David Gould

SeaKayaker,

If you admit that the physical universe could have come about by chance, then there is nothing special about laws of physics coming into being. The laws of physic are simply properties of matter - they are not abstract or unseen in the sense you seem to imply.

Let me give you an example:
one of the properties in a hypothetical universe is that between all particles in it there exists a blue force proportional to the mass of the particles and the distance between them (sounds like anti-gravity but what the hell). This force is a property of the matter in the universe. The fact that all matter respond to this force is hardly suprising.


We exist in a universe which is made of certain things. Each of these things have describable properties. These properties include things like electric charge, the fact that space is affected by gravity et cetera.

The laws of physics do not exist as separate from the objects in the universe. They are part of those objects.

a hypothetical universe

bgponder

To Seakayaker, et al.:
I am enjoying this discussion immensely! Thank you all for this opportunity to learn and participate.

For my own understanding and the benefit of any observers like myself, I will attempt some conceptualizations. I invite all commentary and critique. HRG made observations on semantics I feel are important, and I will offer related thought. Please accept that my rhetoric is not intended to offend or trivialize, but to clarify.

For the purposes of argument I will substitute "materialist" for "atheist" where applicable, since that has already been addressed.

I too think this horse is dead, yet I will continue to beat him in case I am mistaken, viz.: I maintain that Seakayaker's argument is a modal variation of TAG. Re Michael Martin in the II Library of this website--
Re Seakayaker:
Furthermore, I maintain that Seakayaker's postulation of universal laws is redundant, since, as has been mentioned, he has not demonstrated the existence of said universal laws, nor their necessity for the consistency of the materialist view of the universe; he has only asserted them, and their necessity for consistency.

As I understand his argument, he is saying that if a materialist states:
"I exist," the materialist cannot truly know if he exists, because materialists choose not to say, or materialism cannot account for, why materialists exist.

I intuit that Seakayaker wants to say that you cannot claim to be an auto mechanic or a mechanical engineer or a metallurgist just because you can drive a car. That is a given. But is does not follow that there is a ghost in the machine, or that the Ghost is the Christian God.

I will get to the semantics if this thread continues, but God I've got to get some sleep, it's 3:28 A.M.
P+C, Barry

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: bgponder ]

SeaKayaker

David Gould,

You are describing certain force as an inherent characteristic of all particles of a hypothetical universe. However, that is not the only, or even the best, explanation of your “blue force.” Your example leaves equally open another option. A universal law could act on all matter within your universe, causing this blue force. All matter could still have a characteristic upon which the universal law would act. In fact, without a universal law to dictate that a certain characteristic will cause a certain result, even if all matter had the characteristic to which you attribute this blue force, this characteristic would not necessarily cause the blue force.

SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

One of the most interesting objections put forth against the transcendental argument thus far in this thread has been the accusation of its use of ad ignorantiam. I understand that there are many different views within atheism (even George Smith says that the fact he labels himself an atheist does not indicate agreement with others who apply the same label to themselves), but the transcendental argument is a reductio ad absurdum (RA). The formal proof of RA identifies the propositions of an argument, makes the reductio ad absurdum assumption (RAA), and then shows that, if the assumption were true, the argument would contain a logical contradiction (i.e., p and ~p). In what is then the proof of RA, the proposition assumed in the RAA is deemed false. The goal of the Christian’s transcendental argument is to show that the atheist has an inherent self-contradiction in his worldview. The Christian can then inductively build the case that the Christian worldview is consistent (he cannot evaluate every individual proposition, but he can show the consistency of as many as time permits). Although most arguments of this style are informal (not using formal or propositional logic), they could be reduced to formal propositions. If my attempting to symbolize my argument would help anyone, I could try to do so, but it could get long (and I do not think that the UBB code recognizes certain symbols, such as the horseshoe, which could make it complicated).

Thus far, I have been describing mainly the atheist’s burden of proof, but I would like to take a moment to discuss the Christian’s burden of proof. The Christian, as I implied above, cannot inductively prove that Christianity is internally consistent, but he can show instances where it is consistent in an attempt to build an inductive case. Places to do this would be with issues such as the laws of logic, of science, the problem of evil, and other similar internal objections raised to the Christian worldview. I obviously do not have the time to answer all of these objections here, but I am willing to work through some of them if it becomes necessary. However, there is one more point that I would like to make so that I do not surprise anyone later when answering these objections. These are all challenges to the internal consistency of Christianity. As such, it is proper for the Christian, when answering them, to maintain his Christian presuppositions. Most notably, these would include the infallibility of Scripture and the existence of God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. In other words, it should not be surprising when the Christian appeals to the authority of Scripture or existence of God when answering allegations of internal inconsistency in Christianity; rather, it should be surprising when the Christian does not appeal to the authority of Scripture or existence of God when answering these allegations. As you can see, such a response alone is not aimed at convincing the atheist that the Christian’s way of explaining these alleged contradictions is the only right way, but rather it is aimed at showing that the Christian can explain the alleged contradiction. This explanation alone is not expected to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity, just its internal consistency (without which it could not be true). I just wanted to spell this out so that I would not throw anyone for a loop if I were to refer to Scripture as authoritative in answering an objection against the consistency of the Christian worldview.

