Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 09-08-2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Kent Symanzik:

"If universals do not exist then what are the laws of logic in your worldview? Are they an inherent property in every bit of matter? Do they just exist in brains as concepts?"

The laws of logic are necessarily true because we define them for ourselves. They are analytic. We formulate a system of logic and therefore choose all of its rules. Therefore, they exist in minds as concepts.

"I'm not sure I understand you at this point. It seems that someone who does not believe in God can understand that he does not have a foundation for his epistomology. But, it so happens that I do know the foundation for epistomology as the Christian God. God transcends the universe and is the ultimate basis for all things."

I assert that "God is the ultimate basis for knowledge" is incomprehensible. We have no idea what it means for knowledge and logic to be contingent on a person. The theist, by asserting that a person causes the laws of the universe to exist, is not helping anything, but rather, adding to the confusion.

"I do not understand how you could view your Epistemo non-god as equivalent to the Christian God."

Epistemo is only equivalent to the God of the apologists as far as being an epistemic foundation.

"I'm sorry that I am not really familar with these terms. My moral standard is God so I think that would make me a divine comand theorist."

Then God, when He commands you not to commit murder, is commanding you to limit the increase of goodness in the world. For every time you successfully commit murder, this murder is balanced out somehow by equal or better goodness -- because God does not allow gratuitous evil to exist. Therefore, if you avoid attempting to commit murder, you are avoiding an action that can only produce equal or better goodness. The theist is left in the uncomfortable position of believing in a being who wants goodness to exist but commands His followers not to increase goodness. This was rather a quick run-through of this particular moral argument, so I can elaborate and explain terms.

"God's will is the definition of good which conforms to his holy and just character."

I can just as easily say that my will is the definition of good, which confirms to my holy and just character.

Tom: "The materialist has rather a hard time believing in universals, but she can be a conceptualist; these philosophers believe that universals are identical to portions of mental states. The non-materialist can believe in Plato's heaven without believing in any gods."

Ken: "Which one are you?"

I am a materialist and a nominalist with some conceptualist positions. There is no such thing as a property shared by more than one particular; rather, there are only family resemblances that cause us to notice similarities and generalize these into properties. Propositions exist "in" the entities to which they refer (this is sometimes called concrete realism, and could be called a form of conceptualism), and relations are also just generalizations of family resemblances (this is another nominalist position).

Jack the Bodiless · 09-09-2002, 01:34 AM

Kent:

Quote:

I think we have been talking about two different things. Anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument, that you have proved that morality exists and there is no God. My point is that if that is the case then ethics are meaningless.

Further, let's assume that you are correct that all ethical values stem from the process of evolution and that these values have evolved in order to best reach the goal of evolution. What is the goal of evolution? Is it survival? If it is survival then we could say that ethical values have evolved in such a way to help the human species survive.

At this point our ultimate foundation for ethical values is survival. So, now we must ask what makes survival actually good? Survival in an athiestic worldview is nothing more than a particular grouping of chemicals (that we call the human body) existing. What is good about that? Why is that better then the chemicals existing in another form?

Can you see what I am driving at? I'm trying to make the point that atheistic worldviews are meaningless at their foundation. And therefore, there can be no meaning at all.

Evolution provides a functional mechanism for "morality" to develop in social animals. And, obviously, social animals such as ourselves will evolve to view human survival as "good". Whether something is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion. This should be obvious even to you: you believe it is the personal opinion of your God. In fact, this is even used by Christians as an argument for a "personal God" rather than an impersonal one!

In a "cosmic" sense, independent of human desires: yes, human survival is meaningless. But so is (for instance) the gravitational collapse of nebulae to form stars and planets. If you agree that gravitation is an impersonal force which "just works" in a strictly mechanistic fashion: do you describe gravity as "meaningless", and why does this matter?

All you're doing at the moment is demonstrating one of the more unpleasant aspects of Christian theology: the insistence that "meaning" applies to the personal opinions of ONE person (God), and all the opinions, hopes and desires of humanity's 6 billion REAL people are literally of no consequence whatsoever.

Keith Russell · 09-09-2002, 07:23 AM

Jack:

Well said.

Kent continues to claim that he is rational.

