Synaesthesia

Kent,
Well that's actually the problem. There really aren't any answers in God save those we read into him. One answer cannot be prefered to another. Since the theory of God can be invoked to give any arbitrary answer, any answers we find cannot in principle be distinguished from those we create.

Now this is not a proof that God doesn't exist. It is simply the observation that magical explanation (not just god, any sort magical explanation) has fundamental problems. They don't explain so much as as assert that they explain without actually shining any illumination.

I was simply explaining the general notion of parsimony. Although it's assumed in much of my understanding, there are definite reasons for prefering parsimony over arbitrary complexity. As such, it's not really a presuppsition in the sense that you suggest.

What is "logic itself"? Is it a thing? Is it merely an abstracted idea generally expressing relationships and regularity? I don't know, what indeed is the essence of pattern? Nobody knows. That includes, alas, theists and atheists alike.

My point was that different logical systems are very often contradictory. Some can encompass others, some cannot. None which can evaluate themselves can prove all the truths they are capable of expressing.

They are objective but none of them are complete.

As such, multiple logical systems are often useful, for they expand the scope and ease of our reasoning. Nothing humans know of is capable of showing the full breadth of pattern and logic.

With our rich capability of representing the world and responding to it meaningfully through such representations, comes meaning. It is a consequence of our psychology that we have meaning, for all appearances brains are the necessary and sufficient conditions for this sort of thing . Whether or not we were created by a transcendant intelligence seems to me beside the point.

Since human brains are clearly representational systems capable of intentionality, perception and cognitive modeling, I am curious to find what you mean when you say my worldview does not support meaning. Do you mean that my worldview cannot support brains? Do you mean that some invisible, undetectable elan vital is required for meaning? What is the magical ingredient.

Hofstatder uses a really interesting example. It's not a complete answer, but I find it highly evocative.

Imagine a giant domnino set-up. When dominos get knocked down, they automatically spring up after five or ten seconds. They have complex, intertwined pathways designed to exactly emulate a computer program that determines whether or not a number (imputed by knocking over binary representation at the start of the domino trail) is prime. One block at the end falls if the number is prime, it stays erect if it is not.

Imagine we imput the number 13 and watch the cascade of blocks sweeping over this network. At the end, a red block falls. Why did it fall?

We could say that it's because the block before it fell because the block before it fell and so on. Yet in a very real sense, the final red block fell because 13 is prime. The meaning of the imput, although mechanical and purely causal, has very real relevance to what happens in the world.

Indeed it is impossible to interpret human behavior without reference to meaning. In principle one could describe neuronal firings to account for behavior, but practically, meaning is absolutely unavoidable. Synaesthesia punches these keys because his motor neurons are firing, but it is also really because he has something he wants to communicate. Something, one would expect, that has meaning.

Where does God fit in? I don't know, that's why I am an atheist.

Ierrellus

Kent,

Are you a David Matthews stand-in? If I ask you a rational question as to your personal judgement about morality in religions other than Christian, why cannot you respond?

A rational critique of the Christian God would include the human problems of distribution and inclusion. Neither seems to fit any universal perspective.

Ierrellus
PAX

Kent Symanzik

I think you must be forgetting that I am defending Christian theism. God has revealed himself in scripture and his son Jesus Christ. We cannot just make things up as we go along to provide answers.

The laws of logic are abstract non-material laws. They are universal and invariant. There can be different formulazations of the laws of logic but the laws themselves do not change. The law of non-contradiction exists regardless of the system.

If these systems are considered the laws then I can just make up my own system and claim rationality according to it.

May be it would be easier to consider the laws of mathematics. Is 2 + 2 always equal to 4 or can you make up your own math where 2 + 2 = -1 ?

Now I must ask what gives brains meaning? If our brains are the source of meaning then it is nothing more than a feeling (chemical reaction) in our brain. There is no actual meaning there, just chemicals fissing away.

The problem with this analogy is that you did not take humans out of the picture. The person looking at the domino setup is the one who finds it interesting. In other words, you and I find it interesting. Now imagine another set of dominos set up next to the prime determining dominos. When the red block falls it causes this second set of dominos to run. Does this second set of dominos find meaning because of that? No, this second set of dominos are just part of the chain of reaction.

