SingleDad

SeaKayaker

This is not the case. Firstly, the atheist merely believes in the nonexistence of a personal god. You are, I think, referring to the metaphysical naturalist. You need to be precise in your terminology.

Metaphysical naturalism does not hold that everything exists as the result of random chance. Rather, metaphysical naturalism holds that supernatural teleological purpose is neither justified nor warranted to explain the universe. The lack of teleology is not the same as randomness.

This is actually false, although it is irrelevant to this particular discussion. The behavior of objects acting randomly, especially large ensembles of objects, can be predicted by rigorous laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by universal laws "forming the basis of" inductive reasoning. It seems to me that deductive and inductive reasoning are the fundamental laws with which we describe the universe.

Again, while chance is involved, there are other natural laws involved. The naturalist merely asserts that these laws lack supernatural teleological purpose (indeed, they seem to lack natural teleological purpose; there is no evidence even that any aliens are responsible for life on earth).

And the theist leaves open the question of where god came from. At some level, something has to just exist; there is no particular reason to believe that universal law cannot just exist.

This does not follow. One does not have to explain the source of universal laws to observe that they have shaped the universe (naturalistic platonism) or that they are an effective way of describing the way matter behaves (naturalist materialism).

The entire remainder of your OP depends on the misidentification between lack of teleologic purpose and random chance.

Datheron

SeaKayaker,

I think the problem here is that you're still expecting some form of "absolute authority" over our arguments, and seems to be confused when I cannot give such an absolutity to you, but rather direct you to a empirical/logical pair that are themselves not absolute (the finer points of whether logic is actually derived from empirical observations will be saved for another day). My point is that you're still expecting me to provide an absolute assurance that my truth is actually "truth"; I have admitted, instead, that my "truth" is much more of an approximation, hence making your argument more of a strawman.

Then is it possible for a higher convention to exist, but only that we have no way to discover what it is? I know this smacks of a pantheistic God, but that's a plausible explanation that, as with most worldviews, ends on a factor that is decidedly unknown, or definitively unknown. Or perhaps we can take the nilistic route, and claim in that no absolute truth exists? Both are respectable stances on the issue that avoids the necessity of a God (with the first example being more of nature than an actual entity).

As for atheists having to explain everything to be consistent, I really do not see how this would come about. if we apply this to the laws of science, must we then make sure that they work for every point in space-time in order to verify that they are indeed good approximations? The assumption is that they operate correctly, and our experiments have proven that to be accurate; however, such an assumption can fall to an attack on absolutity, such as the one you present here. No, we cannot be sure that our laws are in fact "laws" and not simply localized, but all experiments seem to indicate that, therefore we are fairly certain. I think that is about as absolute as you're going to get from any scientist in regards to scientific laws, and we can easily apply this to atheism <-> logic.

Jack the Bodiless

SeaKayaker:

It might help to describe atheists as believers in a nonsentient God. Phrases such as "the framework of natural laws", or the "spacetime continuum" can be taken as references to this "God" (I'll refer to this nonsentient prime being as IT from now on).

IT performs all of the necessary Universe-sustaining functions that Christians ascribe to God. IT is assumed to exist absolutely, but our own knowledge of IT is imperfect. Christians believe that God is beyond human comprehension, but partial comprehension is possible through various means (the Bible, personal revelation, or the "imago Dei"). We believe that partial comprehension of IT is possible to humans because we evolved to function in the "real world" sustained by IT. Thus, the rules of logic are linguistic constructs invented by humans, but based on an understanding of how the real world operates: they are therefore not entirely a human invention (insects, for instance, have minds like computer programs, programmed by evolution).

Because of these similarities between IT and God, Christians (particularly presuppositionalists) often accuse us of "borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview". However, the existence of a real world, and our imperfect knowledge of it, is a basic fact of life for all thinking creatures: Christianity does not own this concept.

As the characteristic which separates God from IT is sentience, the Christian presuppositionalist claim is that the existence of the Universe is dependent upon the assumption that God processes information in a manner analogous to a human brain. This is a baseless assertion, therefore the TAG is unsound.