However, he believes that reason is a faculty that is created and sustained by God, and that--sans God--there could be no reason.

This view, however, is not supported by any evidence--and there is a great deal of biological evidence to the contrary.

Thus, Kent (at least in this one belief) is not rational. This belief is based only on 'faith'--Kent's 'desire to believe' that it is true.

Kent, if you truly are interested in increasing your ability to think rationally, please consider this...

Keith.

Kent Symanzik · 09-09-2002, 07:52 AM

Hi daemon,

Quote:

Originally posted by daemon:
Kent Symanzik: My argument is that without presupposing the Christian God you can have no epistomological foundation at all that is not arbitrary and irrational.

Wait, wait, wait. If this is the case, how is presupposing the Christian God not arbitrary and irrational? How is a non-theistic foundation not in accord with reason?

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.

Atheistic foundations are all irrational. No one has yet shown how you can get rationality from an irrational foundation. Some attempts have been made which seem to fall into two camps. Those who reject universals and those who don't. Those who reject universal have been trying to show how logic is just a semantic of our language. But, I have been trying to show how subjective logic is no logic at all. Those who hold that universal are possible without God have not presented their case yet.

Quote:

Kent Symanzik: We all must presuppose a starting point. The question becomes whether our presuppositions provide the rational foundation that we need for epistomology, ethics, science, etc.

How would you know if a set of presuppositions/axioms was rationally justified?

Like I said above, valid presuppositions must provide a basis for rationality.

Kent

Kent Symanzik · 09-09-2002, 08:21 AM

Hi Marz,

Quote:

Originally posted by Marz Blak:
In one of my prior posts, I said,
"...As to the question of establishing personhood, I am also not sure I understand what you mean. If I understand you correctly, you seem to feel that atheist perspectives offer no rationale for making a distinction between persons and the physical materials which comprise them. If this is the case, I would simply have to answer, speaking for myself only, that it is a case of "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck". That is, person is as person does. I suppose it is possible that some of the entities I assume to be persons are really super-advanced robots, but I have no reason to think that might be the case. I assume them to be persons. And what is a person? It is, to me, an entity that as far as I can tell from its actions is sentient and has self-awareness in the same ways I believe I do. So again you see how empathy plays a part...."

How is this nothing more than saying you do not have an answer? I have asked how you get persons from a non-personal universe. You are answering that it just is. The problem is not just how did it happen but that it is a contradiction. To believe that the personal arose out of impersonal is irrational.

Quote:

I also said, "...As to your statement regarding the foundations of logic, '...One question that jumps out immediately is how one would go about observing the laws of logic without first presupposing them since we must use logic in our observations....' I am afraid I don't quite understand your objection. As far as I can see, we learn logic from our observations in the same way we learn about gravity or wetness or heat. I do not think that humans are born inherently rational--I am the parent of two children, and I assure you my direct observation would be that infants are not born rational, but grow into it. I *do* think our brains are evolved to look for patterns and build conceptual models. The world by and large behaves in a manner which is consistent, in a particular way which we have defined as being essentially logical. Causes, effects. Exclusion. Deduction, induction. They are all learned empirically, I believe. Where they come from? I remain more or less militantly agnostic on that question (that is to say, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else !" ).

This is similar to the problem above. You admit that you do not know, it just is. I am not asking for the mechanics of how we have logic in an irrational universe. I am just asking how it is not contradictory and what is the foundation for the laws of logic. You say that we learn logic by observation. But, it is impossible to observe anything with using logic. It seems that you describe logic as being subjective rather than universal and invariant. This too poses it's own set of problems.

Quote:

I also said, "...Again, you seem driven to drive things to first principles--to some underlying essential Truth. I am by no means implying that you are unique in this apparent need; but I personally neither believe such Truths are necessarily existent, or even assuming they exist, necessary to know or even ultimately knowable or discoverable. I in fact personally feel that all such endeavors are doomed to failure for lack of evidence... but people seem to be driven to it, so...whatever. (This view is, I am sure you will agree, too tangential to this discussion to continue here.)..."

The problem is that you continue to use things that require these foundations. That is how you are acting irrationally. Logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature exist in mid-air for you. You accept them without any rational basis.