In an atheistic worldview, what makes us any different from these dominos? Our brains take input and react by firing off many chemical reactions. This produces changes in state that is just the current state of chemicals in our body. So, how is one change in state more valuable or meaningful than another?

It seems that you do understand what I have been getting at. There is a chasm that is being crossed between the neurons firing and wanting to communicate. I have been contending that atheistic worldviews cannot cross this chasm without using things that cannot be justified.

It seems that you admit that your atheistic worldview cannot account for these things. Is that true or am I reading into what you are saying.

Kent

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

I'm sorry, I must have missed your post or did not think you were serious.

Can you elaborate here about what you mean and why it would be a problem for Christian theism?

Thanks

Kent

snatchbalance

Kent,

What is God's moral law(s)?

sb

Ierrellus

Kent,
I appreciate your acknowledgement of my post since you are everywhere trying to swat gadflies.
I also know that the sweet-tasting, harmonious etiquette of debate hides seething hostilities. In the USA in the 1880's many positive thinking people enjoyed witnessing a good hanging. So since you have already placed atheists in hell, why should they be tolerant of your bigotry?

Now distribution and inclusion are human awarenesses of anything, much less of a God. The Christian God has never gotten universal belief among humans. For example, after the Genesis universality of creation, the God who did it becomes a Hebrew tribal diety. "HE" could care less about Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians or any other of his supposedly created people. The majority of inhabitants of the Earth have never been Christian. Is God, then a loser of his own creations?

After Jesus, Paul decides that God is universal. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent diety who would morally accept such losses. Distribution--not entirely; inclusion--no, there are unchosen created people!

What disturbs me most about Christians is that they do not even believe in Christ; they believe in historocity. They claim now to be pro-life in the matter of abortion; but are the first to espouse war and capital punishment. They have nothing for any non-believer but judgment in contradiction to their command not to judge.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life!" He did not say worship me; he said follow me. Follow the way, the truth the life, not the idolatrous person worship Christians follow. I see no Christians today who are not so involved in selfishness they must be followers of Rev. Ike.

Circa 500 BC., the Golden Rule appeared in all known civilizations. This is universality of a moral position, not exclusion!

Ierrellus
PAX

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Keith Russell

Irrellus:

The Golden Rule is seriously flawed.

(Imagine applying the GR to masochists. What if they treated others as they themselves would like to be treated?)

Lastly, I view selfishness as a virtue. I wish more people practiced it. The world would be a far better place if fewer people concerned themselves with what others were thinking and/or doing.

Keith.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Ierrellus,
No, God still owns it all. That is why he stands as the judge over all creation. I do not know why he does not choose to save everyone, he has not revealed that to us.

I don't think you can justify the claim that he did not care about other groups in the Old Testament. The book of Jonah, for example, is about God sending a prophet to the people of Ninevah so that he may have mercy on them.

Beside God's saving grace he also provides what is theologians call common grace. This means that he provides for the just and unjust but this may not include salvation. The God of Christianity is not like the God of deism. He governs the world directly as not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from his willing it, Matthew 10:29.

These attributes of God did not start with Paul. They are clear portrayed in the OT. Look for instance, at Psalm 139.

God is just and has given us biblical laws to ensure justice. So, yes the bible endorses capital punishment for some crimes and also has high regard for human life.

Christians do not stand in judgement over unbelievers but at the same time they are called to make judgements of right and wrong, good and evil. Would you prefer that Christians keep quiet when they sincerely believe that people are heading for hell? If your doctor found that you had cancer would you want him to tell you?

In that statement, Jesus was saying that he is the only way for salvation. It was an exclusive claim. In that statement there is implicit endorsement for worshipping him. For an explicit claim to being God you can look at John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!". "I am" is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God identifies himself as "I am". It is plain that Jesus's audience understood this because they then tried to stone him.

Not sure what your point is here.

Kent

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

God's moral law is found throughout the bible. For summary statements you could look at the ten commandments and Jesus's sermon on the mount.

Kent

snatchbalance

Kent,

Do you consider your references to be the absolute word of God?

Would you have any objections if we deconstructed your references, piont by point?

I only ask before procedeing because I don't want to waste your time, or mine.

SB