ant can carry so much of its body weight while we cannot.  (that change is on the order of 1000x, while obama --> electron is roughly 10^29)

QM is always affected by our 'probing' or experimentation.  When the scientist intrudes his measuring device into an atomic system, he forces a particular outcome to be actualized from what was before a fuzzy realm of potentialities.  As Heisenberg writes, 'The transition from the possible to the actual takes place during the act of observation'.  (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosphy: The Revolution in Modern Science, p. 54).


 

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:natural

mellestad wrote:

natural wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Side B: Logic is what humans call the formal ruleset that we created to help analyze reality.

This. But...

Quote:
It is not a 'thing', you cannot lick it.  It is a concept invented by humans

It's not a thing you can lick, but to the extent that 'ideas' are things, then 'logic' is also a thing. Specifically, it physically exists in the minds/brains of people who understand it. There are even different kinds of logic. They are ideas, concepts, symbols, relationships, procedures, systems, processes. All of these are legitimate 'things' in physicalism.

The presupper TAG-ist will claim that this logic is not the 'real' logic, and that the real logic is whatever makes the universe conform to those logic concepts. But then they'll conveniently ignore when nature defies our logic (e.g. QM, as Eloise so well explained in another thread), or the limitations of our logic (Goedel, etc.), or the fact that humans aren't really that logical most of the time, etc. Still, they will claim that 'axioms' are a fundamental part of reality (namely 'god').

Quote:
Is this fair?

I think you captured both sides* quite well. *There are more than two sides, so I guess I mean the two usual sides that clash here on RRS.

 

Ok, cool.  It gets confusing because no-one just says that.  The last thread between Eloise and FS was a series of essays of increasing complexity, but I did not see any changes to the original point, just obfuscation.

extremist wrote:

Ayn Rand was right. God is a being the sole definition of which is that he is 'inconceivable to the human mind'. What a joke. We cannot know god. We can't even talk about him without spouting invented doctrine or total shit.

And it is funny how God always seems to agree with the preconceptions of the person spouting doctrine and shit.

 

 

Not all brains are the same and not all people think and act rationally.  If logic is a material entity in the brain, how can universal categories exist in a limited, finite brain?  Universals within logic are unlimited, yet brains are limited.  For instance; the category of 'roundness' can contain an infinite number of particular round entities.  How can a limited brain or brain-states be infinite?  Where in the brain is there an obligation for one thought to logically lead to another?  Logic cannot even be created without logic already existing apriori to make distinctions and conclusions during a creative process.  You have Descarte before de horse.  If logic is created, then it can be changed.  How can anyone change certain laws of logic, i.e. the law of non-contradiction?  Can you change the law that A cannot be non-A and have rationality?  I can say that you exist and not exist at the same time and instance and this is logical?  If logical law is not universally binding upon and transcendent to brains, then irrationality is equivalent to rationality in the end.


 

Chazmuze


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I assure you

natural wrote:

I assure you that when I was a newborn baby, I did not know logic. Instead, my human brain inherited the evolved capacity to learn from the experiences of the environment, and the natural ability of intuition which allows me to apply what I've learned in a practical way.

So there is no knowledge per se, it is all just biological.  Right?  These are just physical events explainable under the terms of natural science.

Quote:
Here's an obvious question for you: If everyone is inherently logical, why do we see so many examples of illogicality in humans?

Noetic effect of sin.  Due to the fall of humanity, our minds are tainted and we have a tendency to think illogically or to gravitate towards those decisions which are not the most rational.

Logic itself is always applied.  It is the mechanism through which our window to the world is made clear.  If a baby perceives an apple, s/he has already made a logical judgment regarding it's substance, quantity, quality, modality, etc.  Logic itself is a first order language which we are innately able to speak in our own minds.  Syntactically, it is semantically higher than any language that we speak.  This implies that logic, while knowable, is more procedural than it is propositional.  It is knowledge that exists at a higher level than what we come to know through propositions directly.  So to a certain extent, I agree that it is instinctual.. where I part company is the denial that it is knowledge

Our fallen nature impairs our ability to see this and leads to irrational ideas such as the one you are positing.  You continue to use logic while at the same time denying its universality. 

Quote:
 If logic does not need to be learned, then why is it that when we teach people logic, they learn to be more logical?

Once again, this is relative to logic qua procedural vs. logic qua propositional.  Teaching logic is elucidating the structure of our thought process, such that we can formalize it into a mathematical system.

We also have to learn to count.  That does not imply that we justify the proposition "2 + 2 = 4" by observing every physical instance where a pair is put together with a different pair.

Quote:
First, it's not the sole result of instinct and evolution, it's also the result of trial-and-error

Trial and error requires a pre-existing standard of true and false.  Otherwise, you have no metric to measure whether or not you've committed an error.  This does not work. 

Quote:
and cultural transmission.

That would mean that if two cultures have mutually exclusive logical systems,  then neither are invalid.  This does not work either.

Quote:
Second, there's no reason to trust it *blindly*, but there is good reason to trust it: Because it works. It has worked in the past, and it will likely work in the future.

How do you know that it works?  What is your metric for making that assessment?  How do you know that what works is not really what does not work... and if you have a metric for determining this, then how is this metric itself not logical? 

