SeaKayaker

Note: This discussion began in response to the question of why Christians believe in God. However, it soon grew beyond the scale of that discussion, and so I moved it here. I hope that it makes more sense now.

Many Christians give answers relating to personal feelings when asked why they beleive in God, but few provide logical arguments. These are not very helpful in this context, so I would like to attempt to provide a logical argument for the existence of God. I believe that I can do this by studying the internal consistency of atheism and of Christianity (this may end up in the philosophy forum if it becomes a big discussion). Worldviews consist of three primary aspects: first, the view of knowledge, or epistemology; second, the view of reality, or metaphysics; and third, the view on ethics. I do not have the time to address all of these now, but I will attempt to begin to address the theistic and atheistic epistemology.

Often, people do not think much about logic or science in their daily lives (especially logic), but without logic or science, we would not be able to know anything. All communication (including this forum) would be completely meaningless without logic. The rules of logic (especially the rule of non-contradiction, of excluded middle, and of identity) provide the foundation for all rational discourse. Without these laws, a statement could be completely true and completely false. Therefore, in response to any of the evolutionist’s arguments, I could say that his conclusion is completely true and is also completely false. This would make our conversations meaningless, since we could never prove or disprove anything. I am saying this just to show that, although we do not often think about logic, it is important in our lives.

The basis of my argument is that the atheist cannot consistently use any universal laws, which include the laws of science, and the laws of logic. By absolute laws, I mean not scientific theories or the rules of logic, but rather the underlying laws that these rules and theories reflect (my third argument deals with the necessity of such underlying laws). I am not saying that the atheist does not use these laws, just that he cannot do so and be consistent with his worldview. I have three reasons for this statement. First, the atheist believes that everything (material and immaterial) exists as the result of random chance acting on matter. Second, random chance, even if it could produce the physical world, cannot produce immaterial entities such as universal laws. Third, universal laws provide the basis for all reasoning, both deductive and inductive reasoning, without which science and logic are meaningless.

First, Atheists arguing for evolution believe that the world was formed through random chance acting on matter. Some atheists affirm that there were (and are) universal characteristics of matter that control how it reacts with other matter (what I would call the universal laws of science) that caused it to react in certain ways to form the universe, but they still leave open the question of where those universal laws came from. Because of this, the atheist cannot consistently claim that universal laws shaped the creation of the physical universe; he must say that random chance shaped both the physical universe and anything non-physical that exists (i.e. the laws of science and logic). Most evolutionists will readily affirm this, and so the next question is whether random chance could have formed abstract universal laws.

Second, random chance, even if it could produce the physical world, cannot produce immaterial entities such as universal laws. I am not going to debate probability of the formation of the physical universe and of evolution now, partially because I believe that some of the Christian probability arguments cannot prove anything (this can relate to the chaos theory, but my space and time are limited). I have seen a plethora of arguments for how random chance could form the physical universe, but I am yet to see an argument for how random chance could form an abstract universal law. If anyone would like to present one, I am willing to listen. However, many atheistic scientists and philosophers who have faced this question have denied the existence of universal laws. A universal law of science would require an outside force (for the Christian, God) to enforce it on all matter, and because they deny God’s existence, they deny the existence of universal laws.

For my third point, the absence of absolute laws invalidates both deductive and inductive reasoning and all scientific theories. Many atheists agree with what I have said up to this point, but they claim that they still have a basis for reasoning without absolute laws. Deductive reasoning is an argument from the universal to the particular. By this, I mean an argument where you claim to know something about all members of a set, and then apply that trait to a particular member of the set. A famous example is “All men are mortal, Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates was mortal.” This argument claims to know something about all men (that they are mortal), establishes that Socrates is a man, and then concludes that Socrates must be mortal. This is a great theoretical argument, but is rarely useful in real life, since we rarely know anything about all members of a set. However, when used properly, if the premises are true and the reasoning valid, the conclusion is certain. Because this requires a universal knowledge of all members of a set, scientists rarely use it. If there are no universal laws, this form of reasoning becomes invalid, something that Roger Bacon realized. Instead, he advocated inductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, you claim to know something about individual members of a set, and then apply that to other members of the set. An example would be the following: “Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Bacon (I am just using random names of people who are no longer alive) were all men and were all mortal, Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates was probably mortal.” As you can see, the conclusion is not certain, but it does become stronger with the more relevant examples I give. This is the foundation of modern science; scientists provide evidence and then make predictions, or theories, from their evidence. At first glance, this may seem to solve the problem of absolute laws, but inductive reasoning requires absolute laws. If there are no universal laws that govern the way matter reacts, there is no reason to believe that it will react the same way tomorrow that it has through all of history. In this way, the absence of inductive reasoning invalidates all scientific theories, and therefore invalidates science.

