Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 09-11-2002, 01:38 PM

Greetings:

Since Kent has chosen to ignore me, I'm glad that several others agree with me that the way to attack Kent's position is not to try to prove to him that God doesn't exist, but to show him why his understanding of logic/reason is (more than) a bit 'off'.

I don't think for a moment that we'll convince Kent to become an atheist, but we might at least be able to show that he cannot honestly be rational, and also hold onto the view that atheism is irrational.

Keith.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]

Kent Symanzik · 09-11-2002, 04:56 PM

Hi Jack,

Sorry to all that I am not keeping up with your posts. I am trying.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Kent: The Christian presupposition is not arbitrary and irrational because it coheres with the entire Christian worldview. There is a foundation for rationality. The Christian presupposition (God) is rational and so it provides a basis for human rationality.

But it is a false basis. It fails the test of empiricism, the most fundamental test of truth. No amount of mere assertion will make us believe that the sky is red: similarly, no amount of mere assertion will make us believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, the fossil record does not exist, and so forth.

It seems that you are assuming that all knowledge is gained by empirical means. This would have to be established first before it can be used to disprove Christianity.

Quote:

It also fails to provide a basis for morality. For instance, as a secular humanist, I can state that the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is morally wrong in all cases. A Christian cannot do this: the entire religion is based upon the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, a system that we intuitively feel to be immoral due to our evolved feeling that "the punishment should fit the crime".

Christianity is not based on the punishment of innocents. It sounds like you are misunderstanding original sin. If you would like me to explain it let me know.

Your assertion of a moral standard is arbitrary and irrational in an atheistic worldview. You need to first establish how you get value from a meaningless, impersonal, chance universe. In atheistic worldviews humans are really nothing more than bags of chemicals that have happened (by chance) to come about. That is why I say that you are being irrational when you hold to atheistic foundations and hold that you have moral standards.

Of course, we all know that we are persons that have real value. Life is valuable. This makes sense in the Christian worldview because we are made in the image of God. We are persons because we were created that way by our personal God. We are valuable because God values us and expects us to value one another.

Quote:

Similarly, Christians have never managed to come up with a satisfactory explanation for why an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should allow suffering to exist. All attempts at theodicies involve desperate handwaving and flawed analogies which ultimately involve removing God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or both. Hence the need for appeals to mystery: "I don't know why this is the case, but I have faith that it's all OK". That is not a rational basis for anything at all!

In presenting the problem of evil you must first presuppose that there is evil. How is there such a thing as evil if the universe is a random bag of reactions. We are just some of those reactions. How is certain reactions evil in an atheistic worldview? My point is that until you show how evil exists in your worldview you must use my presuppositions to make your case that evil is a problem.

Quote:

Kent: Atheistic foundations are all irrational. No one has yet shown how you can get rationality from an irrational foundation.

Yes, we have: EVOLUTION.
We live in an ordered Universe. We have evolved to function within that Universe. Logic is part of the modelling system that we have evolved to aid our own survival within this ordered Universe. That is why logic itself is orderly.

Ordered universe? What makes it ordered? Are you assuming the uniformity of nature?

The logic you describe is contigent on humans. This means that the laws of logic are not universal and invariant. If that is the case we should see different laws of logic somewhere at least. Note, I'm not talking about how laws of logic are represented in language. If the laws of logic are not universal we each can make up our own logic and win the argument.

Quote:

You are asking the wrong question. It's like asserting that "no one has yet shown how you can get houses from bricks". The evolution of logic in life-forms operating within an orderly Universe is not a problem. A more interesting question is "why is the Universe orderly?". We have no answer to that (as yet), but neither do you have an explanation of why your God is (allegedly) orderly. The "it's his nature" handwaving can also be applied to the Universe.

The difference is that God being orderly and making the universe orderly is rational. Assuming the universe is orderly and yet random is irrational.

Kent

Kent Symanzik · 09-11-2002, 05:27 PM

Hi babelfish,

Quote:

Originally posted by babelfish:
Now I have another question (I'm starting to feel like a pest): If, as you say, the grace of God flows through all of us, and makes us behave morally, whether we are Christians, or pagans, or non-believers, then what proof do you have that Christianity is superior to all other faiths?

This is another good question. Each religion must be examined just as we are examining atheism. The ones that I have looked at suffer from being irrational, contradictory, etc.