Furthermore, who gets to define "works"?  It is conceivable for me to formulate an inconsistent logical system which works for me, though it may not work for you.  Why trust your logic instead of mine?  They both work.

Quote:
Here's another question for you: If everyone is logical, then why do different minds often contradict each other? Worse, why does the same mind often contradict itself?

I've already explained.

Quote:
Probably wouldn't survive very long if that were the case, would I?

So your metric is survival?  "Survival" is not contained in the concept of "logic".  This is an arbitrary synthesis that you are making.  I could possibly survive on a completely illogical frame of mind.

Quote:
Define 'should' in the context of evolution. Without mentioning anything supernatural.

You are the one using survival as a basis for logic, you tell me.

Quote:
Eloise was right. I said, sometimes it is.

Again, you have this idea that logic maps onto nature perfectly. It doesn't.

Since our knowledge of nature is based upon our perception, and since a priori categories are what make perception possible for us, I would say that logic has to map onto nature perfectly.

Quote:
Rarely is something in nature True vs. False

Example? 

Quote:
Newton's laws are not capital-T True, they are small-t true.

Right.  They are true.  Are you suggesting that they are both true and false at the same time?

Quote:
If actual, practical truth were binary/boolean, then when Einstein's relativity came along we would have to entirely reject Newton's laws as being False. But we don't. We still use Newton's laws all the time, because while they are not True, they are true. They work, they make pretty good predictions, accurately, reliably, and quickly.

Ah, so there exists a higher order language whereby we have objective metrics for truth and falsity, such that we can say that Newton's laws are true on one level, but false on another? 

Quote:
Sometimes Newton's laws work, and sometimes they don't. Most things in life are this way. Try to fit that into your 'logic'. In fact, logic itself is one of those things that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Try reasoning logically with a crying baby.

I don't accept that logic has anything to do with "working", in the sense that you've been using it.

Quote:
Memory and context. I try things, if they work, I remember them

And you are not able to do that unless you use logic. 

Quote:
Sometimes (actually, often), even our intuitions fail. They are not perfectly logical either. This is how, for example, superstitions form. You try something, and notice that it 'worked', when in reality it was just coincidental, and then you repeat the idea over and over again to try to get it to 'work' again. We can even fool ourselves that such superstitions really *do* work very well. For example, prayer.

This has nothing to do with logic.  In your particular example, you are testing an empirical proposition which is potentially falsifiable.  This does not apply to a priori principles.

Quote:
Here's another question for you: If humans are perfectly logical, then why are there so many different systems of logic in existence?

Do you accept that all formal systems are objectively consistent?

There are different systems of logic because certain arguments that we make can be formalized more easily under different systems.  For example, it would be very difficult for you to make a modal argument using propositional logic, whereas it would be very difficult to make a deontic argument using syllogistic logic.  You may end up with 20 different premises, whereas in another system, you could simply it to maybe 4 or 5.  Different logical systems are conducive to different arguments that we make.  But the undergirding thought process remains the same.

There are different systems developed which allow for contradictory propositions (such as paraconsistent logic), but this was pragmatically developed to deal with inconsistent information in a different way.  It was not created to falsify the law of non-contradiction.

Quote:
Why do eastern philosophers use 'yin yang' style logic, which is not even a formal system?

First of all, I do not accept that Eastern religions have a coherent philosophy. 

I have studied Buddhism and a standard tenet of its practitioners is that the path to inner peace is to become more visceral than cerebral.  Thus their presentation may not be meant as an objective representation of the world, but more of a practical guiding post for pursuing a higher state of being.   


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:QM is always affected

Quote:

QM is always affected by our 'probing' or experimentation.  When the scientist intrudes his measuring device into an atomic system, he forces a particular outcome to be actualized from what was before a fuzzy realm of potentialities.  As Heisenberg writes, 'The transition from the possible to the actual takes place during the act of observation'.  (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosphy: The Revolution in Modern Science, p. 54).

 

"The act of observing" doesn't mean a scientist staring at the experiment; he is using a tool.  A tool of observation isn't conscious.  Therefore it has to be a natural process that is causing the discrepancy, because either a human is seeing results after experimentation, or looking at his tool, after experimentation.   This is why we now have complicated equations regarding quantum mechanics that explain how this is a 'property' of the matter/energy in quantum systems.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:So there

Fortunate_Son wrote:
So there is no knowledge per se, it is all just biological.  Right?

Not *just* biological. The biology allows knowledge to be acquired. But the knowledge is acquired through culture and experience. Some implicit 'knowledge' is biological, if you consider instincts and drives and things like that to be 'knowledge'.

Quote:
These are just physical events explainable under the terms of natural science.

....Well, yeah. Of course. That's kinda the whole point of metaphysical naturalism and physicalism.

Quote:
Quote:
Here's an obvious question for you: If everyone is inherently logical, why do we see so many examples of illogicality in humans?

Noetic effect of sin.