The greatest objection to my argument that induction is invalid without universal laws is probably that induction just works, and the atheist claims that he does not have to explain why it works. For instance, if you see that something has always happened a certain way (like the sun always rises in the morning), you can make a reasonably accurate forecast that it will happen the same way in the future. However, this does not prove that induction without universal laws is valid, it merely further weakens it. If the something has happened the same way for thousands of years and you have a theory that does not explain why it should happen the same way for two days in a row, you have a problem.

Because the atheist claims that the universe is a result of random chance, random chance cannot produce abstract universal laws, and the lack of universal laws makes science and logic meaningless, the atheist lacks a basis for science or logic. I am not saying that the atheist does not use science or logic, but just that, in order to do so, he must borrow from the Christian worldview. Because the Christian believes that God created and maintains the universe, the Christian does have the foundation for universal laws, and therefore for science and logic.

One final note: it may be a couple of days until I am able to post a response, as I am very busy with homework with Thanksgiving break coming up, but I will be back as often as time permits.

For another presentation of this argument, from a somewhat different angle, you can visit
here.

SeaKayaker

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]

TollHouse

I've never made such a claim, I just don't believe in God.

Why? You make it sound like Christianity is the only religion available.

And so do Muslims, Jews, Satanists, and countless other religions, so what?

Yes, and thank God for all the scientific advancemnets brought forth by the creationist hillbillies of the bible belt.


[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: TollHouse ]

bgponder

Seakayaker:
Hi. Remember me? I responded to your original post/argument, beginning with: "I'm not sure how we nontheists are supposed to take that "warning" part..." I noticed that you dropped that in moving the discussion. Thanks.

I wonder that you did not address me, since you seem obviously intent on meaningful discourse. Perhaps I was unclear, or the fact that I had admitted in my first post in this forum (on the page immediately preceding your initial post) that I lacked formal metaphysical education led you to believe that you might offend or embarass me with a detailed rebuttal. In the first case, please accept my apology, I will try to do better; in the second, be assured that I have a thick skin and in any case I am here to learn, and I see that I could learn much from you. So, indulge an old guy. Inasmuch as you see holes in my reasoning, feel free to jump in them.

Your argument is a modal variation of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God(TAG), which has been seriously discredited in various debates since at least as early as 1996, one of which was the Martin-Frame debate qq.v. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html). What are you proposing that is new?

TAG has been shown at best to presuppose conditions that do not exist, and at worst to consist of semantic tricks that seek to place the burden of proof on the atheist (whom it always wrongly asserts to be a materialist as if the two were mutually inclusive, as in your argument)for a
sine qua non like rational thought.

When you say random chance cannot produce "immaterial entities" (as I take it in the context of your argument) it presupposes that concepts, belief systems and the like have an independent existence in and of themselves apart from a human brain. Has this been demonstrated somewhere?
Thus my original question to you in the first post, "How in the world is it consistent to equate physical objects and mental constructs?"

Peace and Cornbread,
Barry

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Barry,
BTW I happen to like cornbread...and peace.
I was just curious as to what epistemological model you rely upon to determine truth?

daemon

What does this mean, to be the result of random chance? This implies that there are a range of equally possible states; how have you determined this? Why does the lack of information on the origin of "natural law" necessitate its being the result of random chance?
So, to boil this point down, it can't be proven that your claimed basis of atheism can form a universal law, therefore it can't--hint: this is a logical fallacy. Additionally, you have not demonstrated the necessity of an outside force to enforce said law.

Being based on the above, the rest of your argument cannot help but be flawed--you are arguing against a strawman.

Silent Dave

Seakayker, you might want to read these papers by Michael Martin. This one deals with the claim that inductive logic presupposes the existence of God. This one deals with the same claim with regard to deductive logic. And this one shows that the exact opposite of your intended conclusion is true, namely that the Christian lacks a basis for logic, science and morality, using the same premises of your argument. I suggest reading them carefully before you carry on with a discussion of Van Til's arguments, lest you become soundly thumped.


Dave

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: Silent Dave ]

SeaKayaker

Bgponder,

I have not forgotten or purposefully ignored you.

In case you have not realized this, you are saying that you have little training in formal metaphysics to a high school student! I absolutely did not omit replying to you for such a reason. I did not follow you clearly at certain points in your post, but do not worry; I will not hesitate to request that you clarify a point if I am confused (in fact, I was preparing to do so, but never got around to it).