SeaKayaker

SingleDad,

Thanks for your response.

Thank you for telling me something of what you do believe. I have been asking for this sort of information, but no one has answered me, so I have not purposefully misrepresented your position, but have received no feedback on it. Looking back, I agree that I could have worded this better, but I still think that the basic idea stands. You agree that there is no personal (imminent?) God. I take it that you also deny a transcendent God who created (ordered) and maintains (orders) the universe (correct me if I am wrong). The topic in discussion is whether universal laws can exist in such a universe. Therefore, to appeal to the order provided by universal laws is blatantly circular (see below). In this situation, it sure sounds to me as though we are dealing with a random universe.

The issue in discussion here is whether the lack of a transcendent, imminent God makes universal laws impossible. I maintain that it is, you seem to maintain that it is not. My question is how, without God, there can be order (a lack of randomness).

I sure hope that we have a disconnect here. In the hope that we are really talking about two different things here, I am going to restate what you are saying. Please tell me if this is really what you meant. If it is not, please tell me what you meant to say. Our discussion is over whether, without the transcendent, imminent God, universal laws could exist. Here, you are arguing that they could exist because, even without God, there would be order. As an example of this order, you reference a scientific theory (based on a scientific law). Therefore, you are saying that scientific laws exist apart from God (a premise with which I disagree) and that they can explain the existence of universal laws (just a bit circular, is it not?). I hope that we have a miscommunication here, so please feel free to show me what you really meant. Thanks.

This same issue comes up again when you say that random chance is not responsible for the existence of the universe because there are laws of science, meaning that the universe is not random. However, while we are on the subject (and since you seem willing to respond to me thus far), I would like to ask for some alternate term to use in place of “random chance.” I really feel uncomfortable with the term mainly since it sounds loaded. You seem to not appreciate my use of it either, so I would appreciate any other suggestions. No one has responded elsewhere when I asked this question, so if you do not respond I will operate on the conclusion that the term is acceptable.

I will say that God was eternally preexistent. However, my only problem with universal laws is not how they first came into existence without God. I also see no reason why they would continue to exist without God. This is just as significant of an issue, at least in my mind, as how they could come into existence in the first place without God.

Could you please show me the difference between the two? The basis of my argument is that, without teleological purpose, random chance will ensue. I have heard no persuasive argument to the contrary, so I would like to hear yours.

SeaKayaker

SingleDad

SeaKayaker

To understand your argument more thoroughly, I want to understand what you mean by "transcendent", "immanent" and "God".

On its face, transcendentalism appears to contradict immanence.

We will start with the common dictionary definitions:

Additionally, we have a definition of transcendentalism from The Ism Book:

It is difficult to understand how a being can be both transcendant and immanent, as, on their face, these two terms contradict each other (at least in senses 2, 3b and 4 of transcendent).

Lastly, we are accustomed, when explicitly using the label "God" of talking about a being that is:

• self-contained
• separate
• sentient

Now if you're not talking about the personal sentient god of ordinary theism, you are either talking about deism (a transcendent deity) or pantheism (or panentheism), an immanent deity. Neither of these positions actually differs in any perceptual way from nontheistic metaphysical naturalism.

In my opinion, it is an open question as to whether scientific laws are normative or descriptive; in other words, is scientific idealism true (and matter an epiphenomenon of actually existing scientific laws) or is scientific materialism true (that scientific laws merely describe how matter behaves. I am grossly oversimplifying here (and the subject is sufficiently interesting that I may cover it in more depth in the future); the point is that neither of these positions rely on the exist of an actual personal sentient deity.

To simply say that some universal laws transcendentally (in sense 1 of the dictionary definition) exist does not necessary (or even probably) argue that those laws are in any way sentient or purposeful.