And how did you learn that? From reading the Bible. (Actually, more likely through childhood indoctrination, later reinforced by the Bible and/or proselytizers.) Which, according to you, requires 'logic' to read. But if we're really sinfully illogical, then how do you know any of this is true except through illogical, circular reasoning? In other words, your theology falls on its head, repeatedly. I think it needs one of those safety helmets for children with severe mental retardation.

Quote:
Logic itself is always applied.

Except when it's not, because we're all sinners, except we're all logical, because God is logic, except sin is incompatible with logic, because the Bible says so, except how do I know the Bible is logical, because I'm logical, except that I'm also an illogical sinner..... Bam! "Ouch" Bam! "Owww!" Bam! "Mommy!" Bam! "Waaaah!" 

Quote:
If a baby perceives an apple, s/he has already made a logical judgment regarding it's substance, quantity, quality, modality, etc.

Except when Adam experienced an apple, then *that* was sin, not logic. But it's all consistently logical, you see.....

Quote:
Quote:
First, it's not the sole result of instinct and evolution, it's also the result of trial-and-error

Trial and error requires a pre-existing standard of true and false.

In my further discussions with you I'm going to start using the symbols T and F to indicate logical 'true' and logical 'false', versus pragmatic 'true' and pragmatic 'false, which I'll just use as true and false.

We are born with pragmatic senses of true and false (Ah ha! and Oops!), but not logical concepts of T and F. Pragmatic true does not directly map to logical T.

Quote:
Quote:
and cultural transmission.

That would mean that if two cultures have mutually exclusive logical systems,  then neither are invalid.  This does not work either.

The only measure of the pragmatic truth of a system is whether it helps make good predictions. Two incompatible logical systems may nevertheless both be pragmatically useful, and thus both 'work'. Notice that you had to sneak in a pragmatic judgment there, when you claimed it 'does not work'.

Quote:
Quote:
Second, there's no reason to trust it *blindly*, but there is good reason to trust it: Because it works. It has worked in the past, and it will likely work in the future.

How do you know that it works?  What is your metric for making that assessment?  How do you know that what works is not really what does not work... and if you have a metric for determining this, then how is this metric itself not logical?

Intuition, prediction, trial and error, incrementally developed and pragmatically justified systems of reason. How do you answer the same questions? "God"? Yeah, thought so. Might as well say, "Beats the shit out of me, but I believe I'm right anyway."

Quote:
Furthermore, who gets to define "works"?

Prediction is a universal human requirement for *anything* to 'work' or be 'useful'. Even using a can opener requires making the prediction that it can be 'used' to produce a future state where the can is opened. We all make predictions all the time, every moment of every waking day. It is unavoidable.

Quote:
  It is conceivable for me to formulate an inconsistent logical system which works for me, though it may not work for you.

I severely doubt you could produce such a system which is actually useful (i.e. makes good predictions). 

Quote:
Why trust your logic instead of mine?  They both work.

As a pragmatist, I'm a skeptic (since skepticism predicts that I'll waste less mental effort if I discard unevidenced ideas). Therefore, I challenge you to produce such a system. If you actually do produce a system that makes good predictions, then as a pragmatist, I would agree with you and adopt the new system. If you can't, then as a pragmatic skeptic, I'll discard your system.

So, the pragmatist's oft-heard reply is: Show me.

Quote:
Quote:
Probably wouldn't survive very long if that were the case, would I?

So your metric is survival?

*Evolution's* metric is survival. An ability to predict offers an evolutionary advantage.  Without it, I wouldn't survive.

Quote:
Quote:
Newton's laws are not capital-T True, they are small-t true.

Right.  They are true.

But they are not T.

Quote:
  Are you suggesting that they are both true and false at the same time?

Pragmatically, yes. Pragmatic truth is measured by ability to predict. It is not binary like logical T and F.

Quote:
Ah, so there exists a higher order language whereby we have objective metrics for truth and falsity, such that we can say that Newton's laws are true on one level, but false on another?

The language is secondary. Pragmatism/prediction is primary.

Quote:
I don't accept that logic has anything to do with "working", in the sense that you've been using it.

But you can't actually avoid it, because you couldn't use logic either if it didn't work.

Quote:
Quote:
Memory and context. I try things, if they work, I remember them

And you are not able to do that unless you use logic.

Babies don't think in Ts and Fs.

Quote:
This has nothing to do with logic.  In your particular example, you are testing an empirical proposition which is potentially falsifiable.  This does not apply to a priori principles.

None of which you can justify without bald assertion.

Quote:
Do you accept that all formal systems are objectively consistent?

No. Do you? Seriously? I can only laugh. More of your deification of logic while misunderstanding its true nature.

Quote:
There are different systems developed which allow for contradictory propositions (such as paraconsistent logic), but this was pragmatically developed to deal with inconsistent information in a different way.

So pragmatism trumps logic. Exactly as I said.

Quote:
I have studied Buddhism and a standard tenet of its practitioners is that the path to inner peace is to become more visceral than cerebral.  Thus their presentation may not be meant as an objective representation of the world, but more of a practical guiding post for pursuing a higher state of being.   

Hmmmmm, interesting. Pragmatism trumps your 'logic' again. Funny, that.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Not *just*

natural wrote:

Not *just* biological. The biology allows knowledge to be acquired. But the knowledge is acquired through culture and experience. Some implicit 'knowledge' is biological, if you consider instincts and drives and things like that to be 'knowledge'.

