SeaKayaker

Daetheron,

I will reply in more detail to your post later, but two things for now.

I do not claim that universal laws apply in the same way to all of space. I will clarify this more, but it is crucial for understanding my concept of universal laws.

Yes, it is the informal fallacy of ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance - there is no evidence to disprove this point, therefore it must be true). I see where you are coming from with this, but I will explain my reasoning more tomorrow.

SeaKayaker

bgponder

RW:
After a quick jaunt to good ol' eb.com I realize I ain't got time to find out exactly what you mean by "model", whether it is a specific term for method, so forth, so I will have to risk showing my green-ness and hash it out in layman's terms.

First, I am assuming you don't mean truth in the sense of that litany of things that can give "meaning" to our lives, though that is not to say that Truth isn't in the litany. But if you mean truth as actuality , reality which may be over and against our subjective experience, I must say that I strive obsessively for objectivity through self-reflection(do I really believe this to be true, or do I just want to believe it for something I consider to be sufficient or expedient) and the best empirical observations I can make, and then sift it through--yes,intuition--gulp--and hold to all that until new info yields a different result from the process.

Now I realize that I've probably just given you more of an offhand description of my conglomerate philosophy, rather than a succint answer to your question, but maybe you can glean something of what you want from that, and maybe make some inferences from my profile until I can digest the epistemology article in Brittanica and some more from the II Library and clarify. Right now I've got to sleep, because I get up at six to get ready to sling lumber for the day--YUUUUKK!!!
P+C, Barry

HRG

To SeeKayaker:

1. What you call the "laws of logic" are consequences from the semantics of the language we use to describe the world. Thus they don't need any transcendental foundation, and aren't "absolute laws" in any sense. If quantum effects had played a larger role in everyday life (before the technological revolution, of course), our logic might easily be trivalent (true, indeterminate,false), as has been proposed by Reichenbach.

The situation of mathematical theorems is similar. Neither the presence nor the absence of gods will change the fundamental theorem of algebra, once the terms "complex number", "polynomial" etc. have been defined - and who has defined them: human mathematicians.

2. You base the regularities of nature on a transcendental basis, to wit the existence of a Creator. A non-theist might base them equally well on the absence of intermeddling gods.
You postulate that the default state of the universe is "total chaos" (whatever that means). A non-theist might equally well postulate that the default state of the universe contains some patterns; said patterns remain because there are no supernatural beings to disturb them.

It is a poor metaphysical argument when it doesn't work both ways ;-)

HRG.

Jack the Bodiless

Let's get some terminology straightened out here. Firstly, evolution is the theory that random mutations, acted upon by natural selection, is sufficient to account for the observation that all living things appear to be descended from common ancestors. It does not address the formation of the Earth or the Universe. Secondly, nobody believes that "random chance operating on matter" created universal natural laws: these predate matter (and make matter possible).
Why assume that "random chance" produces natural laws? The correct answer to the question of the origin of natural laws is "nobody knows". It is therefore obviously absurd to state that an enirely unknown phenomenon cannot create natural laws.
I have no idea where you got that notion. Ever heard of the quest for the "Theory of Everything"? Some say it's futile, but there is no "atheist view" on that.
And the atheist also believes that something created and maintains the Universe: this is NOT "borrowing from the Christian worldview". Especially as the Christians stole formal logic from the pagan Greeks.

SeaKayaker

Well, I certainly have received many responses! With a Latin III test tomorrow, I do not have the time to answer everyone individually right now, but I will try to address some of the major themes that I have seen in the objections. I should be able to spend more time on this forum this weekend and next week. Some of what I am presenting as objections to my arguments are quotations from other posts and some are paraphrases, but I have tried not to take anything out of context.

First Objection: the entire basis for my argument is ad ignorantiam if I claim that because the atheist has not proved that he can use these laws there is no way for him to prove that he can do so.

Response: I can understand how it appears that I am arguing ad ignorantiam. Often, the difference between a fallacious argument and a valid one (if it is an informal logical fallacy in question) can be a very slight change in the wording of the conclusion. I have neither spelled my conclusion out as clearly as I should have nor been as careful in my wording of it as I should have been. Therefore, I would like to propose a slightly reworded conclusion to my argument. I would like to say that the atheist lacks a basis for consistently using the universal laws that form the foundation for the laws of science and logic. I would also say that the Christian has the basis for consistently using these laws. If these conclusions were completely true, they would not absolutely prove that Christianity is true, but they would prove that atheism is inconsistent. For the atheist to object to my saying that atheism is inconsistent on the basis that we have no way for it to achieve internal consistency (saying or implying that such a way could appear in the future) is to argue on the basis of evidence that does not exist. If such a way appears in the future, people will revisit these issues. However, you cannot claim that I have no ability to declare atheism inconsistent because more evidence in favor of your position might show up in the future (I think that this is the opposite form of ad ignorantiam, but it might be some other an informal fallacy).

