FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-27-2002, 02:50 AM   #231
HRG
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
Post

Note to moderators: Couldn't we collect all the immediate rebuttals of presuppositionalism in a FAQ ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kent Symanzik (in part):
[QB]Hi Synaesthesia,



You seem to be saying here that I must be omniscient before I can make a presupposition. I don't understand your reason for this. Can you elaborate?

What I do know is that if I do not presuppose the Christian God then I cannot rationally know anything.
[quote]
How do you know that without making some presupposition ? You cannot judge a system which makes different presuppositions from "within" your own system; that's like applying the rules of soccer to (American) football and claiming a foul when someone is carrying the ball.

Of course, if you presuppose the Christian God you cannot rationally know anything either - as long as you require the same standard for your knowledge as you require for the knowledge in an atheist system. This is for the simple reason that he may lie to you when he says that he never lies.

In contrast, the reality of non-theism (aka "Nature" or "The Universe") may be highly complicated, but, lacking volition, cannot actively deceive you.

BTW, the "laws of logic" are tautologies in the sense that they are inherent in the semantics of our language. They don't need a transcedental origin.

An exact analogy would be the "law" that a bishop never moves to a square of a different color, or that the ace of trumps always takes a trick. Those "laws" are inherent in the rules for chess and bridge; they don't need a transcedental origin either.

Regards,
HRG.


"All theorems of logic state the same: to wit, nothing" (L. Wittgenstein)
HRG is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 08:15 AM   #232
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Post

Hi Jobar, thanks for the welcome.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jobar:
"We know that God does not change because he tells us so. "

As you are a Christian, I know you are referring to the Bible. I contend you have no reason to believe this; the Bible is no more the "word of God" than any other book. There is nothing miraculous, or indeed extraordinary, about it. There is nothing telling us it is the word of God save itself; no messages written on the sky in letters of fire, or on the moon in patterns of craters; no least breath of evidence beyond the written words of men. Men who can be mistaken; men who can lie through their teeth.
I think you are misunderstanding my position. As a Christian my ultimate authority is the Christian God revealed in the scriptures. If there was a message written in the sky it would be less authoritative than the message I already have in scripture.

Quote:
I am a strong atheist with respect to Jehovah- I can say with complete confidence he does not exist, because as he is most commonly defined- omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent- he is self-contradictory in several ways. (A God of infinite love *cannot* co-exist with suffering.)
It seems that you are critizing the concept of the Christian God from you own worldview. If that is the case, you will first have to establish suffering as a rational concept in your worldview. I assume you are talking about human suffering. What is suffering in an atheist worldview? How can it be more than a particular state in the human body. A particular arrangement of chemicals in the brain. But, you seem to be saying that suffering is more than that. Can you explain how it can be in an atheist worldview?

Until that is accomplished we are forced to presuppose that God exists to make sense of suffering in order to use suffering as an argument against his existence.

Quote:
As to my own world view- as far as I can tell, I only pre-suppose that my senses give me a good representation of an externally-existing universe. I am not a solipsist. I do not see that I need assume anything beyond that.
Ok, thanks for letting my know where you are coming from. And thanks for the good questions.

Kent
Kent Symanzik is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 08:29 AM   #233
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Post

Hi acronos,

I think I understand where you are coming from.

Quote:
Originally posted by acronos:
<strong>

When I create a model of a boat, I don’t have the boat. I have a model of the boat. When I create a mind model of three coins, I don’t have three coins. I have a model of three coins. When I create another mind model of two coins and add these mental coins together, then I have five mentally modeled coins. Now I can use such models to predict the behavior of the real universe that I observe. These models are real, not abstract. They exist in my mind, but they do exist. They have so far proven to be universal, but I do not completely rule out the possibility that I may find an instance where they do not correctly model reality. I just sincerely doubt that such a possibility exists.
</strong>
The problem here is where you say they have so far proven to be universal. But, in your worldview, there cannot be universals. What is a number? Is it just a different concept in our brains that *so far* has been the same in every human that we know of? Is it a particular that is inherent in every bit of matter? Have you observed it?