This is my evidence for the truth of Christianity. Christianity does provide a rational basis for logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature. By challenging atheistic worldviews I have been try to show that if you do not presuppose Christian theism you cannot be rationally use the laws of logic, expect ethical standards to be upheld, and conduct science.

Note: I'm not trying to be offessive here. People have told me that I am not being clear enough about what I am trying to prove to I'm trying to lay it all out.

Quote:

...

I am a relative newcomer to this forum, and in lurking for a while, I noted several statements noting a phenomenon of "logical blind spots." Taking you as a thoughtful person of apparent goodwill and sincerity, from your arguments in this topic I am now prepared to say that this phenomenon is real, based on personal experience. Unfortunately, that is about all I have learned here so far.

Hopefully, I am filling in some of those blind spots. Concerning the biblical problems you raised, why don't we just deal with one at a time.

Kent

Marz Blak · 09-09-2002, 08:22 AM

Kent--
You said, "...Atheistic foundations are all irrational...."

With all due respect, you have asserted this time and time again, but not so much as made an argument as to why it is true. My worldview is based on empiricism, and all of my arguments int this thread have been based on empiricism as well. What is irrational about that? As something of a realist, I would argue that, supernaturalist arguments like yours carry inference far, far beyond anything supportable by what we know, and are thus inherently, woefully irrational.

You also said, "...No one has yet shown how you can get rationality from an irrational foundation. Some attempts have been made which seem to fall into two camps. Those who reject universals and those who don't. Those who reject universal have been trying to show how logic is just a semantic of our language. But, I have been trying to show how subjective logic is no logic at all..."

With regard to the first part of that statement, see above (that is, where is the irrationality you assert?) With regard to the second part, perhaps one or more of the other posters made that argument, but I certainly did not. My argument was, rather, that logic can be shown to hold *empirically.* It *requires* no presupposition. Even if one were to presuppose that the universe does not behave according to the laws of logic, he would soon find out that it indeed does.

To me, your argument comes down to seeing an egg and inferring a chicken. And not just a chicken, but a Rhode Island Red with 3,784 feathers and one leg 0.5mm longer than the other.

Marz Blak · 09-09-2002, 08:36 AM

Kent--

You said, "...I have asked how you get persons from a non-personal universe. You are answering that it just is. The problem is not just how did it happen but that it is a contradiction. To believe that the personal arose out of impersonal is irrational...."

I suppose, then, that you do not believe that humans evolved from less-that-sentient precursor species?

You said, "...The problem is that you continue to use things that require these foundations. That is how you are acting irrationally. Logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature exist in mid-air for you. You accept them without any rational basis...."

Sigh.... I believe I said in an earlier post something to the effect that I am a militant agnostic with regard to some things. Maybe you *need* to have a fully inclusive epistemological theory to hold that rationality is universal; but to me, the fact that from all observations it works is enough. In fact, I happen to believe strongly that it *must* be enough because, in essence, it's all we have.

Of course, there is nothing unusual about people being unsatisfied with open questions on the nature of Everything. However, it would appear to me that we know, we are by are by the very nature of our existence only capable of knowing, a certain amount; and everything beyond that is rank speculation, fueled most often by wishful thinking (because there's nothing else to go on).

You said, "...By challenging atheistic worldviews I have been try [sic] to show that if you do not presuppose Christian theism you cannot be rationally use the laws of logic, expect ethical standards to be upheld, and conduct science...."

This is simply a foolish statement. I suppose the Greeks, Romans, and Moslem Arabs, just to name a few, pulled all of that science and engineering our of there collective tucchuses, since, not being Christian, they had no basis for their works. And Hammurabi's Code was purely arbitrary....

I am sure you believe your Christian worldview to be all-inclusive and internally consistent, but for myself personally, answers that end in the assertion of some Absolute Being are no better than no answer at all, and in some ways worse.

I believe that I have come to a point at which I shall have to quit this thread. I wish you well.

[edited for spelling]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

Marz Blak · 09-09-2002, 08:46 AM

[Deleted duplicate post]

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

Keith Russell · 09-09-2002, 08:57 AM

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Rational Egoism
Politics: Capitalism
Aesthetics: Romantic Realism
--Ayn Rand, describing the foundations of her philosophy of Objectivism

Kent said:
The Christian presupposition is not arbitrary and irrational because it coheres with the entire Christian worldview.