I know that I am addressing several topics in this post, but I would like to visit the issue of what exactly I am proposing. It has been said that I am arguing “a modal variation of TAG.” This is true. Yes, I have read Martin’s articles about TAG and TANG, but I found them unconvincing. I have found your dialogue very interesting, but if someone would like to directly bring up the issues the Martin raises in his articles, I would be willing to answer them as time permits.

Finally, I realize that I have not addressed the issue of whether absolute laws are necessary. I have described what I mean by absolute laws, but thus far have only tried to show that the atheist cannot consistently use them. I am willing to now defend their necessity if others here feel that this is an appropriate time for it. I just wanted to deal with fewer issues at one time, so have thus far delayed heading down that path, but I am ready to begin defending their necessity as time permits.

Thanks for the discussion,

SeaKayaker

SingleDad

Having had a few discussions with christian presuppositionalism, I offer the following observations:

The assertion that all nontheistic worldviews are inherently self-refuting is simply without merit. These charges usually apply only to long-discredited positions (such as anti-metaphysical logical positivism) or involve category errors or other fallacies.

One common claim that is repeated, apparently without understanding, is the assertion that, "according to naturalism, there are no absolutes. However, that statement is an absolute. Therefore naturalism is self-refuting." This statement contains several fallacies, including a straw man--it is not an assertion of naturalism in general that there are no absolutes--as well as a category error--Usually nonabsolutists naturalistic philosophies exclude moral or epistemological absolutes; they do not exclude metaphysical absolutes; i.e. absolute statements about morality or epistemology in general.

The other technique of presuppositionalists is to covertly embed theism in some lower-level metaphysical statement, and then "discover" this embedded theism as a "contradiction". Usually epistemology is their target; they show that nontheistic metaphysics contradicts the definition of knowledge as "deriving from an authority" or "having deductive certainty". Considerable verbiage will usually be employed in an attempt to hide the introduction of a theistic definition of knowledge so that the "contradiction" will appear natural, instead of imposed through the definitions.

SeaKayaker

Datheron,

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.

Even so, I would prefer an old tape (or record) player to your making something up. In fact, though, that is the point of my argument. As you have said, you cannot use the laws of science to explain the origin of the laws of science. Would you also therefore say that you cannot empirically prove that your empirical observations are accurate? Now, the laws of science are pretty important to scientists, in fact, they are crucial. Seeing this, they use them, although they cannot explain why they work. Now, my point is not so much that this in itself is hypocritical or inconsistent, but rather that it is inconsistent with the rest of the atheistic worldview. My biggest problem is not with the person who uses a law whose existence he cannot explain, but rather with the person who uses a law he cannot explain after having placed himself in a position where he must explain everything. Now, does anyone place himself in a position where he must explain everything? I would argue that the atheist does. Daetheron, you say that logic is “the ‘ultimate truth’ quantifier” (although you also admit that you cannot be certain of anything – more on that later). There is still a broad range of meaning in the term logic, but as this reply is long overdue, I will attempt to continue the post without asking you another question first. Either you believe that logic is conventional (stemming from the conventions of man) of that it is not conventional (that it is above man, that it transcends man). Often, atheists argue that logic is conventional, since this avoids the issue of absolute laws of logic altogether. It would be too off subject to address that here, but I would like to look at some of the implications of it. First, if logic is based on the conventions of man, man is really the ultimate determiner of what is true. In order for man to be this ultimate authority, he has to be able to answer everything. He cannot say, “I don’t know” if he is the ultimate authority, since his saying that would mean that there is no truth in the issue (if this seems totally incoherent and makes no sense, feel free to ask me to clarify it). Therefore, if logic is conventional, you must be able to explain the origin of the laws of science (or else they do not exist). On the other hand, if logic transcends man, we will get into the same discussion about whether that is possible without God that we are in with the laws of science.

Now, you say that there is little difference in being 99.9% sure of something and being 100.0% sure of it. I will agree that, under normal situations, there is little difference. For instance, you are actually not really 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, but you are at least 99.9% sure, and that close enough that you probably do not stay up at night worrying. I can agree with you there, but once you start getting into issues of ultimate authorities and deductive logic, 99.9% just is not good enough.

SeaKayaker

Edit: (Sorry I forgot to post your name at the top - I am awake, really!)

