theophilus

This topic has been split off from this thread on the Unknown Purpose Defense. Jobar, mod.

I believe I did in my first sentence, i.e., your statement about "success."

theophilus

It is only your inadequate understanding of the nature of presuppositional thought as the necessary prerequisite for any meaningful argumentation. I am not making an argument about presuppositionalism (as I have explained numerous times). I am challenging the ability of a worldview based on materialist presuppositions to give a meaningful account of existence and human experience.

I'm willing to let you make your arguments based on your presuppositons and I try to show that they are not internally coherent with your system. You, however, want me to justify my presupposition (based on your presuppositional assumptions) and accept your position as the neutral starting place for argument. That's nonesense.

I have made a number of substantive statements regarding the nature of moral values, their inherently abstract, immaterial nature and have asserted/argued that an empirical system cannot account for their existence.

If the system cannot account for their existence, it certainly cannot make any meaningful statements about "gratuitous" evil as an argument against God, because both terms (gratuitous and evil) are terms which cannot be demonstrated from sensation.

So, my argument is totally relevant to the issue at hand. Trying to defeat the UPD is getting the cart before the horse if the entire PoE is a house of cards.

Now, if you have a substantive rebuttal to my arguments, I'll be glad to read them, but accusing me of making an argument for presuppositionalism displays a gross misunderstanding of the underlying issues in the entire scope of the atheist/Christian debate.

Philosoft

It is an unreasonable inference because "survival of the race" is a strawman. We don't generally behave in ways that are consistent with "survival of the race." Instead, we tend to promote a smaller unit - society - that is easier to defend and provides more immediate benefits.

The morality of society is irrelevant. I'm simply making an observation - that humans have a strong tendency toward social habitation. If we stipulate that humans also have a strong individual survival instinct, we can inductively conclude that social habitation and the survival of the society benefits the individual.
The "goal" is the survival of the society.

Jobar

theophilus:
I have stated more than once, theo, that the *only* presupposition I am aware of making about reality is that my senses are not consistently lying to me. IOW, I am not a brain in a bottle, or a consciousness in some virtual reality which is intended to deceive me. I make this presupposition because the only alternatives I can see are catatonic withdrawal, utter nihilism, or suicide.

You are also functioning using the same initial presupposition I am, and then adding on the further presupp that all this universe is the creation and realm of a superhuman and incredibly powerful (possibly omnipotent) God. I do not see the need for this additional presupposition; for the purposes of this thread, from now on when I refer to 'presupp' this additional axiom is what I will be talking about.

Theo has denied that it is possible to build a coherent moral code from an atheistic starting point. I (and most others here) find this denial ridiculous; it seems to be based on the (often unstated) assumption that a moral code must have some ultimate and unchanging basis; i.e., it must be absolute. This chasing after absolutes is proven to be a chimera in the world of physics; Einstein proved, among other things, that there is no privileged frame of reference, and that all things must be measured according to their relations to other things. All are *relative* and none are absolute.

This is equally true of abstractions. We can neither demonstrate nor infer some Ultimate Ground of Morality; any attempt to do so can be disproved simply by finding a person or society which does not adhere to whatever standard is presumed to be ultimate.

That we can develop moral codes based upon temporal and relative experiences seems abundantly obvious; although these codes are not perfect and unchangeable, they *are* workable, as witness the society(ies) around us, which do not immediately descend into anarchy.

(It may be that this thread will prove more appropriate in our Moral Foundations forum, but I will leave it here for now; I hope to address the underlying quest for absolutes, which I feel underlies all yearnings for a God.)

ComestibleVenom

I know of a way to avoid this presupposition: acknowledge the scientific fact that our senses do consisently lie to us. With a consisitency, moreover, that makes their inaccuracies and deficiencies apparent.

The scientific method, therefore, requires no such presupposition. Parsimony is the edict that cuts off cartesian demons along with rain gods.

Jobar

Not true, CV. Our senses do sometimes report erroneously, and those errors do tell us about both our senses themselves and about the world. But those sort of errors are not consistent. We may make long-lasting misinterpretations of the consistent reports of our senses- such as thinking the world is flat, and the heavens rotate around it- but careful study of our sensations will correct these mistakes.

But, we have no way to absolutely () determine the ultimate () reality of what we *call* reality. We may only assume that what we see as parsimonous, is indeed parsimonous!

rainbow walking

Hi Theophilus,
I am truly perplexed as to why you think asserting an objective base or standard for morals works to your advantage? Have you considered all the recent press theists have gotten lately involving cases of extreme immorality? This includes ministers, priests and everyone in between; that the majority of convicts in American prisons confess some form of theism or another; and certainly we mustn't forget all the gruesome details of 911 with the residual fallout of invading two nations that followed, all perpetrated by theists; that our unpopularly appointed president and his henchmen all profess to be theists and are busy expanding militarism and abrogating our rights, anti-abortionists blowing up buildings, aggravated assaults against homosexuals...hell the list is endless.

I see absolutely no evidence that appealing to an objective foundation has improved believers behavior one whit, so where's the beef?

If anything, I would say the non-believer has a better case for his position on moral foundations and every good reason to reject your presuppositionalism as a recipe or license for greater degrees of evil.

I think this entire argument is a red herring that theists imagine gives them some sort of advantage...until one considers the track record of this alleged objective foundation.

When you guys get your act together and stop starting wars and inciting violence and molesting children and ripping off church funds and running off with the piano player...then come back and you might have a valid basis for such arguments.

rainbow walking

theo: I have made a number of substantive statements regarding the nature of moral values, their inherently abstract, immaterial nature and have asserted/argued that an empirical system cannot account for their existence.

rw: Humans are neither abstract nor immaterial. Human brains are tangible concrete materials from which all imagination derives. From the imagination comes all abstract, immaterial concepts. From those concepts come all tangible concrete sounds and syllables and sentences and communication about what one aught and aught not do in specific circumstances.

theo: If the system cannot account for their existence, it certainly cannot make any meaningful statements about "gratuitous" evil as an argument against God, because both terms (gratuitous and evil) are terms which cannot be demonstrated from sensation.

rw: Oh really? Care to have your foot forced into a fire to experience the sensation of burning flesh and then tell me what you think of the person who forced your foot into the fire?

ComestibleVenom

They are consistent within their domain. You mean consistent as in all epistemolgical modalities provide information to the same effect.

This latter sort of deception is a fundamentally different matter. To be fooled with godlike consistency is neither conceptually nor usefully distinguishable from discovering truth. Thus no assumption to the contrary need be posited.

We don't need to assume that the models we create are sufficiently complex or simple, we need to evaluate that on an ongoing basis. Thus parsimony does not constitute a background assumption in determining the truth of a theory, it is a part of what is to be tested.

ComestibleVenom

theo: This constitutes an appeal to divine complexity, the classic downfall of theism since it also implies that no rational judgement of goodness is possible without a complete account of existence. (An account which theo is certainly less equipped to provide than atheistic science!)