In accordance with your worldview, it is *just* biological.  According to you, we are biologically hardwired to learn from experience.  This means that the mechanism which closes the gap beween our perceptions and our knowing is explainable in the terms of natural science.  Here is the issue:  If this mechanism is biological, then it would also be explainable by natural laws.  This means that your knowing trades on a presumption of the uniformity of nature and your faith that this mechanism is reliable.  But at the ultimate level of explanation, you really do not know anything.  You are simply learning whatever the laws of nature determine that you will learn.  You have no idea if your experiences reflect what is in all actuality.

Quote:
....Well, yeah. Of course. That's kinda the whole point of metaphysical naturalism and physicalism.

Right.  We've agreed on that point.  The next step is for you to acknowledge that it is really stupid.

Quote:
And how did you learn that? From reading the Bible.

Sure. What's the problem? 

Quote:
(Actually, more likely through childhood indoctrination, later reinforced by the Bible and/or proselytizers.)

Nope.  I was an idiot just like you when I was a child.

Quote:
Which, according to you, requires 'logic' to read.

Right. 

Quote:
But if we're really sinfully illogical, then how do you know any of this is true except through illogical, circular reasoning?

Receiving Christ goes beyond a reading of the scriptures.  Nobody has ever become saved just by reading a book.  Without the grace of God, you will never be saved no matter how many times you read the Bible.

You asked me to account for illogic.  It is accounted for in the fallen nature of mankind.  This does not mean that logic does not exist or that mankind has no potential to be logical.  You just wanted the Christian account for irrationality and I've provided it to you.  If you want a more secular account, you can go back to the distinction that I've made between procedural knowledge and propositional knowledge.  There are things which we know but are unable articulate in propositions.   We have a second order language which is immediately accessible to us but undergirding principles which we reason back to using the second order language.  Since the first order language underlies everything, we make the mistake of assuming that logic exists in our second order language.  There is an important distinction to be made between knowing and awareness.  All awareness consists in knowing, but not all knowing consists in awareness (and yes, I am aware the dictionary may define "knowledge" as "awareness", but I'm specifically stating that not all knowledge consists in awareness.)

Anyway, we can squabble about our epistemology until the cows come home.  I definitely do ascribe to the idea that logic is innate to the human condition, but at the end of the day, what's really relevant is the nature of logical principles themselves.  You are claiming that the statement "For any x, x either is or is not" is justified in our experience.  You have not given me any adequate account for this.  Every account you've given presupposes logic, which further supports the idea that experience requires underlying conceptual realities not derived from experience.

Quote:
Except when it's not, because we're all sinners, except we're all logical, because God is logic, except sin is incompatible with logic, because the Bible says so, except how do I know the Bible is logical, because I'm logical, except that I'm also an illogical sinner..... Bam! "Ouch" Bam! "Owww!" Bam! "Mommy!" Bam! "Waaaah!" 

You are having a meltdown.  LOL

Quote:
In my further discussions with you I'm going to start using the symbols T and F to indicate logical 'true' and logical 'false', versus pragmatic 'true' and pragmatic 'false, which I'll just use as true and false.

We are born with pragmatic senses of true and false (Ah ha! and Oops!), but not logical concepts of T and F. Pragmatic true does not directly map to logical T.


Here is your model:

domain of discourse = actions

Ax = x is pragmatic

(x) (Ax v ~Ax) = All actions are either pragmatic or they are not.

 

Sorry, that's a logical model.  Keep trying, though.

Quote:
The only measure of the pragmatic truth of a system is whether it helps make good predictions. Two incompatible logical systems may nevertheless both be pragmatically useful, and thus both 'work'. Notice that you had to sneak in a pragmatic judgment there, when you claimed it 'does not work'.

(A) But how would you know if predictions come to pass?  What would lead you to believe that what came to pass was your prediction and not what you did not predict? 

(B) Okay.  According to my logical system, which has consistently worked for me up until this point, you are wrong and I am right.  Therefore, I win the debate.

(C) Now you are being pedantic (with the last sentence I wrote).  This is a sign of desperation.  You are falling apart.

Quote:
Intuition, prediction, trial and error, incrementally developed and pragmatically justified systems of reason.

How many times are we going to go around in this circle?  

I'll say this one more time and then I'm done:

These are rational judgments.  RATIONALITY REQUIRES LOGIC. 

Quote:
How do you answer the same questions? "God"?

I don't have to ask them.  Under my worldview, the laws of logic are absolute. 

Quote:
Prediction is a universal human requirement for *anything* to 'work' or be 'useful'. Even using a can opener requires making the prediction that it can be 'used' to produce a future state where the can is opened. We all make predictions all the time, every moment of every waking day. It is unavoidable.

Nope.  I don't believe in predictions.  I believe in doing the exact opposite of what I did in previous instances.  This has always worked for me.  Therefore, you are wrong.  POW!

Quote:
I severely doubt you could produce such a system which is actually useful (i.e. makes good predictions). 

Your "doubt" does not matter.  Since practical not contained in the concept of logic, I can conceivably come up with an illogical system which is practically useful.