Another thing that sets Christianity apart from other religions is that it is the only one where God condescends to save man rather than man having to save himself. Salvation is where religions that have a holy god fail. How can sinful man possibly atone for his sins against an infinite and holy god.

Quote:

Although I may be being presumptuous - perhaps you really don't think Christianity is a superior moral system. Perhaps you chose your faith arbitrarily, or because it was the faith in which you were raised, or one that other people around you subscribe to, as happens to the majority of people around the world. I haven't heard of very many people who made a detailed study of all the different religions in the world, and on that basis chose the one they felt was the truest one.

This may seem strange but I did not choose God, God chose me. But if you consider that Christianity holds that we are all sinful and rebelling against God how can we then do such a righteous thing as choose God. Paul said in Ephesians 2 that God made us (us that are saved) alive when we were dead in sins. He goes on to say that salvation is the gift of God, not of ourselves lest we could boast.

The next question is, why am I here trying to convince you of the truth of Christianity. God uses his people as the means to his ends. God saved me through someone preaching the gospel. I had been rebelling against God and heard the gospel before but finally I able to ask for his forgiveness for my sin.

Quote:

So (and I realize this may be a personal question that you don't feel comfortable answering, or one that may require too much time to answer, so if you don't, I won't feel insulted), how did you personally reach the conclusion that Christianity is the world's truest religion?

I think I pretty much answered this above.

Quote:

Edited to add: Or do you believe that although other systems of morality may function just as efficiently as Christianity, only your religion offers a path to salvation and eternal life? And that the only reason God continues to inspire other people to behave relatively morally, is to protect his chosen ones (i.e. Christians) from evil as much as possible?

Not just his chosen ones. For some reason he is patient with even those who are destined for damnation.

Kent

Kent Symanzik · 09-11-2002, 05:41 PM

Hi Jack,

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:

Please stop calling this an argument: it is not. An argument has a structure: specifically, to be considered sound, it must rest on true premises.

The statement "Only the Christian God provides a basis for the universal and invariant laws of logic" is pure bunk. I understand that you WANT it to be true. But your own wishful thinking does not MAKE it true.

I'm not sure how to proceed here. Can you show me why my statement is "bunk"? It would help me to explain it better. I will attempt to explain myself better. Christian theism holds that God is rational. The laws of logic are from his own character. God thinks rationally, acts rationally, and creates beings like humans to think and act rationally. The laws of logic have their foundation in God. God transcends the universe. There is nothing beyond God. God is the ultimate foundation for everything that exists.

Now, I understand if you just don't believe that God exists. My defensive point is that if God exists Christian theism is rational. My offensive point is that if God does not exist there is no rationality at all. That is why I say that atheistic worldviews are irrational. It is because they claim rationality but deny any foundation for rationality at the same time.

There have been attempts to provide a basis for rationality in an atheistic worldview. But they have not been developed very far. I believe your view, Jack, is that it developed from evolution. This makes the laws of logic contingent and variant. In other words, not laws at all. Just arbitrary standards that are subject to change at any time. But this does not describe how we use the laws of logic. We use them as universal and invariant laws. If they were contigent, we could validly claim to our teachers that we Aced the test when they gave us a failing grade. We could just say that we were using a different set of logic laws. Or, just say that in my logic failing grades are the best grades.

I'm trying to be more descriptive of my thoughts so people can better understand my position.

Kent

Keith Russell · 09-11-2002, 05:44 PM

Greetings:

Kent, I'm done.

You are not rational.

Keith.

Kent Symanzik · 09-11-2002, 05:48 PM

Hi K,

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
The laws of logic are not universal. They are based on axioms (assumptions) that appear to give meaningful results when applied to certain domains within our observable universe.

As in any descriptive formal system, the axioms on which logic is based can not be proven using the laws of logic. Therefore, logic is fundamentally not universal.

How does it follow that they are not universal if they cannot be proven using the laws of logic? Can you expand on this?

Quote:

The laws of Euclidean Geometry had long been considered universal. But by altering one of the axioms, namely that parallel lines don't intersect, mathematicians were able to develop new kinds of geometry. Amazingly, it now appears that the universe is fundamentally non-Euclidean. Logic and geometry are both just descriptive systems which are only as useful as the utility they provide in describing the observable universe.

Isn't it the axiom of geometry that changed here? I do not see how this change bears on the laws of logic.

Quote:

There are plenty of domains where logic breaks down. For instance, quantum mechanics is described better when the indeterminate state is allowed. This isn't available in standard True-False logic.

