K

Kent,

Would you agree that the laws of logic have been shown not to be universal? If so, how does this change your proof of God's existence? If not, why not?

Kent Symanzik

Hi Jack,

I understand what you are saying but I see the reliability of perception and an atheist worldview as contradictory. You need some kind of guarantee that your perception is reliable. How can you possibly get that from a impersonal, random universe? You have no way of knowing. Your perception could be 10% accurate, 50%, or 100%. You assume that it is 100% accurate but this assumption is completely arbitrary. Of course, you must assume 100% reliability of perception because without it science is destroyed.

My point is that there is more than one assumption going on here. You also assume that there is no God. Assuming that there is no God and that perception is reliable is simply blind faith.

The Christian assumes the reliability of perception as well. But, it is based on the presupposition of the Christian God. Belief in the reliability of perception is justified because God gives us this reliability.

This is an argument for the truth of Christianity because we see the reality of our experience (reliability of perception) as coherent with our presuppositions. On the other hand, atheistic presuppositions are incoherent with the reality of our experience. When atheists believe in the reliability of perception it is a blind faith. Which is to say, it is faith with no basis. A faith in nothing.

I really do not want to get in an evolution discussion. There are scientists on both sides of this one. You need to find an example where we are 100% sure of what is perceived is true and it is at the same time denied by Christians. Evolution is still just a theory. It has not been proven. So, you cannot claim that evolution has been perceived.

The orderliness of the universe is another assumption that requires blind faith in atheistic worldviews. The origin and make up of the universe militates against it being orderly.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

No, I do not agree. But, I do want to understand how quantum physics applies to the question.

As an aside, it seems that many here think it strange that I believe the laws of logic are universal and invariant. But, isn't this the assumption in the history of philosophy? I find it odd that it is considered a strange concept. It seems to me that holding a contigent logic is what is novel.

If logic is not universal how do you draw the line of where a particular logic applies. And how would this not be arbitrary? How would you do this without using logic? And if you used logic to do this, how do you choose what logic to use to do that, etc.

Kent

Vorkosigan

Evolution is still just a theory. It has not been proven. So, you cannot claim that evolution has been perceived.

Evolution is a fact; animals have changed over time. Evolution is also a theory -- a model of how change works. Gravity is a theory too, Kent. So is special relativity, and plate tectonics. Same scientific principles, same level of proof. In fact, evolution is probably far more strongly supported than either of those theories, with a much richer variety of evidence. If you reject evolution, why don't you reject gravity and the theory of the sun-centered solar system?

Evolution -- change over time -- is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and was accepted as early as the late 17th century, when extinction and hybridization became serious problems for naturalists who were biblical literalists. Natural selection and genetic change have been observed in the wild and in the lab. Everything about evolution has actually been observed, including, with dozens of examples, the occurrence of new species (quite regularly, actually). You don't have a case at all.

Vorkosigan, who must, must, must stop typing today. Really.

Vorkosigan

If logic is not universal how do you draw the line of where a particular logic applies. And how would this not be arbitrary? How would you do this without using logic? And if you used logic to do this, how do you choose what logic to use to do that, etc.

How do you know what tool is best to use to solve a given problem? Experience. Also, it's built into us by that most ruthless of designers, evolution. Still haven't read that Primer on Evolutionary Psychology, have you?

There is no infinite regress, Kent. Various forms of logic are supported by networks of facts, values, experiences, and knowledge, and logic in turn supports them. There's no foundation, as a net has no bottom, only sides. You're still stuck on finding grounds for everything. Wrong approach.

Jack the Bodiless

I am descended from millions of generations of organisms whose survival has depended on their ability to perceive reliably. As Richard Dawkins said in River Out Of Eden:
My ancestors were VERY good at this. So were yours, though you deny them the credit they deserve. I can be 99.9999...% certain that my perception and reason are generally reliable.
And my belief in the reliability of perception is justified because evolution gives me this reliability.
False. Atheistic presuppositions are perfectly coherent with the reality of my experience. No contradiction exists.