Quote:
As a pragmatist, I'm a skeptic (since skepticism predicts that I'll waste less mental effort if I discard unevidenced ideas). Therefore, I challenge you to produce such a system. If you actually do produce a system that makes good predictions, then as a pragmatist, I would agree with you and adopt the new system. If you can't, then as a pragmatic skeptic, I'll discard your system.

But I'm a skeptic too!  And I know that my system has worked for me.  I've tried your system and it has failed.  Therefore, you should trust my logic.

Quote:
*Evolution's* metric is survival. An ability to predict offers an evolutionary advantage.  Without it, I wouldn't survive.

Really?  How have bacteria survived all of this time?  Have they been making predictions?

Quote:
The language is secondary. Pragmatism/prediction is primary.

Ah.  So we have a higher order language.  Since it is a language, would you agree that it is conceptual by nature?

Quote:
But you can't actually avoid it, because you couldn't use logic either if it didn't work.

There is no if.  There is absolutely no potential for logic to not work since our experience is structured according to it.  No logic = no experience. 

You are treating logic as if it constitutes a set of scientific principles whose veracity has been verified in experience.  I have not seen one credible logician who agrees with this. 

Can you link me to some logician who says that the laws of logic are a posteriori?

Quote:
Babies don't think in Ts and Fs.

Not as propositional knowledge, but they do so as procedural knowledge.  Both cases are knowledge.

 

Quote:
None of which you can justify without bald assertion.

What are you talking about? 

You can justify axioms with bald assertion because they are, by their very nature, self-justified.

 

Quote:
No. Do you?

No. 

 

Quote:
So pragmatism trumps logic. Exactly as I said.

Umm, no.  Logicians developed paraconsistent logic using logic.

 

Quote:
Hmmmmm, interesting. Pragmatism trumps your 'logic' again. Funny, that.

Funny, I remember clearly saying that practicality has no analytic relationship with logic.  Like I said, I could come up with an inconsistent system and still practically function.

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Every account you've

Quote:

Every account you've given presupposes logic, which further supports the idea that experience requires underlying conceptual realities not derived from experience.

 

Again, how does a squirrel distinguish an acorn from a tree?  It does not use logic.  Rather, it has the instincts it needs to do so.  Instincts are inherited, in that they are something that the previous generation learned, from experience.  By account of all life that does not use logic, experience comes before knowledge, even if the experience was of a parent in the previous generation.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:Again,

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Again, how does a squirrel distinguish an acorn from a tree?  It does not use logic.  Rather, it has the instincts it needs to do so.  Instincts are inherited, in that they are something that the previous generation learned, from experience.  By account of all life that does not use logic, experience comes before knowledge, even if the experience was of a parent in the previous generation.

What do squirrels have to do with people?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Again, how does a squirrel distinguish an acorn from a tree?  It does not use logic.  Rather, it has the instincts it needs to do so.  Instincts are inherited, in that they are something that the previous generation learned, from experience.  By account of all life that does not use logic, experience comes before knowledge, even if the experience was of a parent in the previous generation.

What do squirrels have to do with people?

They are mammals with brains, just like us.  I imagine you will complain that they don't have voodoo in them like you do, and that means they are simple machines....unlike humans, who are actually fleshy human suits surrounding a core of rainbows and magic.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Again, how does a squirrel distinguish an acorn from a tree?  It does not use logic.  Rather, it has the instincts it needs to do so.  Instincts are inherited, in that they are something that the previous generation learned, from experience.  By account of all life that does not use logic, experience comes before knowledge, even if the experience was of a parent in the previous generation.

What do squirrels have to do with people?

 

They apparently understand the law of non-contradiction without logic.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:They are

mellestad wrote:

They are mammals with brains, just like us.  I imagine you will complain that they don't have voodoo in them like you do, and that means they are simple machines....unlike humans, who are actually fleshy human suits surrounding a core of rainbows and magic.

According to the bible, God did not make squirrels in his image.  But since you do not believe in the bible:

 

I've already explained the issue if you are going to reduce human beings to machines with wheels and pulleys.  It's just biting the bullet.

Once again, this does little to explain the nature of the principles themselves. 

Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

 

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:They

v4ultingbassist wrote:

They apparently understand the law of non-contradiction without logic.

Let's assume for a moment that animals are intelligent and actually use logic.  How would that disprove my argument? 

Okay.  So we have transcendent principles which are applied by man and animals.  So what?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

mellestad wrote:

They are mammals with brains, just like us.  I imagine you will complain that they don't have voodoo in them like you do, and that means they are simple machines....unlike humans, who are actually fleshy human suits surrounding a core of rainbows and magic.

According to the bible, God did not make squirrels in his image.  But since you do not believe in the bible:

 

I've already explained the issue if you are going to reduce human beings to machines with wheels and pulleys.  It's just biting the bullet.

Once again, this does little to explain the nature of the principles themselves. 

Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

 

 

I believe there is another forumite explaining that to you as I type this.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

They apparently understand the law of non-contradiction without logic.

Let's assume for a moment that animals are intelligent and actually use logic.  How would that disprove my argument? 