From my perspective, the difficulty is that we do live in a world with universals. And I know where these universals are established, namely God. So what happens is that atheists can say "What's the problem? The universe as far as we know is uniform. It works and I have my atheist worldview." But my point is that if your worldview was actually true it wouldn't work.

I hope I am being clear. I just want to let you know what I'm thinking.

Kent
Kent Symanzik is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 10:55 AM   #234
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
Post

Hi Kent,
Quote:
The problem here is where you say they have so far proven to be universal. But, in your worldview, there cannot be universals.
I disagree. In my world there are universals. The actual universe is the universal. The laws of the universe exist, whatever they are. I argue that our understanding of those laws is incomplete, not that the laws are incomplete. The universe just exists. That is my presupposition. Whatever behaviors or laws the universe exhibits are part of my presupposition. Without gravity, there are no planets. Without matter, we don't exist. These laws are universal so far as we know, but our knowledge or lack of knowledge has absolutely no effect on their existence. What is real is real whether we know about it or not.

Quote:
And I know where these universals are established, namely God.
In my worldview, these universals are part of the existence of the universe. There is matter. Matter is part of our universe. Matter is a universal law as far as we understand it. Introducing God only adds more complexity. It is much simpler to just directly attribute the laws to where you yourself have said we observe the laws, namely the universe. Our universe does not exist outside of the laws of matter, space, and time. When I postulate the existence of the universe, the laws of matter, space, and time are part of the postulation. Is this making sense yet?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: acronos ]</p>
acronos is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 11:08 AM   #235
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
Post

Quote:
If that is the case, you will first have to establish suffering as a rational concept in your worldview. I assume you are talking about human suffering. What is suffering in an atheist worldview?
I know suffering exists because I suffer. I observe others with symptoms similar to mine when they suffer. I hear them tell me that they are suffering. Why is it irrational for me to believe suffering exists? Why do I have to explain the origins of a phenomena to believe in the existence of it? If I see an apple fall to the ground consistently, then I am perfectly reasonable in expecting it to fall the next time I drop it. I am perfectly reasonable whether I understand the mechanism of gravity or not.

Even though I don’t have to explain it, most atheists, I think, would say that the sensation of suffering evolved because there was an evolutionary advantage in motivating creatures to avoid suffering. Pleasure and pain motivate people. Pleasure motivates people towards behaviors that support survival and propagation. Pain motivates people to avoid things that are detrimental to survival. Suffering is what happens when you experience pain.
acronos is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 11:20 AM   #236
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
Post

Quote:
But my point is that if your worldview was actually true it wouldn't work.
I missed this on the previous pass. This is a significant statement. I don't understand where you are coming from. Why wouldn't my worldview work?
acronos is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 04:00 PM   #237
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Post

Hi acronos,

Quote:
Originally posted by acronos:
I disagree. In my world there are universals. The actual universe is the universal. The laws of the universe exist, whatever they are. I argue that our understanding of those laws is incomplete, not that the laws are incomplete. The universe just exists. That is my presupposition. Whatever behaviors or laws the universe exhibits are part of my presupposition. Without gravity, there are no planets. Without matter, we don't exist. These laws are universal so far as we know, but our knowledge or lack of knowledge has absolutely no effect on their existence. What is real is real whether we know about it or not.
I think the problem with the universe being your presupposition is that the universe is not a source of knowledge. You must still depend on observation for all you know. That is why your claim that there are universals is without support. You have not observed that. So, when you say what is real is real whether we know about it or not, the problem is that we do not know what is real.

In short, I'm trying to explain that you have a knowledge problem. You are free to presuppose the universe but you have no way of knowing all of what the universe is.

Quote:
In my worldview, these universals are part of the existence of the universe. There is matter. Matter is part of our universe. Matter is a universal law as far as we understand it. Introducing God only adds more complexity. It is much simpler to just directly attribute the laws to where you yourself have said we observe the laws, namely the universe. Our universe does not exist outside of the laws of matter, space, and time. When I postulate the existence of the universe, the laws of matter, space, and time are part of the postulation. Is this making sense yet?
Here, you seem to understand that you cannot observe universal laws. At least, that is what I understand when you say "I postulate the existence of the universe, the laws of matter, space, and time are part of the postulation".