...Whereas millions of Christians have found that reality does not match the Bible. That is why Biblical inerrancy is a minority view among Christians. Even its remaining adherents insist only that "the original documents" (now conveniently lost) WERE inerrant, due to unresolvable Biblical contradictions.
And this is pure baloney, for reasons already explained.
There is no science on the creationist side. There are a handful of people who claim scientific qualifications. Some are fabricated (e.g. "Doctor" Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh etc). Some are irrelevant (e.g. degrees in electrical engineering). A handful are relevant to some field of biology (usually far removed from evolution). Kurt Wise is apparently the only creationist in the world with a PhD in paleontology, and he admits that he rejected evolution for purely religious reasons: he would have been an "evolutionist" otherwise. Apparently, no creationist in the world has a degree in the most relevant field, Evolutionary Biology.

But, regardless of the creadentials of creationists, what matters is the evidence itself: no creationist claim has ever survived scientific investigation.

And evolution has certainly been perceived: it is an ongoing process.
And the alleged properties of God require blind faith in theistic worldviews. Furthermore, there is no contradictory evidence: atheism has no equivalent to the Problem of Evil, the incompatibility between divine will and omniscience, and so forth.

Metaphysical naturalism is a more consistent, rational worldview.

K

Kent:

Do you believe that the laws of logic are sufficient to prove its axioms?

Marz Blak

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Even though I've given up on getting seeing anything other than continued unsupported re-assertion of the same premises from Kent, and the same circular justification of same, I have continued to monitor this thread because I have found the quality and the specifics of argumentation laid out by some of you be outstanding and quite elucidating.

Keep it up, please. I am learning a lot here, and I am sure others are too.

Jobar

One of the things I have learned from this long, long thread, is that Kent is not listening.

All he is doing is re-stating the same points he made in his first few posts here; and we, in our attempts to answer him, again and again try to show him his misunderstandings.

Upon which, he repeats them.

Sigh. I well understand why so many have simply stopped replying to him.

Kent, the unbelievers here regularly entertain the ideas presented to us by theists of all stripes. Basically, that is what this whole forum is for. But it seems to me that the theists very seldom actually bring a healthy attitude of doubt here with them. We constantly see intellectual dishonesty.

I have seen plenty of nasty and hateful theists who attempt to delude us; many of them have made me very angry. But some- like Kent- seem to me to delude only themselves. And this makes me, not angry, but sad. His mind is caged in a hamster's treadmill, and he keeps going over and over and over the same ground, and getting nowhere.

Sad.

Kent Symanzik

Why are so many on this forum judging me for my views? No, I have not changed my views much. But, have any of you? There seems to be an assumption that if I don't begin to back down and change then I am not being reasonable. Why can you not accept the fact that you have not convinced me. I have not convinced you either but I do judge you or patronize you. I just keep trying or change my angle.

Contrary to what you may think I have changed some of my views. They are not major perhaps but it shows that I am not ignoring what you say. I have come to the conclusion, early on in the thread, that I cannot prove that it is impossible to have a worldview other than Christianity that is rational.

When there is something I do not understand I admit it. K brought up the problem of logic and quantum mechanics. I admit that I do not understand it and have asked for resources and plan on investigating it for myself.

I have admitted many times that I do not explain my position very well. I have been trying to improve on this throughout. After the thread winds down I will be reading through it again to spend more time with the points that have been raised and understand atheist positions better.

I have been honest that I hold my belief in God higher than my own thinking. I trust God more than I trust myself. Some Christians may want to hide this fact because atheists will see it as a fault. I admit it but I do not see it as a fault even though I understand that you do.

This forum prides itself on being free-thinking. It seems from some of the recent judgmental posts that it means free-thinking as long as you think like an atheist.

This has been my only complaint. I understand that people are getting frustrated. Could it be that they are frustrated because I will not convert? Are atheists acting like Christians now

But overall, there has been excellent discussion in this thread. I hope I can participate in more discussions in the future. I appreciate all that have responded to me. I am sorry for frustrating some so much. I hope you believe me when I say that I was never trying to frustrate intentionally and I was always trying to be more clear. I hope to improve my clarity, learn proper terms, and understand issues of philosophy better so I can have more fruitful discussions in the future.

I will save people more frustration by bowing out now. If anyone really wants to continue a dialogue we can do it offline. My email is kfs@voyager.net. But, I will jump in on other threads. I just feel this one needs a rest.

Thank you all!

Kent