I have gotten a bit scattered in the moving of the post and I am very busy at school right now, causing the delay in my responses. In fact, I had actually begun a response to what you had said, but I never finished it or got around to posting it (partially because I did not want to be posting more messages just to have to move them from that thread). In short, I will probably post the relevant parts of that response with some thoughts on your more recent post tomorrow evening. I would like some sleep tonight (after studying for my Latin quiz and History test), so I am sorry for the delay but I will post a reply as soon as I can.

SeaKayaker

emc2

Seakayaker:

Sorry it took so long, here was my first response, after this, go ahead and post your reply, and we'll pick up where we left off:

You state that if universal laws did not exist, then how are things from day to day to be the same. Well, your absolutely right. They’re not. Never have been. Our universe has always been in a changing state, as so has our little planet, as so have our little lives.

If everything happens based on your understanding of “universal laws,” then all stars would be the same, all planets would be the same, you and I would be exactly identical, and there would be no variations over time. Just because things seem to be the same on our time scale, if you look closer you will see that they are not, and looking at the larger picture would yield a multitude of differences over time. The ONLY thing that seems to be truly consistent in the universe is the life and death, and even they are chaotic. By the way, the Sun doesn’t rise exactly the same every day. There are several reasons why. The Earth is in a slow but constant state of deceleration, the Earth’s position over the course of a year causes the Sun to be visually in a different part of the sky, and due to the Earth’s precession (change in tilt over the course of 27,700 years), the Sun and stars would again be in a visually different part of the sky.

The birth of something from nothing doesn’t necessarily have to be “by random chance.” There can be alternative explanations such as the multiverse theory. If stars can explode and give birth to new stars, why can’t universes do the same? Perhaps there is something out there to explain universes and multiverses but if there is, it is beyond human comprehension, so we use imagination in place of what we cannot understand. I know that starting out as a “big bang” is difficult for some to grasp, but change the perspective and it suddenly it is in within comprehension.

To demonstrate this, I will use a single human. You look at a person and that is what you see. Well, Look closer. How did you start out? A baby? No - A single cell. From that single cell, you became millions upon millions of individual, specialized cells, working together to make you. The point here is that YOU started from a single point and became much more than what you started out as. This happens across the universe. A star explodes, from this, several new stars form, each with their own distinct solar system, and each planet within that system has just as much of a chance to develop life. It is because things are NOT the same that life is not on every single planet. This is where I feel your verbiage of “random chance” comes in. Perhaps if you recognize that things were just right for a creation event to occur (be it life on this planet or the creation of the universe), rather than just a random occurrence, things might make more sense.

Another thing to ponder. ALL laws are created by (guess) humans. They are created as a set of guidelines based on our current and/or past understanding of an issue. As our understanding on said issue changes, so does the law, hence the nature of science. If we did not question things for the way they are, we would still believe the world was flat, think the planets were moving stars (or gods depending on your location- which by the way, they were proved wrong), and would have no understanding whatsoever for the modern things that we use everyday.


I feel that I have adequately addressed the issues you had. If I left something out, let me know.

SeaKayaker

Emc2,

Here is my previous post. As I mentioned in my last post, I may not be able to respond as quickly as I would like to, as I am busy this week, but I will respond as quickly as I can.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful response (I have been on a different forum, and I almost never got responses to these sort of arguments with anything other than ad hominem).

ALL laws are created by (guess) humans

Now, I would like to make sure that we are clear on exactly what I mean by absolute laws. You say that, “ALL laws are created by (guess) humans.” I am trying to make a distinction between scientific theories and scientific laws, though. When I use the term “law,” I am not referring to anything that people have made. I will attempt to refer to those as theories. Instead, by law, I mean the truth that the theory reflects (or attempts to reflect). I absolutely agree with you that our scientific theories are constantly evolving. However, I am sure that you would agree that scientific theories do not control the reactions between matter. I realize that I am being unclear, so I will attempt to illustrate my point with an example. For instance, using scientific theories, I can predict with reasonable accuracy the reaction that would occur if I were to throw a piece of sodium metal into a container of water (sounds like fun). There are scientific theories that explain this reaction. However, these theories do not cause the reaction. For instance, if a person were to have done this before anyone had come up with the theories explaining the reaction, the same reaction would still occur. In other words, there is some underlying principle that drives this reaction, and the theory is an attempt to explain it. When I refer to laws of science, I am referring to these underlying principles, not to the modern theories of science. The next likely point of contention will be whether scientific theories require absolute laws, but we can discuss that if it comes up.

If everything happens based on your understanding of “universal laws,” then all stars would be the same, all planets would be the same, you and I would be exactly identical, and there would be no variations over time.