Okay.  So we have transcendent principles which are applied by man and animals.  So what?

 

But they aren't, and that is my point.  It shows that your laws of logic aren't unique to humanity, and consequently aren't a 'reflection of god.'  It is a way to map the laws of logic into nature, which you apparently don't think is the case.

 

 


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

 

"I would also add the definition from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: 'God is a spirit; infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.' 

(Supplied definition)

 

 

Who the fuck was ever, could ever, will ever be in a position to clarify a definition as outlandish as this one? By what standards of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth is god being measured up against here? What is a spirit? What is eternity, what is infinite and who in the name of all that's unholy ever ventured out to the borders of human comprehension to check? Give me a break.

Ayn Rand was right. God is a being the sole definition of which is that he is 'inconceivable to the human mind'. What a joke. We cannot know god. We can't even talk about him without spouting invented doctrine or total shit.

 

 

 

For you to claim that no one has a 'right' to be in a position to make this claim; is itself a claim of being all-knowing and all-experienced to know that no one has a right to do such.  This is an inductive fallacy if one holds to the epistemology of naturalism.  God is not being measured by anything greater than Himself.  He is the ultimate starting point for other measurands.  Sounds like you need a good Theology book for help in your quest for the basic definitions you seek.


How could Ayn Rand have been right to claim omniscience in regards to God?  Has she examined all minds at all times and in all places to know this?  You are also claiming exhaustive knowledge to be dogmatic that one cannot know God.  When did you examine the entire universe and all the material/immaterial realm of ontological existence? 

 

Chazmuze


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
(Presuppositionalist notes

(Presuppositionalist notes that in spite of all their kicking and screaming, the atheists have been forced to discuss TAG seriously. Theism FTW.)

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

(Presuppositionalist notes that in spite of all their kicking and screaming, the atheists have been forced to discuss TAG seriously. Theism FTW.)

 

It isn't like this is some novel discussion you know...you could go to wikipedia and see both sides arguments just as easily.  Tag, its variations and the critiques of Tag have been around quite a while.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Logical

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 


 

Chazmuze


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:butterbattle

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:chazmuze

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 


 

Chazmuze


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:jcgadfly

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 

 

 

So you claim. Reality stands against you.

Difference between us - We do not have to agree with Dawkins to still be atheist. You have to agree with your prophets to be Christian.

There is no punishment for using science that improves on Darwin. There is an eternal punishment for disagreeing with your God (or his spokesbeings).

On the ultimate authority, you may be right. Some may have self. Most Christians do as well. They have created a being that validates every decision they make and call it the "god of the Bible" (after finding passages that validate their creation).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:chazmuze

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 

 

 

So you claim. Reality stands against you.

Quote:
Define 'reality'. 

Difference between us - We do not have to agree with Dawkins to still be atheist. You have to agree with your prophets to be Christian.

Quote:
Mostly all atheists hold to the same tenets as Dawkins; give or take a few quarks. 

There is no punishment for using science that improves on Darwin. There is an eternal punishment for disagreeing with your God (or his spokesbeings).

Quote:
True, many Theistic scientists do use the information Darwin provided, yet they don't extrapolate it to the extent most evolutionists do. 

On the ultimate authority, you may be right. Some may have self. Most Christians do as well. They have created a being that validates every decision they make and call it the "god of the Bible" (after finding passages that validate their creation).

Quote:
  Christian Theology does not allow a Christian to have self as the ultimate criteria for truth.  How do you know that all Christians 'created' a being?  How do you know that God hasn't revealed this to them by His Spirit and/or Word; the ultimate starting point for Christian Theism? 
 


 

Chazmuze


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:jcgadfly

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 

 

 

So you claim. Reality stands against you.

Quote:
Define 'reality'. 

Difference between us - We do not have to agree with Dawkins to still be atheist. You have to agree with your prophets to be Christian.

Quote:
Mostly all atheists hold to the same tenets as Dawkins; give or take a few quarks. 

There is no punishment for using science that improves on Darwin. There is an eternal punishment for disagreeing with your God (or his spokesbeings).

Quote:
True, many Theistic scientists do use the information Darwin provided, yet they don't extrapolate it to the extent most evolutionists do. 

On the ultimate authority, you may be right. Some may have self. Most Christians do as well. They have created a being that validates every decision they make and call it the "god of the Bible" (after finding passages that validate their creation).

Quote:
  Christian Theology does not allow a Christian to have self as the ultimate criteria for truth.  How do you know that all Christians 'created' a being?  How do you know that God hasn't revealed this to them by His Spirit and/or Word; the ultimate starting point for Christian Theism? 
 

 

 

1. Reality, for this argument, means the world in which we live.

2. Then Dawkins is not an atheist "prophet" in the sense you mean. Thanks for the consensus.

3. Do the theistic scientists not follow biology or the other sciences to the fullest because of evidence or because dogma holds them back? Or is it just a fear of what they'll see? 

4."How do you know that God hasn't revealed this to them by His Spirit and/or Word; the ultimate starting point for Christian Theism?" Because the Christian God is also a created being. He was thought up by the writers and editors of the Bible.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:jcgadfly

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 


 

 

This is where you, FS, Pais, and Fonzie all fail.  You seem to have this idea that there is some common dogma that binds all atheists. 