Second Objection:
Response: We still are sometimes using different definitions for the laws of science. In fact, I would affirm what you are saying. I would say that a goal of science is to form theories that reflect the universal laws (since science cannot discover any universal law). In as much as theories reflect universal laws, they are accurate, but in as much as they fail to reflect universal laws, theories are inaccurate.

I do not know if this is a normal distinction for the Christian presuppositionalist that I am making here, but I think that it is important and would like to maintain it throughout my argument.

Third Objection:
Response: Where did the laws first come from and why do they still exist? Also, Jack the Bodiless, I would like to note that some other people who disagree with me seem to deny universal laws. It is interesting to see that you two have such different views on such an important issue. This will make this discussion slightly more confusing if some atheists affirm universal laws and some deny them, so please bear that in mind if I say something that does not apply to you.

Since I have not asked any of you directly, how do you think the universe came to be [I reworded this question in response to Datheron's point - I did not mean to ask a loaded question] (TollHouse, I am particularly interested in your view on this)? I do not want to be setting up a straw man, and some of you apparently do not attribute the existence of the universe to random chance, so I would like to hear to what you attribute it.

I wonder if atheists on here would be willing just to post whether or not they believe that universal laws exist (with, if possible, some short explanation of why). It seems to me that such a poll (I use the term loosely) could be interesting to see.

I apologize to those whose comments I have not addressed (or have done so incompletely). You have raised many interesting points, and I will answer them as soon as I can.

Thanks,
SeaKayaker

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]

Datheron

SeaKayaker,

Alright, I'll answer what I can. I think there's a specific issue that seems to be addressed to my line of argumentation, but we'll see.

First, you're shifting the argument completely by making that revision; if you're going to argue on bases, then you're tredding on the territory of axioms and presuppositions. As such, I find no inconsistency or contradiction in the atheist mindset of universal laws; you claim that we have no basis for assuming that the Universe is consistent (hence laws), but that is defined to be an axiomic principle. Similarly, the theist must take the position that the existence of God and his creation are also axiomic principles...being on equal footing, I don't see how one is superior than the other in our closed area of debate.

As for the part on "future possibility" - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the ad ignorantium fallacy? The fallacious argument comes from the fact that you have ruled out possibilities before you have proven that you can do such a thing; "I don't know" is just a general statement that admits to an infinite number of possibilities that may satisfy the query. For you to claim it inconsistent is for you to have claimed to have proven that it is inconsistent, that only one possibility exists.

The point I made this distinction (assuming this point was directed mainly to me) is so to make it very clear that we do not know whether there is such a thing as a "universal law". Our laws may be very accurate, but our assumptions that these laws remain consistent only make sense for our laws, not for whatever the Universe uses to run itself. That is admitted to be unknown, and hence once again you cannot claim inconsistency or hypocrisy in this area.

I sound like an old tape player when I answer this challenge with the same line: "we don't know". You're raising questions about the origins of the Universe and its laws which are impossible for us to empirically observe or logically reason (think about the inability to use any system to uncover its origins); hence that is the only reply possible. It is much like asking a physicist to use physics in calculating how the laws of physics came about - a catch-22.

I think you're using the wrong terminology. "Create" necessarily implies a "creator", which would then imply "God". A more appropriate question would be "how do you think the Universe came to be?"

Jack the Bodiless

And this basis is...?

The Bible does not spell out the rules of formal logic, or scientific laws such as conservation of energy and so forth. Instead, all it contains are a few vague references to God "creating everything". Christians assume that their God provides a "basis" for the consistency of natural laws, but there is certainly no detailed explanation of how "God" supposedly accomplishes this.

It is therefore hypocritical to expect an atheist to provide a detailed explanation of how these things came to be, or continue to operate: nobody knows.

emc2

Seakayaker:

Sorry for the delay in reply. I have a family emergency. As much as I would love to, I don't have time for posts right now. I'll check back in a few days (If my situation allows) and try then.

Sorry.

SeaKayaker

Datheron,

In order to respond to what you have said, I need to understand one slightly different, yet related, aspect of your worldview. Before addressing the laws of science any more, I would like to know your ultimate standard of truth (if you indeed do believe that objective truth exists). Do you think that science and logic determine what is true, or do you have some other ultimate standard?
If I do not see a response from you to this before I log off for the evening, I may still post my response, assuming that you consider science and logic the ultimate standards of truth (I will mention this assumption in that post, too).

Thanks,
SeaKayaker

Datheron

SeaKayaker,

Hm, well, personally, I believe in logic as the "ultimate truth" quantifier which all other worldviews are based upon, evaluated, and criticized. But if you were hoping that I'd name a system where knowledge can be known as a certainty (i.e. objective), then I'm afraid you're out of luck. I personally believe that one cannot obtain objective knowledge, that one cannot be completely and utterly certain about a claim made, hence making it more of a probable assertion than an absolute declaration. Of course, for the sake of those that don't believe in this worldview and for convienence's sake, a 99.9% certainty and a 100% certainy is not that big of a difference.