I've read this before. Can you explain this in more depth? I am seriously lacking in areas of science and even mathematics.

Thanks

Kent

Marz Blak · 09-11-2002, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Greetings:

Kent, I'm done.

You are not rational.

Keith.

I have come to the conclusion that Kent's purpose is not to make or win an argument, as he *has* no argument, only unbuttressed assertion backed by cirularity. I think his intention the whole time was simply to see if he could *drive* one of us to irrationality (such as incivility in the face of his continued politeness) with his <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> postings, thereby perhaps justifying his belief that atheists are irrational in yet another exercise in circular "reasoning."

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]

Marz Blak · 09-11-2002, 06:22 PM

[deleting duplicate post]

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]

Goliath · 09-11-2002, 07:06 PM

Kent Symanzik,

Why are you ignoring me? I'll ask the question that I asked last page one more time:

Are you going to continue to repeat your assertions ad nauseum, or are you going to surprise us all and actually back up a single assertion that you have made in this thread? I couldn't care less about your beliefs and your assertions. I want proof.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(editud fer grammer)

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]

K · 09-11-2002, 07:33 PM

Kent:

To show that something is not universal, it is sufficient to demonstrate one exception. Since the laws of logic can not be used to prove one of logic's axioms, an exception is demonstrated. Therefore, the laws of logic are not universally applicable.

The geometry example was just provided to show that we have other completely internally consistent, formal descriptive systems that follow directly from a set of axioms. Just like logic, these systems are only applicable in domains where they provide meaningful results. Euclidean geometry is not universal. Neither is logic.

One of the axioms for two-valued logic is that every statement is either True or False (this is sometimes referred to as the Law of the Excluded Middle). This intuitively makes a lot of sense to us (as does the non-intersection of parallel lines in Euclidean geometry). However, there are domains where it breaks dowm. At the quantum level, there are states that are simply indeterminate. You could say that an electron is in one state and another at the same time. The excluded middle becomes nonsensical in this domain. There are also cases that involve a degree of truth. If an object is part red and part blue, which statement would be assigned the True value - the object is red, or the object is blue?

So, logic is not universal. It has domains of applicability just like all of our other tools for describing our observed universe.

09-11-2002, 01:38 PM	#381
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Since Kent has chosen to ignore me, I'm glad that several others agree with me that the way to attack Kent's position is not to try to prove to him that God doesn't exist, but to show him why his understanding of logic/reason is (more than) a bit 'off'. I don't think for a moment that we'll convince Kent to become an atheist, but we might at least be able to show that he cannot honestly be rational, and also hold onto the view that atheism is irrational. Keith. [ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

09-11-2002, 06:22 PM	#388
Marz Blak Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gloucester Co., NJ, USA Posts: 607	[deleting duplicate post] [ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

09-11-2002, 07:06 PM	#389
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Kent Symanzik, Why are you ignoring me? I'll ask the question that I asked last page one more time: Are you going to continue to repeat your assertions ad nauseum, or are you going to surprise us all and actually back up a single assertion that you have made in this thread? I couldn't care less about your beliefs and your assertions. I want proof. Sincerely, Goliath (editud fer grammer) [ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

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

09-11-2002, 05:44 PM	#385
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Kent, I'm done. You are not rational. Keith.

09-11-2002, 07:33 PM	#390
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Kent: To show that something is not universal, it is sufficient to demonstrate one exception. Since the laws of logic can not be used to prove one of logic's axioms, an exception is demonstrated. Therefore, the laws of logic are not universally applicable. The geometry example was just provided to show that we have other completely internally consistent, formal descriptive systems that follow directly from a set of axioms. Just like logic, these systems are only applicable in domains where they provide meaningful results. Euclidean geometry is not universal. Neither is logic. One of the axioms for two-valued logic is that every statement is either True or False (this is sometimes referred to as the Law of the Excluded Middle). This intuitively makes a lot of sense to us (as does the non-intersection of parallel lines in Euclidean geometry). However, there are domains where it breaks dowm. At the quantum level, there are states that are simply indeterminate. You could say that an electron is in one state and another at the same time. The excluded middle becomes nonsensical in this domain. There are also cases that involve a degree of truth. If an object is part red and part blue, which statement would be assigned the True value - the object is red, or the object is blue? So, logic is not universal. It has domains of applicability just like all of our other tools for describing our observed universe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.