Let me fill you in on a little secret.  The only thing that unites us all is that we don't have a belief in god.

Seriously, that's it.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:Oh, but it

chazmuze wrote:

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc.

Interesting, I was an atheist before I ever heard of Dawkins or Darwin, although I did know about evolution. Empiricism or rationalism wasn't part of my education....yet. Never understood the whole Atheism is a religion it has dogma's.....I can say nope it doesn't, I never believed in the bullshit people tried to tell me about god and their religion, if they couldn't make a coherent argument, that's not my problem, that's theirs.....and I was maybe 12. That's it, that's all.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote: Oh, but it

[double post]


 


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:chazmuze

kidvelvet wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 


 

 

This is where you, FS, Pais, and Fonzie all fail.  You seem to have this idea that there is some common dogma that binds all atheists. 

Let me fill you in on a little secret.  The only thing that unites us all is that we don't have a belief in god.

Seriously, that's it.

There is only naturalism or non-naturalism.  There is no neutrality to my knowledge. 


 

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:chazmuze

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

 

 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 

 

 

So you claim. Reality stands against you.

Quote:
Define 'reality'. 

Difference between us - We do not have to agree with Dawkins to still be atheist. You have to agree with your prophets to be Christian.

Quote:
Mostly all atheists hold to the same tenets as Dawkins; give or take a few quarks. 

There is no punishment for using science that improves on Darwin. There is an eternal punishment for disagreeing with your God (or his spokesbeings).

Quote:
True, many Theistic scientists do use the information Darwin provided, yet they don't extrapolate it to the extent most evolutionists do. 

On the ultimate authority, you may be right. Some may have self. Most Christians do as well. They have created a being that validates every decision they make and call it the "god of the Bible" (after finding passages that validate their creation).

Quote:
  Christian Theology does not allow a Christian to have self as the ultimate criteria for truth.  How do you know that all Christians 'created' a being?  How do you know that God hasn't revealed this to them by His Spirit and/or Word; the ultimate starting point for Christian Theism? 
 

 

 

1. Reality, for this argument, means the world in which we live.

Quote:
  How would you go about proving that?  If you only have material entities or methodologies, how can you prove something 'outside' of that with those same tools?  Operational science as an ultimate tool cannot justify or prove philosophical claims. 

2. Then Dawkins is not an atheist "prophet" in the sense you mean. Thanks for the consensus.

Quote:
  He most certainly is, as he is appealed to for truth by many.

3. Do the theistic scientists not follow biology or the other sciences to the fullest because of evidence or because dogma holds them back? Or is it just a fear of what they'll see?

Quote:
You are confusing operational science with a philosophical foundation.  I am speaking in terms of justifying 'why' one holds to their worldview, not the methodology or pragmatical considerations within such.

4."How do you know that God hasn't revealed this to them by His Spirit and/or Word; the ultimate starting point for Christian Theism?" Because the Christian God is also a created being. He was thought up by the writers and editors of the Bible.

Chazmuze


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:There is only

chazmuze wrote:

There is only naturalism or non-naturalism.  There is no neutrality to my knowledge. 

But "non-naturailsm" encompasses an infinite number of possible views of reality, which do not necessarily entail God(s). Simple negation does not necessarily define anything as specific as what is being negated.

Similarly, Atheism, the simple lack of belief in a God or Gods, is consistent with a wide range of specific beliefs about how we decide moral and political issues, how much value we give to sceptical and rational reasoning about all kinds of things, and so on.

It does tend to be associated with skeptical/rational thinking, as a consequence of applying such ways of thinking to the question of God - IOW it is a result of certain kinds of world-view (typically the rational/skeptical sort), not the primary inspiration for such views.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:jcgadfly

chazmuze wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Logical principles are a priori, universal, and necessary.  How do you reconcile that under an atheist worldview?

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't agree. 

Yes, you do have to reconcile it if your worldview is to be coherent in all its tenets, i.e. epistemology, ethics, and uniformity (science). 

Good thing atheism isn't a worldview then, huh?

Oh, but it is.  There are the prophets, i.e. Dawkins, Darwin, etc.  There is the epistemology, i.e. empiricism, rationalism.  There is the science, i.e. demarcation.  There is an ultimate authority, i.e. self, others, nature, etc. 

Darwin was driven toward something close to Atheism, from a starting point of Christian belief by observation of the natural world.

We have continued to adjust and refine his ideas about evolution, the opposite of how a prophet is regarded.

 

Atheism is a typical result of applying empiricism and rationalism to the question of God.

Atheists are not required by logic or anything else to agree with Dawkins or anyone else. We have a common lack of belief in God, of course, by definition, as self-identified atheists, but apart from that, everything is up for debate.

Demarcation? That is not a 'science'. The Christian world-view does not have a 'science'. What are you trying to say there?

The 'ultimate authority' is objective reality, nature, as 'revealed' by observation and experiment, specifically designed to exclude the effects of personal preconceptions and biases, ie self, as far as possible, by peer review, independent verification, etc.

Are you consciously trying to give us ammunition for ridiculing your position?