[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]

Datheron

SeaKayaker,

I just want to make a comment on this:

The very problem we have here in internal consistency is that consistency is a logical term that requires logical derivatives and logical deductions. Whilst you're completely correct in stating that the Christian should be allowed his presuppositions in making his stand, it is not enough for the Christian to merely use the authority of the Bible as the primary explanatory tool to override the necessity of logic in providing a coherent and consistent worldview.

One such example can be seen here:

Why you can't really judge God

As far as I can tell, SOMMS is not attempting to logically answer the contradiction presented by Koy as much as he is trying to brute-force his way through the contradiction by overriding it with Scripture. It is not so much refuting the argument than it is destroying the argument, making the question of logic invalid in the first place. Most of the Biblical and Scriptural suppor that I have seen quoted are used in this manner - not as a compliment to logical arguments, but as a replacement of logic.

SeaKayaker

SingleDad,

Thanks for your comments.

I have tried to limit myself to discussing atheism, but if you see a place where I make such an unsupported claim, please point it out.

Again, I have not argued that naturalists deny the existence of all absolutes, but rather I am questioning how they can accept absolutes. Sometimes, faced with this question, people will deny absolutes, but I try not to attribute a belief to a person without direct evidence from the person as to what he believes. Also, I think that most of the people here are to reasonable to say that there are absolutely no absolutes (that is not true in some groups, however).

Again, if you find me doing this, please point it out.

SeaKayaker

Datheron

SeaKayaker,

Would you put who you're addressing the next time on top of your post? I recognized this passage as my style of writing, but it would help in the future should the occasion arise when a doppleganger comes onto this board.

I would not agree with this assertion. Atheists pride themselves with logical and free thinking, but that is not the same as explanation and knowledge. Now, perhaps the naturalistic point of view makes claims that the Universe can be explained, it makes such a claim knowing full well that chances of fulfilling such an assertion is almost impossible. It is much like asking for perfection, given that perfection is an oxymoronic concept. I always think of ourselves as the guys sitting down at a table waiting for food, as opposed to the chef cooking it - that is, we are given the tools of logic to dissect anything served on the table, but we do not have the power to go out and bring these things onto the table. More on this later.

For the first implication, I'm not too sure I agree with your conclusion that man must be all-knowledgable to designate universal laws. Humans are fallible - our laws are fallible. In designating our logical laws, in much accordance with scientific laws, we transfer that fallibility onto it. Then, as with science, man can only give a very good approximation to the truth, which lies outside of reason and logic - obviously, if we ever see a square circle, we will realize that our laws have problems.

As to the latter scenario (logic transcends man, which I don't really agree with), I do not really see the problem, but rather see an inescapable axiom that exists in all worldviews. One can define the laws of logic to be properly axiomic and basic, thereby eliminating the need to provide an explanation for them; such a designation is true of all worldviews, religious or otherwise - it is just that with Christianity, God is defined to be the axiom. Just as I am at a loss to explain the origins of logic, you will be at a loss to explain the origins of God.

I'm wondering whether the concept of "ultimate authority" even makes sense, especially to an atheist. Is it reasonable to extrapolate the laws of logic, for example, beyond our own Universe? Personally, I find such a claim extremely arrogant, so I would disagree once again that atheism places itself as God. Can we conclude, without a shadow of a doubt (or without a shadow of a 0.01%, I suppose) that a square circle does not exist? I personally do not think so. Yes, I realize that I'm giving a little wriggle room for a contradictory God, but that makes much more sense than replacing him with an absolutity that, as you say, cannot be justified.

SeaKayaker

Datheron,

This may sound strange, but with which assertion do you not agree (I seem to have made several in that paragraph)? If you are saying that you believe that empirical can prove the accuracy of empirical observations, you are falling into circular reasoning. However, if you say that empirical observation is your ultimate authority, the determiner of truth, then this would just be indicative of that (everyone will use circular reasoning when he arrives at his ultimate authority). So, I did not mean to set up a straw man there, but I was expecting you to rely more heavily on logic because of what you said in an earlier post. If you were saying that you disagree with something else in that paragraph, please clarify.

I do not think that atheists mean to claim that they have to explain everything, but I have reached the conclusion that, in order to be consistent, they must be able to explain everything. I have not hammered this out real thoroughly with myself yet, nor do I recall having seen anyone else use it, so I would appreciate some comment on it. As to your comment about our finding a square circle, I think that my definition of the universal laws of logic would allow for this, but I still do not see how the atheist (who believes that laws are conventional) could account for it. He must accept that there is an absolute law above the conventions if anything ever contradicts the conventions. For, if there is no higher law above the conventions, then the conventions must, by definition, be true.
I am not doing this justice now, so I will try to post some more on it when I am awake.

SeaKayaker