You also say that my model of universal laws would not allow for change or variety in the universe. However, I do not follow your argument for this. I do not believe that a universal law has to dictate that something will always remain constant. For instance, sodium does not always carry on a violent chemical reaction; this reaction only occurs if conditions are met (mixing with water, the water must be within a certain temperature (I do not think that the reaction would occur on ice), etc.). This is a change. I do not believe that I perfectly know the universal laws that govern the universe, but I do believe that I can infer certain things that are almost certainly true about them. Most significantly, I think that they are conditional. In other words, a universal law would be something like pÉq (if p, then q, where p could be extremely complex – say R•T•S•U~W~S…). In this way, if a simple cause changes, the result could change as well. I do not think that we can always fully appreciate how complex these causes are. For instance, a couple of years ago I did a science fair project investigating chaos. When my experimental system was chaotic, there was still a pattern, but even genetic programming could not discover it. There were so many variables, most of them out of my control, acting on my system in ways that I could not even imagine that the system appeared random. However, it was not random, for each data point affected the next point (I was dropping water through a column of mineral oil and counting the number of drops of oil that landed at the bottom of my column at the same time). All this just to say that universal laws do not have to dictate that the same thing will happen ad infinitum.

Perhaps if you recognize that things were just right for a creation event to occur (be it life on this planet or the creation of the universe), rather than just a random occurrence, things might make more sense.

I think that we will all agree that the probability of everything in the physical universe coming into being by random chance (see my next paragraph) is slim. However, this does not mean that it would be impossible. On this basis, I am not arguing that the physical universe could not have come into being by random chance. In fact, I would argue that the creationist arguments based on probability cannot prove that evolution is false and creation is true (when you come down to it, even if the chance of evolution were 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000, it would still be theoretically possible). On the other hand, I am arguing that universal laws could not come into being by random chance.

You bring up my use of the term “random chance.” I am actually uncomfortable using the term, as it sounds loaded to me. Do any evolutionists out there have a term that you would prefer for me to use? I do not want to use loaded language against your position, since it does nothing to prove my point, but I am not aware of a better term at this point. Thanks for any advice.

If we did not question things for the way they are, we would still believe the world was flat, think the planets were moving stars (or gods depending on your location- which by the way, they were proved wrong), and would have no understanding whatsoever for the modern things that we use everyday.

You are correct (I think that we only have an apparent disagreement on this point). I do not believe that we have a perfect understanding of the underlying scientific laws that govern the universe (I believe that our theories are only imperfect reflections of them), and I therefore advocate more work into refining and honing (and, when necessary, discarding) scientific theories (as, I presume, you would too). A large portion of my argument is that science is meaningless without God. I think that science is good, and that is why something that destroys science concerns me. I am just approaching science with a different set of presuppositions from yours, but I still advocate science.

I have quite a bit of homework, so I may not be responding as often as I would like to, but I will still do my best to answer each of your questions. This discussion may need to end up under philosophy somewhere, but we will see where it goes.
Thanks for the questions.

SeaKayaker

Datheron

SeaKayaker,

Interesting line of argumentation, but it still seems to be beckoning ID (Intelligent Design). Here's my take on it.

First, science does not admit to discover any "universal law". Rather, it tries to discover mathematical/metaphysical/physical approximations to some set of properties of the Universe. These may be laws, they may not; the key point here is that we are merely using mathematical analogies to the real workings of the Universe. If there indeed exists actual laws that correspond to what we label as "laws", then your argument would be on the right track. Since we do not know, it casts a shadow of doubt on the premise.

Second, I'll clarify on the point of random chance -> universal law. First, you must define "universal law" - does this law apply solely to our universe, or to a multiple chain of universes? If it is the former, then the argument is easily presented; a "universal law" comes about no more special than any other "fundamental property" of the universe, by chance. So I can assume you mean the latter.

But there's our problem. We do not know what lies outside our Universe. It's futile and almost arrogant to claim that some law must hold true for another Universe scientifically, for there is no basis to make that assumption. Indeed, astrophysics makes a concession on the mystery of singularities, where all natural laws break down; it is not necessary for any law to hold true in one, if the sentence even makes sense in a singularity. Thus, we see that there is no actual "universal law" being claimed, and hence your argument attempts to attack a strawman.

Finally, I would like to address the Christian answer to this dilemma, which is still very much the same argument as ID - "since science cannot explain how these laws came about, our answer must be correct in the absence of another". There are two logical fallacies; the first is building a strawman and asking an impossible question (i.e. asking science to speculate outside of observable space, then pointing out the contradiction), and the second is assuming that the presented position is correct in lack of a better one (does anybody have a Latinate term for this fallacy?).