Are you really conceding that your position is irrational and has no evidence to support it? Thank you!

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I should add that Theism

 I should add that Theism implies, in practice, that the ultimate authority is yourself, since the scriptures are so open to interpretation, you have to assume that you personally are able to accurately assess the correct interpretation.

Whereas science relies as many people as possible independently verifying a finding, and being prepared to abandon their personal belief as to what is correct when presented with sufficient new evidence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: I should

BobSpence1 wrote:

 I should add that Theism implies, in practice, that the ultimate authority is yourself, since the scriptures are so open to interpretation, you have to assume that you personally are able to accurately assess the correct interpretation.

Whereas science relies as many people as possible independently verifying a finding, and being prepared to abandon their personal belief as to what is correct when presented with sufficient new evidence.

 

Well, you or whatever intellectual proxy you assign to make your decisions for you, like a priest or social group.

 

I always got a kick from celibate priests telling people how to handle their sex lives.  People are strange.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:BobSpence1

mellestad wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 I should add that Theism implies, in practice, that the ultimate authority is yourself, since the scriptures are so open to interpretation, you have to assume that you personally are able to accurately assess the correct interpretation.

Whereas science relies as many people as possible independently verifying a finding, and being prepared to abandon their personal belief as to what is correct when presented with sufficient new evidence.

 

Well, you or whatever intellectual proxy you assign to make your decisions for you, like a priest or social group.

 

I always got a kick from celibate priests telling people how to handle their sex lives.  People are strange.

Even if you assign someone else to make the assessment or interpretation, you are still assuming you have made the right decision as to who to trust.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:mellestad

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 I should add that Theism implies, in practice, that the ultimate authority is yourself, since the scriptures are so open to interpretation, you have to assume that you personally are able to accurately assess the correct interpretation.

Whereas science relies as many people as possible independently verifying a finding, and being prepared to abandon their personal belief as to what is correct when presented with sufficient new evidence.

 

Well, you or whatever intellectual proxy you assign to make your decisions for you, like a priest or social group.

 

I always got a kick from celibate priests telling people how to handle their sex lives.  People are strange.

Even if you assign someone else to make the assessment or interpretation, you are still assuming you have made the right decision as to who to trust.

Yes.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
From bobspence1 Quote:I

From bobspence1

Quote:
I should add that Theism implies, in practice, that the ultimate authority is yourself, since the scriptures are so open to interpretation, you have to assume that you personally are able to accurately assess the correct interpretation.

 

That is not necessarily true.  In Biblical and other literary interpretation, there is a format called 'hermeneutics'.  It is a science of interpretation and follows a logical pattern.  It's form is to interpret with the following criteria:  1.) We find the immediate context of a passage and interpret it within a larger context.  2.) We find where similar concepts are taught and tie these together and deduce conclusions from them.  3.)  We acknowledge a passage(s) is interpreted by the intent of the writer, the type of audience, the social customs, the intent of the original languages.  This form of interpretation leaves very little room for subjective interpretation. 

 

Quote:
Whereas science relies as many people as possible independently verifying a finding, and being prepared to abandon their personal belief as to what is correct when presented with sufficient new evidence.

 

There is no such thing as independent verification. One always brings presuppositions to the table to interpretation. That is, even when observing an action, one has a worldview that assumes nature will remain uniform ( a faith in future order of nature). This is begging the question, as one can never assume nature will be like the past, as one has never observed all causal actions at all times and in all places. To say that the future will be like the past, based upon the past; is circular reasoning. It also assumes the inherent nature of matter. One has no examined all matter at all times and in all places to know this. The reliance upon many people is acquiring truth by mob rule, an appeal to majorities for truth. If one is speaking of demarcation science or laboratory, routine experimentation, then yes; one can obtain probable repeatability to some extent. This has nothing to do with Bible interpretation, as one is ideological, whereas, the other mechanistic in nature.

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

QM is always affected by our 'probing' or experimentation.  When the scientist intrudes his measuring device into an atomic system, he forces a particular outcome to be actualized from what was before a fuzzy realm of potentialities.  As Heisenberg writes, 'The transition from the possible to the actual takes place during the act of observation'.  (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosphy: The Revolution in Modern Science, p. 54).

 

"The act of observing" doesn't mean a scientist staring at the experiment; he is using a tool.  A tool of observation isn't conscious.  Therefore it has to be a natural process that is causing the discrepancy, because either a human is seeing results after experimentation, or looking at his tool, after experimentation.   This is why we now have complicated equations regarding quantum mechanics that explain how this is a 'property' of the matter/energy in quantum systems.

I guess Heisenberg was wrong.  Consciousness has nothing to do with affects imported onto and micro-realm. 


 

Chazmuze


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:I guess

chazmuze wrote:

I guess Heisenberg was wrong.  Consciousness has nothing to do with affects imported onto and micro-realm. 

 

No, you were wrong in assuming that 'observation' meant by a conscious being.  The tools aren't conscious, yet when present, the results are different.  This means it is a natural discrepancy, not one caused by consciousness. 

 

"In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner."  - Wiki, Observer Effect

 

The instruments observe, not the eyes.