Mark_Chid

Well 'meaning' is a nonsense without an intelligent observer, so obviously all that has meaning has intelligence involved somewhere. teh question is, does the mind REQUIRE an external intelligence, or is the intelligence it possesses ebough to give it meaning. I'd choose the latter, since the former explains nothing and merely gives us another intelligence to 'explain' (ad infinitum).

If God can exist without explanation, why not us?

Vorkosigan

But, only the Christian is rational in doing so because only the Christian has a metaphysical foundation for the universal laws of logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature.

Kent, no matter how many times you repeat this, it isn't going to come true. Many worldviews, including metaphysical naturalism, can account completely for the phenomena of the universe as we observe them. The ancient Chinese idea of chi probably does a better job than Christianity, since it does not raise the Problem of Evil.

As I and others have told you, atheism means "lacking a belief in god." You appear to be arguing against metaphysical naturalism, the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. Not all metaphysical naturalists are atheists (Martin Gardner, the famous skeptic, was a fideist), and not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

Certainly modern metaphysical naturalism provides a basis for the development of human logic, as evolutionary psychology has already demonstrated. In other words, unlike Christianity, science has already provided an account of the development of logic.

Further, there are no universal laws of logic or ethics. There are few, if any, ethics that are universal among humankind. Moreover, your "universal" laws apparently apply only to humans. What about dolphins or Zarks from the Planet Zorg? Do "universal laws" apply to them as well?

Many different kinds of logics are available. They actually exist, in the world, thus falsifying your belief. As HRG has patiently pointed out again and again, at the quantum level, "logic" as you describe it breaks down completely. A can be both A and not-A.

Finally, the idea that Christianity is "rational "is absurd. The Trinity is a farrago of nonsense, the idea that anyone was raised from the dead or walked on water is absolutely wacko, and the multitudes of its victims cry out the violent insanity of your creed. Your own position is entirely irrational; you have simply decided that your idea of god is the only possible worldview and shut your mind to the reality of the world. What is rational about that?

In the future, instead of simply repeating that "Logic is only possible with god" please demonstrate, using reason, evidence and argument, that that claim is true. Additionally, instead of merely asserting, demonstrate using reason, evidence and argument, that (1) there is such as thing as universal ethical 'laws' and (2) we really ought to submit to their authority.

Vorkosigan

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

acronos

Hi Kent,
My worldview starts with the simple premise that ‘the universe is.’ Whatever characteristics the universe exhibits, I believe in. The universe exhibits morality. I believe in it. The universe exhibits reason. I believe in it. There is nothing in my worldview that says humans cannot reason. I feel angry when I am wronged and that is plenty of evidence for me to believe in anger. You clearly believe I believe things I do not. I believe humans can reason. My worldview is about observation of the universe. If I observe humans reasoning, I believe in it. If I observe the moral structure humans exhibit, I believe in it. It is that simple. That fits in perfectly with my worldview. There is no contradiction here.

However, I consider the morals of today superior to the morals of the day the bible was written. I believe morals evolve. That doesn’t make them any less real. I guess you didn’t read the thread I posted in the evolution forum.

Do I believe my morals are superior to the Taliban’s. Yes I do. I believe our society is centuries ahead of the Taliban and will ultimately devour their society. It is exactly like the Japanese fish that has been introduced into American streams that will ultimately destroy all other fish because it has the evolutionary advantage. If I am wrong, their society values will win and their morals were superior to mine - at least for the time being. Do I believe morals are absolute? No, I believe they change with time. Each generation exhibits stronger survival characteristics than the previous.

However, I do believe that there are many morals that are essentially universal to humans today. A mothers desire to protect her child is common to essentially all humans. The only exceptions are mentally sick people. Why are they sick do you ask? Because their functioning significantly differs from the human norm. If all humans had tuberculosis and died at 23, we would consider that normal. A sexual predator is ostracized and sometimes even destroyed because his behavior is a threat to the society in which he exists. This fits perfectly into my worldview.

What exactly in my worldview do you believe restricts me from believing in universals. You continue to state this over and over again but you have yet to show any evidence for it. Whatever characteristics the universe exhibits that are universal are universal. The speed of light in a vacuum is universal so far as I know at this time.

If I believed that logic, ethics, and nature were uniform, then my worldview would have absolutely no problem with that. However, I don’t think logic, ethics, and nature are uniform. All three have changed significantly over time. Logic is the language humans create to model the universe. As humans learn more about the universe, we will create better models. Some logic of the past is illogical by the standards of logic today. An example today is philosophers who make arguments based on outdated ideas of infinity. Another example is quantum physicists who try to use standard logic to model the states of an atom.

Ethics are the structures that evolved to facilitate the interactions of humans in societies. Our ethics today are vastly superior to those of the past. They are superior in the sense that they have an ‘advantage’ as I defined ‘advantage’ in the evolution post.