Randomness and purposefulness are not exclusive. Randomness implies a complete lack of constraint on logically possible behavior. Purposefulness implies that constraints are imposed to achieve a particular future result. The middle way (and the claim of the metaphysical naturalist) is that constraints exist (it is not possible for an electron to travel in straight line in a strong magnetic field), but that these constraints do not have any purpose towards a future result. These constraints simply exist.

Note that the brute fact of the simple existence of something is inescapable. The theist just pushes brute fact "up" a level; it is "god" that the theist claims just exists. But if something just exists, why not the simply the laws of physics (for the scientific platonist) or the matter of the universe (for the scientific materialist); at least these things we can actually perceive and understand.

Well, I am talking about a side issue here.
The question is whether random behavior (at least in large interacting ensembles of objects) can be predicted by rigorous laws. This is a side issue because it is true regardless whether theism or naturalism is true, and it is true regardless of whether materialism or idealism is true.

The truth is that the behavior of ensembles of atoms in random motion can be predicted by rigorous laws of thermodynamics; it is also true that the laws of thermodynamics cannot be derived from the laws of momentum which govern the movement of the individual atoms. Likewise the laws of quantum mechanics predict how ensembles of quanta will behave, even though, for all we've been able to tell, the individual quanta behave in an absolutely random manner.

A thorough investigation of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics is far beyond the scope of this discussion, but I have found the study of both to be rewarding on both a personal and philosophical level.

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: SingleDad ]

SingleDad

Note: I will be unavailable until at least the weekend and possibly through the middle of next week.

SeaKayaker

SingleDad,

You address my use of the terms “transcendent” and “immanent” to describe God. The main idea I am attempting to convey with “transcendent” is that God is above man. Here, I am emphasizing the distinction between the Creator (God) and the creation (everything else). On the other hand, in “immanent,” I am emphasizing not only that God is active in the world, but especially the work of the Holy Spirit within people. Defining God becomes necessary at this point. I am advocating the sovereign, triune God of Christianity as revealed in the Bible. In describing the trinity, the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith says that, “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost” (II.III). Although God is above and separate from the creation (transcendence), the Holy Spirit dwells within the hearts of believers (imminence). Imminence is a major point of separation between Deists and Christians, and since I have thus far been dealing with mainly God’s transcendence, I wanted to make it clear that I do not advocate Deism. There are many other attributes of God, but I wanted to emphasize these because of the nature of our discussion.

SeaKayaker

bgponder

Seakayaker:
Hello dere. Hope you had a great holiday.
I have seen that you are a Seeker (of the Truth--Blessed be the Seekers), and very intelligent--grounding in the classics, detailed knowledge in various disciplines. These things imply a capacity for great objectivity. With this in mind, and also due to the apparent flourishing of many TAG related apologetics I have seen in my reading, I thought that to do our discussion justice I should go to what (whom) seemed to be the source, Cornelius Van Til. I thought, hey it would be great if I could just find a formulation of his basic position, so I could try to understand where this is coming from.
Bam! I stumbled right into his Credo. It told me all I think I need to know. (And in case anyone reading this would also like to know Van Til's Credo, it's here: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/...o_van_til.html

And now I'd like to know, Seak'r, how closely do you stand with Van Til's views as presented there. Thanks.

P+C, Barry

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: bgponder ]

HRGruemm

Conventional is not the opposite of absolute. I can define the meaning of "and" by convention, but having done that, "if A and B, then A" becomes an absolute rule.

Not so, since logic does not tell us what is true - only which deduction rules will always lead to true conclusions if the premises are true.

The origíns of the laws of science ? Scientists -
who noted some regularities in nature, described them and called these description "laws" (a custom which ended for physics around 1900, BTW).

The origins of those regularities ?
In one scenario, the absence of intermeddling gods, so that nature cannot deviate from its default behavior.

Regards,
HRG.

Jack the Bodiless

SeaKayaker:

You are attempting to argue that universal laws would not come into existence, and could not continue to exist, without something called "God". And you have defined this "God" as having both transcendent and immanent aspects.

Why can't universal laws exist due to the will of an entirely transcendent, non-immanent God?