I have thought about this as well. I have wondered, just as I presuppose the Christian God why can't an atheist presuppose the universe, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. But, I think this is problematic because I do not see how all of these things fit in an atheistic worldview. Where do we get uniformity from the randomness of the universe. And what are the laws of logic? I do not know of any atheistic worldviews that have a foundation to support abstract universals.

Another problem I have with presupposing these things is that you are simply presupposing the very things that our worldviews need to justify. The laws of logic are not a foundation but rather require a foundation. In other words, instead of presupposing something to be a source of your knowledge you are presupposing the knowledge itself.

I hope I haven't muddied things up too much. I'm just trying to lay all my thoughts out at once.

Kent
Kent Symanzik is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 04:36 PM   #238
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Post

Hi acronos,

Quote:
Originally posted by acronos:
I know suffering exists because I suffer. I observe others with symptoms similar to mine when they suffer. I hear them tell me that they are suffering. Why is it irrational for me to believe suffering exists? Why do I have to explain the origins of a phenomena to believe in the existence of it? If I see an apple fall to the ground consistently, then I am perfectly reasonable in expecting it to fall the next time I drop it. I am perfectly reasonable whether I understand the mechanism of gravity or not.
I know that you suffer as do I. The existence of suffering is not what is in question. The question is whether your worldview can account for such phenomena or not. If it cannot then your acknowledgement of suffering shows that you act inconsistently with your worldview.

Quote:
Even though I don’t have to explain it, most atheists, I think, would say that the sensation of suffering evolved because there was an evolutionary advantage in motivating creatures to avoid suffering. Pleasure and pain motivate people. Pleasure motivates people towards behaviors that support survival and propagation. Pain motivates people to avoid things that are detrimental to survival. Suffering is what happens when you experience pain.
The problem I have with this explanation is that there are several assumptions in it that are unjustified. These assumptions are that suffering is bad and survival is good. Can you explain these things in atheistic terms? By that I mean terms that have a foundation in atheistic worldviews. You have described the universe as consisting of matter. How do you get from matter to the concept of suffering? If we are just bags of chemicals that are reacting what makes us more valuable than a can of pop fissing. When a human changes from the phenomena of pleasure to the phenomena of suffering how is it any more than simply a change in state? Why is death considered bad? How can it be more than simply a change in chemical state in an atheistic worldview.

My argument basically is that atheists must rely on terms that are unjustified in atheistic worldviews to explain phenomena like, suffering, pleasure, survival, and death.

It's been a pleasure having this dialogue with you.

Kent
Kent Symanzik is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 04:40 PM   #239
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Post

Hi acronos,

Quote:
Originally posted by acronos:
<strong>
I missed this on the previous pass. This is a significant statement. I don't understand where you are coming from. Why wouldn't my worldview work?</strong>
The full statement was this:
Quote:
From my perspective, the difficulty is that we do live in a world with universals. And I know where these universals are established, namely God. So what happens is that atheists can say "What's the problem? The universe as far as we know is uniform. It works and I have my atheist worldview." But my point is that if your worldview was actually true it wouldn't work.
As is often the case, I don't think I was very clear. My point was simply that if your worldview was true we would not have universals. That's what I meant by saying your worldview wouldn't work.

I admit that it was an unclear statement.

Kent
Kent Symanzik is offline  
Old 08-27-2002, 04:47 PM   #240
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
Post

Hi HRG,

Quote:
Originally posted by HRG:
<strong>

Fine. Please add the following prefix to all your statements:

"If my assumption that my God is the ultimate authority is true, then ..."

BTW, by which authority did you assume that your God is the ultimate authority ?

Regards,
HRG.

"Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras)</strong>
As I was trying to explain, if I require an authority to validate my ultimate authority then my ultimate authority would not be ultimate.

It would be the same if you were able to ask Protagoras what authority told him that man is the measure of all things. No other authority, of course. Ultimate authorities by definition must be self-authorizing.

Kent
Kent Symanzik is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.