All nature is definitely not uniform. Today, dinosaurs do not roam the world, so life over time is not uniform. However, the speed of light is natural, and it is probably uniform. If it is not then there is probably something in the universe that is, and there is NOTHING in my worldview that restricts that. If I observe universals, there is no reason for me not to say, “Yep, that’s probably a universal.” I just don’t happen to believe morality is an example of that except in the sense that most of the basic morals are consistent across all societies. All mammals have four limbs, fur, and many other similarities. That they have this in common does not mean that they are the same or uniform in every respect nor that they are not changing. That humans have morals in common is not at all surprising. It fits perfectly into my worldview

Says who? There is plenty right and wrong in my worldview. I don’t have to believe in God to believe in right and wrong. You keep accusing me of things I have never said. I don’t even think you are reading what I am writing. I think you are arguing with a straw man atheist, not with me.

K

Kent,

Logic is a tool. It is a system for describing certain aspects of our observed universe. It doesn't control the universe but models SOME of the domains in it.

You have given examples to show that there must be an excluded middle. I agree that this closely models nature in some instances. There are others where it doesn't.

1. When sending a single photon or a single electron through two side by side slits of the appropriate dimensions, the particle appears to go through BOTH slits at the same time. This is the foundation for the wave/particle duality. It says that these quantum level objects are both a particle and a wave at the same time.

2. If I say that an object is red and I add an infinitesimal white dot to it, does it suddenly become not red? If I add more dots, at what point does adding an infinitesimal white dot instantaneously make the object not red? Does it become white at that point?

3. This one uses your car in the parking lot example. As your car leaves the parking lot, isn't there a point where it half-way in the lot and half-way outside of it? If the car was stopped right there, which statement would be true - the car is in the parking lot or the car is not in the parking lot?

So logic doesn't rule the universe. It is just a tool for making deductions over domains that are amenable that particular descriptive system.

Thomas Metcalf

Attention, Kent Symanzik.

I'm still awaiting your response to my reply on page 10. In case you missed it, I'll repost it here. Thank you.

"You seem to be asking for three different things here. I assume you aren't asking how we atheists know logic to be true, because it's necessarily true, of course. So you must be asking how we know it applies throughout the universe.

"1. Are you asking the atheist to provide a justification of induction? There are always new attempts to digest, but to my knowledge, there is no naturalistic justification of induction. Are you hinting at a transcendental argument from epistemic foundations? If you are, I may offer in response the possibility that the atheist believe in Epistemo, a non-god whose existence causes epistemic foundations to obtain.

"2. As for ethics, of course there are several secular ethical theories. To adopt some forms theism actually removes one's ethical footing, especially if one adopts utilitarianism or divine command theory. Are you familiar with transcendental moral argument from evil or with the Euthyphro dilemma?

"3. It is patently false that the atheist "worldview" cannot countenance abstract universals. You are correct that conceptualism faces some difficulties, but one could be an atheist who believes in Plato's heaven, or, of course, a nominalist of any stripe. Of course, I believe conceptualism may also be defended fairly plausibly."

I'm looking forward to your response.

HRG

No. I say that the laws of logic follow from the semantics of our language. A law does not "exist" in the same sense as a rock or a planet "exists".
They are universal in the sense that they apply to every event - whenever or wherever happening - that can be described in our language, or in an equivalent language formulated by intelligent aliens.
That something is "not A" is not an elementary proposition, but a proposition built with the junctor "not", and thus dependent on the semantics of our language. I have observed animals, plants, gases etc., but I have never observed a "non-rock" - except in the sense that our language can categorize animals, plants, gases etc. as non-rocks.

IOW, the famous law of contradiction does not deal with actually existing things, but with our statements about those things.
As I wrote, it is an empirical fact that a macroscopic object like a rock cannot be on earth and on the moon at the same time. This statement is not true for an electron.
Every description in our language of something within the universe conforms to these laws. If we used a three-valued logic - as proposed for quantum phenomena - then our descriptions would conform to that logic. No big surprise !

Regards,
HRG.

Kent Symanzik

Hi Mark_Chid,

The difference is that God is infinite while we are finite. God transcends the universe while we are are part of it. In an atheistic worldview, we have intelligence arising from non-intelligence, meaning from meaningless, rationality from irrationality. It is simply full of contradiction.

God's existence does not involve these contradictions.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi Vorkosigan,

I been told this many times but very few on this forum have actually taken up the challenge to show how their own worldview is consistent.

I do not know about chi. Present it's case if you like.

I understand that atheism is multifacited. But, I believe infidels.org describes itself as a site for metaphysical naturalists. So, it is true that I have been critiqing that view mainly. People with other views are welcome to make their case of course.

