Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 11-12-2002, 01:02 PM

Beano: greetings, keith,

Disproving 'God'?

Keith: (earlier) (I was under the impression that unless something had been proved--or at least was supported by some pretty strong, non-contradictory, independently verifiable evidence--rational people didn't have to believe it.)

Beano: what i'm doing is using a transcendenetal form of argumentation-that is to say, that the judeo-christian God is nescessary for any 'rational thinking' at all�

Keith: This is a claim, nothing more. It is certainly not any sort of �argument�.

Beano: --and pointing out the impossibility to the contrary. one cannot "PROVE" anything without this most basic underlying assumption.

Keith: Reason is self-validating. Reason does not work based on an assumption. There is not any mystical underpinning, Christian or otherwise, to the workings of reason. Aristotle discovered the rules of logic, and Aristotle was no Christian.

Beano: for instance, you would demand of someone proposing a particular veiw to have strong non-contradicting, independently varifiable evidence. but i would simply then ask you-why? the "law" of non-contradiction is meaningless apart from the
christian system

Keith: The above is merely another unsupported claim.

Beano: -that is apart from a non-condratictory God creating non-condracting beings (man) and setting those beings in a non-contradicting universe.

Keith: The universe (God or no God) is non-contradictory; a thing is itself; A is A. It is only our ideas about the universe that can contradict both the truth of the universe itself, and also other of our own ideas.

Beano: i would turn your argument around and ask why it is-on your worldveiw-that we should not contradict ourselves?

Keith: Because, to survive within reality, we have to be able to understand reality. Reality, (again) God or no God, does not contradict itself. To understand reality, our thoughts about reality also cannot contradict themselves.

Beano: furthermore, what you and i would grant as "evidence" will depend wholly on, and be governed by the presuppositions we bring to that evidence. let's take the resurrection of Christ from the dead. now a christian may veiw that as strong evidence for the existence of God�

Keith: The Christian would be wrong. The Resurrection is a claim; it is not evidence of anything. Claims are not evidence, but they must�to be believed by rational persons�be supported by sufficient, non-contradictory, independently verifiable, evidence.

Beano:, but the naturalist doesn't NEED to grant that as evidence at all-because after, strange things happen in the universe, and some day we'll have a law-like, natural explaination for how people come back from the dead.

Keith: The only natural and rational explanation is that people don�t come back from the dead. Biology soundly contradicts the Resurrection.

Beano: the problem for the naturalist is that he is already using baseless, unproven assumptions (assumptions that leech off the christian worldveiw) to reject the christian worldveiw! you yourself ASSUME that something needs to be non-contradictory, but have you proven that? if you say "yes, it's supported by the fact that it is non-contradictory" then you have begged the question. if you say "no", then you had better revamp your epistimology.

Keith: Beano, you�re being silly. Reason cannot be proved; it is the method OF proving. Reality cannot be proved, it is the totality whose parts, when contrasted and evaluated via reason, yield proof. But, both reason and reality are self-validating; you cannot even claim to reject their validity, without first asserting it.

Keith.

Vorkosigan · 11-12-2002, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:
xaran,

Wasn't Hume still a Naturalist, despite his views on induction?

yes, he was. and he was a fine case-in-point of the way people will persist (by faith) in worldviews regardless of the lack of foundation to support that worldveiw. i wish i had that kind of faith!

[/QB][/QUOTE]

The problem of induction has long been solved, Beano. It's built in. I suggest you peruse this <a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html" target="_blank">Primer on Evolutionary Psychology</a>. And then read any of the hundreds of books on the topic, like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198524196/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Descent of Mind : Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195101073/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Adapted Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture</a>,
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226292061/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Explaining Science : A Cognitive Approach(Science and Its Conceptual Foundations)</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300083092/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">What Is Evolutionary Psychology : Explaining the New Science of the Mind (Darwinism Today)</a>, or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060976519/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Language Instinct</a>. Those might be good for starters.

As Clutch has already pointed out, you have yet to formulate an argument that compel us to accept any of your theological fantasies as reasonable descriptions of reality. You are welcome to believe, if you wish, that the Canaanite Sky god Ya/YHWH is the supreme god of all creation who created 50 million galaxies, each with 250 million stars, but enjoys the smell of burning goat flesh. However, until you come up with strong evidence and argument, nobody will pay much attention.