Keith:
Kent, Christinity can have internal logic, it's true. But, Christian thinking begins with an irrational premise; a premise that is not supported by objective evidence. Christianity is thus not truly logical, but instead merely another variant of 'castles in the air' systems of thought that have no relation to, or basis in, objective reality.

Kent:
There is a foundation for rationality. The Christian presupposition (God) is rational and so it provides a basis for human rationality.

Keith:
Kent, a 'presupposition' is not a foundation for reason or logic, regardless of what that presupposition is. Reason, to be fully logical--both 'within' and 'without' (internally and externally) must begin solely with objective reality. Any system which begins with unsupported assumptions, presuppositions, or beliefs (about anything, let alone supernatural realms, or mystical beings) cannot honestly be called 'rational'--no matter how consistent it's internal logical structure might be.

Kent:
Atheistic foundations are all irrational.

Keith:
Wrong. This is yet another of your unsupported claims.

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

Keith:
Kent, the concept 'rational' means a claim which is 'non-contradictory' and 'based on evidence'. A claim, to be correctly called 'rational', is one that is based only on independently verifiable observations of objective reality. This and only this is the correct foundation for all logical, rational worldviews. (Presuppositions just don't cut it.)

Kent, I have shown several times that Christianity's initial premise is not evidence, but instead is only another unsupported claim. Yet you continue to claim that your presmise, and the resulting Christian worldview, is a rational one. By definition, however (because it is not based on evidence) your premise is most certainly nothing of the kind, and thus neither is the resulting worldview.

Kent:
Some attempts have been made which seem to fall into two camps. Those who reject universals and those who don't. Those who reject universal have been trying to show how logic is just a semantic of our language. But, I have been trying to show how subjective logic is no logic at all. Those who hold that universal are possible without God have not presented their case yet."

Keith:
Kent, you are absolutely right about the flaws inherent in subjectivism, but you ignore the flaws present in your own intrinsicist views.

I believe that I have presented my case clearly several times that your view is neither objective nor rational. Your view is instead intrinsic, dogmatic, irrational, and incorrect.

(That you have chosen to ignore my presentation, in no way negates its validity.)

Keith.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

sir drinks-a-lot · 09-09-2002, 10:22 AM

There must be some subtlety of your argument that we are missing. It seems to me like you are just presupposing God as the basis for rationatliy, and then saying "See! God is the basis for rationality!"

Isn't that arbitrary?

Can't we just presuppose anything whatsoever as the basis for rationality? All you seem to be doing is asserting that God is the basis.

Bernard Lonergan's argument for God's existence in Insight: A Study of Human Understanding was the following Modus Ponens:

If the Universe is completely intelligible, God exists.
The Universe is completely intelligible.
Therefore, God exists.

This sounds alot like your argument. You argument seems to be that the Universe is completely intellligible and the only way this can be accounted for is by presupposing Christianity. Is this a correct statment of your argument?