Hmm, I've provided my how Christianity accounts for these things. Maybe you missed. I do not want to offend but aren't you doing here what you accused me of? You are claiming that metaphysical naturalism can account for logic but you have not explained how. I welcome you to do so.

If the laws of logic are not universal then our discussion is done. All is irrational. Everything we type is meaningless. I can now declare my own logic laws that define my position as true by definition.

Isn't this just another example of atheistic irrationality and inconsistency? Aren't you being inconsistent when you claim that the laws of logic are not universal but then expect them to hold universally when you make your arguments?

But, I do give you credit for recognizing that atheistic worldviews cannot provide a foundation for universals. Now the question is whether the result can be rational.

I admit that I do not understand quantum mechanics. But, like I said, if you believe that logic is not universal then you are being irrational by participating in this discussion.

These criticisms only hold by us all assuming your own worldview in advance. Therefore, they carry no weight at all.

Ok, I will try to do a better job of explaining my position. My argument has been that only the Christian theistic worldview is rational and can justify the use of logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature. The evidence of this is the lack of any other worldview being able to do the same. Some Christians would argue that it is impossible for any other worldview to do the same. I do not know how I can justify that strong of a statement.

Here is my worldview. Christian theism holds that the Christian God exists and has revealed himself in scripture and nature. God transcends the universe and is the creator of it. He is eternal, infinite, and immutable. Universals are justified by being founded in the very character of God. God is rational by nature. The laws of logic are defined by God's being and character. The laws of logic is the way God thinks and expects his creatures to think.

Ethics are defined by the will of God. What God wills is good.

The uniformity of nature exists by God's sovereign governing of the universe. The universe is uniform because God made it that way and controls every bit of it at all times.

God made the universe for his own glory.

Kent

Jack the Bodiless

Kent:
Earlier you claimed to have read "some" of the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000169" target="_blank">What's the deal with presuppositionalism?</a>

I strongly suggest you read the ENTIRE thread, as you seem to be unwilling to read the primer on evolutionary psychology linked to by Vorkosigan. You keep stating that atheism (actually metaphysical naturalism) "cannot account for" such things as the valuing of human life.

This statement is not true.

The foundation of the worldview of metaphysical naturalism is coherent, consistent, and "comports with reality" (unlike that of the Bible, which clearly does not). It relies on the same primary presupposition which YOU used to determine the existence and contents of the Bible. It has the major advantage of not requiring a CHANGE of presupposition from that which provides the true foundation of all genuine knowledge.

Jobar

Kent:
"If the laws of logic are not universal then our discussion is done. All is irrational. Everything we type is meaningless. I can now declare my own logic laws that define my position as true by definition.

Well, Kent, you are free to do that. I warn you though, if the laws you declare imply that you can walk on water, or heal the sick with a touch, or perform supernatural miracles of any sort, you will wind up sorely disappointed at best, and drowned at worst.

Isn't this just another example of atheistic irrationality and inconsistency? Aren't you being inconsistent when you claim that the laws of logic are not universal but then expect them to hold universally when you make your arguments?

We do not "expect" them to hold universally. We are constantly testing to see if these laws- which are models of physical reality, built of words and concepts and numbers- actually fit, actually describe the wordless and unnumbered world which our senses apparently report. (Remember I said my only assumption was that these reports are fairly accurate representations of an objective physical universe- a rejection of solipsism.)

But, I do give you credit for recognizing that atheistic worldviews cannot provide a foundation for universals. Now the question is whether the result can be rational.

Kent, like many theists I've seen on these boards, you are obsessed with absolutes- universal laws, omnipotent power, perfect goodness. IMO our language is not designed to deal with this at all. Our world (the 'zone of middle dimensions' where the speeds are far less than that of light, the tempratures cycle about the range where liquid water exists, the distances can be expressed in units derived from the human body, the times expressed as days or years, etc.) is described very well by our languages- but when you start seeking infinities, language tends to lose its effectiveness, and become meaningless. When the distances become huge or tiny enough, the speeds become large enough, the temperatures become low or high enough- words fail us, or serve us very poorly. And here you are attempting to use them to describe not just huge things, but infinite (immeasurable) ones! Even our mathematics, far more precise and subtle, do not hold all answers for such things- although it is not impossible that one day they might.


I admit I do not understand quantum mechanics. But, like I said, if you believe that logic is not universal then you are being irrational by participating in this discussion.

We observe that logic is extremely effective in describing and predicting things at the human level- which makes it very useful to us humans! But we, or at least I, do not claim that logic is universal, omnipotent, or infallible. Pragmatically, we find that our admittedly tentative and approximate laws do incredibly, astonishingly well at descibing the universe we see all around us! And these laws give us no slightest reason to factor in a God- and since we see no physical evidence which points to a God or Gods, why should we assume such?

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>