So first, let's see your chain of argument that shows that Christianity provides the only basis for the things you claim (it most certainly does not).

Vorkosigan

Philosoft · 11-12-2002, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:


the definition for supernatural is something that transcends nature (i'm sure you already know that), but if you appeal to something outside of nature (laws of logic for instance) to show that "there is no supernatural", then you have assumed what you are trying to disprove.

Hold on. Go back to your argument that demonstrated the laws of logic are "outside of nature." You're not one of those who thinks the laws of logic are independently existing entities are you?

Quote:

on the other hand, if you are claiming that "nature is all that there is", you have an epistological dilemma in using nature to show that "nature is all that there is.

Huh? How does one "use" nature to show anything?

xeren · 11-12-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:


Hold on. Go back to your argument that demonstrated the laws of logic are "outside of nature." You're not one of those who thinks the laws of logic are independently existing entities are you?

That's where, in my eyes, Beano lost credibility, and at the same time allowed me to finally understand, after so many posts where he was getting the idea that naturalism could not function by itself. I suppose he believes Beauty, with a capital B also exists.

Beano, who do you think you are, Socrates?

Keith Russell · 11-12-2002, 03:51 PM

--or maybe Plato...

xeren · 11-12-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
--or maybe Plato...

lol!

I get that. I really do.

Bill Snedden · 11-12-2002, 07:18 PM

I'll admit, I'm somewhat biased against viewing Christian Presuppositionalism strictly as "philosophy", but if this discussion can remain centered on epistemology, I won't move it.

I will say that if that is to happen, posters arguing in the positive (for CP), will have to actually demonstrate their claim rather than merely asserting it over and over (and over, and over, and over, and...) as has been the norm in the past. If this thread begins to follow that pattern, it's off to RR&P...

Thanks and we now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

Bill Snedden

Starboy · 11-12-2002, 08:25 PM

Hi BEANO:

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:

This is a great website. It's extremely difficult to find people who are willing to sit down, and engage in some real philosophical dialouge.

Yes it is a great website. I only discovered it a short time ago and I am hopelessly addicted. I am not a philosopher and not very familiar with philosophical debate but if you are game I would like to address some of your observations/comments.

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:
After reading through many of these messages, i'm a bit suprised to find the lack foundations offered the naturalist and humanist philosophical systems. In fact, I would even propose that not only do they amount to little more then arbirary faith commitments, but they destoy reason, and human dignity-something which many of you what to adhere to. As a philosopher, I'm committed to having some kind of coherent epistimological basis for any system that is offered (as I'm sure many of you are)-but where is the basis for naturalism?

When you say they are �arbitrary faith commitments� what exactly do you mean? I can see the possibility that it is a commitment but I fail to see how it is arbitrary or based on faith. I also do not see how it destroys reason. In this day and age when confronted with two explanations for some set of events one based on nature and the other based on the supernatural, it is irrational to accept the supernatural explanation over the natural. One could say that god forms the characters on your computer monitor but people would rightly think you were irrational if not outright wacky. The rational explanation is that it is electrons. This is the world we live in not the world of some superstitious native of the 1st century. So please explain to me how accepting supernatural explanations over natural ones is rational.

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:
To illustrate, if the natural universe is all that there is, then how do we logically account for the statement "The natural universe is all that there is"? If that's true, then everything that happens in the naturalist's conception of the universe happens as a result of certain natural processes actinging in accordance with other natural processes, and therefore my every thought is simply the workings of electro-chemical reactions to particular stimuli, etc., etc. I'm sure few of you would argue this to be the case. But then, what are we debating for? After all, everything that everyone says is simply the result of naturalistic processes, including the statement "The natural universe is all that there is", as well as the statement "The Christian God is real". Both claims are simply the result of a natural process that occurs within the mind of the one making the statement, and niether can be shown to be true or false. So naturalism, could never be known to be true by the natrualist proponent, because whatever he thinks is bound by the laws of nature. How is naturalism superior to Christianity, when on it's own philosophical terms, neither can be known to be true or false.