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

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

09-08-2002, 03:26 PM	#341
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Kent Symanzik: "If universals do not exist then what are the laws of logic in your worldview? Are they an inherent property in every bit of matter? Do they just exist in brains as concepts?" The laws of logic are necessarily true because we define them for ourselves. They are analytic. We formulate a system of logic and therefore choose all of its rules. Therefore, they exist in minds as concepts. "I'm not sure I understand you at this point. It seems that someone who does not believe in God can understand that he does not have a foundation for his epistomology. But, it so happens that I do know the foundation for epistomology as the Christian God. God transcends the universe and is the ultimate basis for all things." I assert that "God is the ultimate basis for knowledge" is incomprehensible. We have no idea what it means for knowledge and logic to be contingent on a person. The theist, by asserting that a person causes the laws of the universe to exist, is not helping anything, but rather, adding to the confusion. "I do not understand how you could view your Epistemo non-god as equivalent to the Christian God." Epistemo is only equivalent to the God of the apologists as far as being an epistemic foundation. "I'm sorry that I am not really familar with these terms. My moral standard is God so I think that would make me a divine comand theorist." Then God, when He commands you not to commit murder, is commanding you to limit the increase of goodness in the world. For every time you successfully commit murder, this murder is balanced out somehow by equal or better goodness -- because God does not allow gratuitous evil to exist. Therefore, if you avoid attempting to commit murder, you are avoiding an action that can only produce equal or better goodness. The theist is left in the uncomfortable position of believing in a being who wants goodness to exist but commands His followers not to increase goodness. This was rather a quick run-through of this particular moral argument, so I can elaborate and explain terms. "God's will is the definition of good which conforms to his holy and just character." I can just as easily say that my will is the definition of good, which confirms to my holy and just character. Tom: "The materialist has rather a hard time believing in universals, but she can be a conceptualist; these philosophers believe that universals are identical to portions of mental states. The non-materialist can believe in Plato's heaven without believing in any gods." Ken: "Which one are you?" I am a materialist and a nominalist with some conceptualist positions. There is no such thing as a property shared by more than one particular; rather, there are only family resemblances that cause us to notice similarities and generalize these into properties. Propositions exist "in" the entities to which they refer (this is sometimes called concrete realism, and could be called a form of conceptualism), and relations are also just generalizations of family resemblances (this is another nominalist position).

09-09-2002, 07:23 AM	#343
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Jack: Well said. Kent continues to claim that he is rational. However, he believes that reason is a faculty that is created and sustained by God, and that--sans God--there could be no reason. This view, however, is not supported by any evidence--and there is a great deal of biological evidence to the contrary. Thus, Kent (at least in this one belief) is not rational. This belief is based only on 'faith'--Kent's 'desire to believe' that it is true. Kent, if you truly are interested in increasing your ability to think rationally, please consider this... Keith.

09-09-2002, 08:22 AM	#346
Marz Blak Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gloucester Co., NJ, USA Posts: 607	Kent-- You said, "...Atheistic foundations are all irrational...." With all due respect, you have asserted this time and time again, but not so much as made an argument as to why it is true. My worldview is based on empiricism, and all of my arguments int this thread have been based on empiricism as well. What is irrational about that? As something of a realist, I would argue that, supernaturalist arguments like yours carry inference far, far beyond anything supportable by what we know, and are thus inherently, woefully irrational. You also said, "...No one has yet shown how you can get rationality from an irrational foundation. Some attempts have been made which seem to fall into two camps. Those who reject universals and those who don't. Those who reject universal have been trying to show how logic is just a semantic of our language. But, I have been trying to show how subjective logic is no logic at all..." With regard to the first part of that statement, see above (that is, where is the irrationality you assert?) With regard to the second part, perhaps one or more of the other posters made that argument, but I certainly did not. My argument was, rather, that logic can be shown to hold empirically. It requires no presupposition. Even if one were to presuppose that the universe does not behave according to the laws of logic, he would soon find out that it indeed does. To me, your argument comes down to seeing an egg and inferring a chicken. And not just a chicken, but a Rhode Island Red with 3,784 feathers and one leg 0.5mm longer than the other.

09-09-2002, 08:36 AM	#347
Marz Blak Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gloucester Co., NJ, USA Posts: 607	Kent-- You said, "...I have asked how you get persons from a non-personal universe. You are answering that it just is. The problem is not just how did it happen but that it is a contradiction. To believe that the personal arose out of impersonal is irrational...." I suppose, then, that you do not believe that humans evolved from less-that-sentient precursor species? You said, "...The problem is that you continue to use things that require these foundations. That is how you are acting irrationally. Logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature exist in mid-air for you. You accept them without any rational basis...." Sigh.... I believe I said in an earlier post something to the effect that I am a militant agnostic with regard to some things. Maybe you need to have a fully inclusive epistemological theory to hold that rationality is universal; but to me, the fact that from all observations it works is enough. In fact, I happen to believe strongly that it must be enough because, in essence, it's all we have. Of course, there is nothing unusual about people being unsatisfied with open questions on the nature of Everything. However, it would appear to me that we know, we are by are by the very nature of our existence only capable of knowing, a certain amount; and everything beyond that is rank speculation, fueled most often by wishful thinking (because there's nothing else to go on). You said, "...By challenging atheistic worldviews I have been try [sic] to show that if you do not presuppose Christian theism you cannot be rationally use the laws of logic, expect ethical standards to be upheld, and conduct science...." This is simply a foolish statement. I suppose the Greeks, Romans, and Moslem Arabs, just to name a few, pulled all of that science and engineering our of there collective tucchuses, since, not being Christian, they had no basis for their works. And Hammurabi's Code was purely arbitrary.... I am sure you believe your Christian worldview to be all-inclusive and internally consistent, but for myself personally, answers that end in the assertion of some Absolute Being are no better than no answer at all, and in some ways worse. I believe that I have come to a point at which I shall have to quit this thread. I wish you well. [edited for spelling] [ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