I fail to see the fundamental philosophical problem with assuming nature vs. assuming god. In any logical system one must start with some axioms or assumptions. Doing so is not irrational but necessary. What is irrational is sticking with one set of assumptions when a competing set is doing so much better at predicting and understanding the universe. Scientific explanations are displacing supernatural explanations because they work so much better. If they did not we would not be having this discussion.

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:
How is this materialist system any more then the arbitrary faith claim that Christians are accused have? It seems to me that the Christian conception of reality is the only thing that can save (philosohically speaking) that which is universally taken for granted-like logic, reason, human dignity, ethics, etc. How does any materialist worldveiw account for the non-material laws of logic, or anything else for that matter?

Beano, I was unaware that science had to account for mathematics. I was equally unaware that it was religion�s job to account for mathematics. If mathematics is a consequence of god why then does mathematics predate Christianity and Judaism? Isn�t that the cart before the horse? I see no reason why god must exist in order for ethics to exist. Can you explain this?

Starboy

Ms. Siv · 11-12-2002, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BEANO:
.. everything you might try to offer me as "truth" i have every right to reject on the basis that you are simply bio-chemical robot-a small piece of the naturalistic machinery-merely reacting to one for of stimuli or another. your every word is a reaction, your every thought (though i shouldn't perhaps call them "thoughts" at all) is simply a particular chemical combination in your grey matter. "truth" is simply a combination of all these factors in the individual only-for after all, however you came to believe what you believe cannot be the same for me (as we have very different forms of stimuli bombarding us). thus, each person is left within his own isolated, subjective little universe-nothing more then a part of the machinery.

as far as christianity goes, i meant to say that only the epistimological system offered by christian theism can save any notion of "truth" while naturalism cannot. it doesn't reduce man to a bag of biologicals and chemicals, but creatures created by, and in the image of God (which is the "precondition"for why we assume reason, assume order in the natural world-assume any number of things we take for granted). christian theism assumes a direct revelation from this God, of Himself, which grants a foundation for doing science or philosophy, whereas naturalism destroys any such basis as we are all unthinking peices of machinery-unable to transcend this action/reaction state that governs us.

It seems to me that you're implying that the truth is based on personal preference.
If I like a certain worldview I can adopt it and reject a worldview which doesn't personally satisfy my ego.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) truth is not a matter of belief ... nor of personal preference.
It is a matter of evidence.

And all the current evidence strongly suggests that we're all gene vehicles evolved over billions of years ... through random mutation and non-random natural selection. The default objective of this evolution was gene propogation. Towards this end, all of us have certain innate predispositions, but with individual variances in degree.
And our behaviour is a function of these innate predispositions (genes) interacting with the environment.

This does not make us clockwork ... simply because there is a chance component to this function ... and therefore it cannot be 100% predicted, even if we did have the technology and knowledge to do the predictions.
Also, whatever can, theoretically, be predicted is so damn complicated and involves the permutation and combination of so many zillion factors and their historical and current interplay that its practically impossible to predict upto any desired level of accuracy.

So, for all practical purposes it does very much make sense to treat humans as independent entities with free-will ... simply because treating them will affect their environment ... and will, in turn, therefore, affect their behaviour .

- Sivakami.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

Psycho Economist · 11-12-2002, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:
...it is a bottom-up set of assumptions that are necessary for empirical determinations of causation to work....

Originally posted by BEANO:
and this is part of the promblem. you're looking for a set of assumptions necessary for empirical determinations of causation, but don't have a working set of assumptions that should lead you to be committed to empirical determinations of causation to begin with.

"Even logic must give way to physics."

There is no limit to the possible forms and flavors of epistemology. Generally though, you can say that "truth" transcends material reality, or you can say that material reality sieves the true from the fantastic. It's a worldview one is socialized into; a habit of mind.

Quote:

and that comes back to my former point-that naturalism does not provide the preconditions that would make sense of causality, or empiricism-but there isn't a naturalist alive who doesn't assume these preconditions. as a philosopher, i find this quite fascinating, but i also want to know how the naturalist can get away with philosophical unitelligability.