09-09-2002, 08:46 AM	#348
Marz Blak Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gloucester Co., NJ, USA Posts: 607	[Deleted duplicate post] [ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

09-09-2002, 08:57 AM	#349
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Metaphysics: Objective Reality Epistemology: Reason Ethics: Rational Egoism Politics: Capitalism Aesthetics: Romantic Realism --Ayn Rand, describing the foundations of her philosophy of Objectivism Kent said: The Christian presupposition is not arbitrary and irrational because it coheres with the entire Christian worldview. Keith: Kent, Christinity can have internal logic, it's true. But, Christian thinking begins with an irrational premise; a premise that is not supported by objective evidence. Christianity is thus not truly logical, but instead merely another variant of 'castles in the air' systems of thought that have no relation to, or basis in, objective reality. Kent: There is a foundation for rationality. The Christian presupposition (God) is rational and so it provides a basis for human rationality. Keith: Kent, a 'presupposition' is not a foundation for reason or logic, regardless of what that presupposition is. Reason, to be fully logical--both 'within' and 'without' (internally and externally) must begin solely with objective reality. Any system which begins with unsupported assumptions, presuppositions, or beliefs (about anything, let alone supernatural realms, or mystical beings) cannot honestly be called 'rational'--no matter how consistent it's internal logical structure might be. Kent: Atheistic foundations are all irrational. Keith: Wrong. This is yet another of your unsupported claims. Kent: No one has yet shown how you can get rationality from an irrational foundation. Keith: Kent, the concept 'rational' means a claim which is 'non-contradictory' and 'based on evidence'. A claim, to be correctly called 'rational', is one that is based only on independently verifiable observations of objective reality. This and only this is the correct foundation for all logical, rational worldviews. (Presuppositions just don't cut it.) Kent, I have shown several times that Christianity's initial premise is not evidence, but instead is only another unsupported claim. Yet you continue to claim that your presmise, and the resulting Christian worldview, is a rational one. By definition, however (because it is not based on evidence) your premise is most certainly nothing of the kind, and thus neither is the resulting worldview. Kent: Some attempts have been made which seem to fall into two camps. Those who reject universals and those who don't. Those who reject universal have been trying to show how logic is just a semantic of our language. But, I have been trying to show how subjective logic is no logic at all. Those who hold that universal are possible without God have not presented their case yet." Keith: Kent, you are absolutely right about the flaws inherent in subjectivism, but you ignore the flaws present in your own intrinsicist views. I believe that I have presented my case clearly several times that your view is neither objective nor rational. Your view is instead intrinsic, dogmatic, irrational, and incorrect. (That you have chosen to ignore my presentation, in no way negates its validity.) Keith. [ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

09-09-2002, 10:22 AM	#350
sir drinks-a-lot Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 665	There must be some subtlety of your argument that we are missing. It seems to me like you are just presupposing God as the basis for rationatliy, and then saying "See! God is the basis for rationality!" Isn't that arbitrary? Can't we just presuppose anything whatsoever as the basis for rationality? All you seem to be doing is asserting that God is the basis. Bernard Lonergan's argument for God's existence in Insight: A Study of Human Understanding was the following Modus Ponens: If the Universe is completely intelligible, God exists. The Universe is completely intelligible. Therefore, God exists. This sounds alot like your argument. You argument seems to be that the Universe is completely intellligible and the only way this can be accounted for is by presupposing Christianity. Is this a correct statment of your argument? [ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.