If there are supernatural agents who can (and do) interfere with the natural world, then the natural world cannot be predictable. If you do not believe the chance that Loki messed with your test tubes is negligable, how can you say your experimental manipulation caused the observed results, and not Loki's interference?

I'm not adroit enough (especially 1.75 hours past my bed time) to justify empiricism as the "one true epistemology". In the end, I don't know if anyone can "prove" that their epistemology is objectively correct. But I guess that's why I tend towards science and not philosophy.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Psycho Economist ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2002, 01:02 PM	#41
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Beano: greetings, keith, Disproving 'God'? Keith: (earlier) (I was under the impression that unless something had been proved--or at least was supported by some pretty strong, non-contradictory, independently verifiable evidence--rational people didn't have to believe it.) Beano: what i'm doing is using a transcendenetal form of argumentation-that is to say, that the judeo-christian God is nescessary for any 'rational thinking' at all� Keith: This is a claim, nothing more. It is certainly not any sort of �argument�. Beano: --and pointing out the impossibility to the contrary. one cannot "PROVE" anything without this most basic underlying assumption. Keith: Reason is self-validating. Reason does not work based on an assumption. There is not any mystical underpinning, Christian or otherwise, to the workings of reason. Aristotle discovered the rules of logic, and Aristotle was no Christian. Beano: for instance, you would demand of someone proposing a particular veiw to have strong non-contradicting, independently varifiable evidence. but i would simply then ask you-why? the "law" of non-contradiction is meaningless apart from the christian system Keith: The above is merely another unsupported claim. Beano: -that is apart from a non-condratictory God creating non-condracting beings (man) and setting those beings in a non-contradicting universe. Keith: The universe (God or no God) is non-contradictory; a thing is itself; A is A. It is only our ideas about the universe that can contradict both the truth of the universe itself, and also other of our own ideas. Beano: i would turn your argument around and ask why it is-on your worldveiw-that we should not contradict ourselves? Keith: Because, to survive within reality, we have to be able to understand reality. Reality, (again) God or no God, does not contradict itself. To understand reality, our thoughts about reality also cannot contradict themselves. Beano: furthermore, what you and i would grant as "evidence" will depend wholly on, and be governed by the presuppositions we bring to that evidence. let's take the resurrection of Christ from the dead. now a christian may veiw that as strong evidence for the existence of God� Keith: The Christian would be wrong. The Resurrection is a claim; it is not evidence of anything. Claims are not evidence, but they must�to be believed by rational persons�be supported by sufficient, non-contradictory, independently verifiable, evidence. Beano:, but the naturalist doesn't NEED to grant that as evidence at all-because after, strange things happen in the universe, and some day we'll have a law-like, natural explaination for how people come back from the dead. Keith: The only natural and rational explanation is that people don�t come back from the dead. Biology soundly contradicts the Resurrection. Beano: the problem for the naturalist is that he is already using baseless, unproven assumptions (assumptions that leech off the christian worldveiw) to reject the christian worldveiw! you yourself ASSUME that something needs to be non-contradictory, but have you proven that? if you say "yes, it's supported by the fact that it is non-contradictory" then you have begged the question. if you say "no", then you had better revamp your epistimology. Keith: Beano, you�re being silly. Reason cannot be proved; it is the method OF proving. Reality cannot be proved, it is the totality whose parts, when contrasted and evaluated via reason, yield proof. But, both reason and reality are self-validating; you cannot even claim to reject their validity, without first asserting it. Keith.

11-12-2002, 03:51 PM	#45
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	--or maybe Plato...

11-12-2002, 07:18 PM	#47
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	I'll admit, I'm somewhat biased against viewing Christian Presuppositionalism strictly as "philosophy", but if this discussion can remain centered on epistemology, I won't move it. I will say that if that is to happen, posters arguing in the positive (for CP), will have to actually demonstrate their claim rather than merely asserting it over and over (and over, and over, and over, and...) as has been the norm in the past. If this thread begins to follow that pattern, it's off to RR&P... Thanks and we now return you to your regularly scheduled program... Bill Snedden

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.