MaxMainspring

To begin with there are many very intelligent people who have come under the thrall of doctrinal theism. It is not necessarily a function of intelligence, but most people (myself certainly included) are capable of self-deception. The doctrinal theist would of course be quick to point out that they think it is the non-theist who has decieved themselves into thinking something that makes them more comfortable so this is not a line of argument, only an observation.

As for presuppositionalism, it is very seductive because, for one thing, it is hermetic and virtually unassailable if you buy into the internal logic. It simply says that no thought can be entertained which even seems to contradict the supposition because it is, within the structure of the system of thought, patently false. So, any argument against it becomes, to the presupp, a confirmation of their hypothesis (which to them transcends the status of hypothesis) and demonstrates that those who have not embraced the presupposition are obviously self-delusive and without epistimic foundation and are thusly unable to "see" the truth of the theistic claim.

In fact, on thinking about it, it is not at all surprising that an intelligent theist (conservative ones in particular) would embrace presupp because it offers a refuge from the need to constantly patch together an ad hoc defense of a tattered worldview which posits an authoritarian Godhead that sits in stern and unyeilding and horrific eternal judgement over frail humankind. This is especially true when the source of the philosophy is an obviously absurd account of a six day creation after which an omnipotent God pokes around the Garden of Eden trying to find a hiding Adam and Eve. This deosn't even mention the flood, the Job wager, the fact that the sons of the two first people on earth were able to travel to some other locale and find brides, and so on with all manner of fantasical and unintelligible stories made up by a primitive society over several thousand years.

Of course, for an intelligent person, having to defend such nonsense as actual events can't help but produce congnitive dissonance and it is not surprising that such a person would be seduced by the broad stroke of presuppositionalism which sweeps all that inconvenient apologistic dross under the rug of pure transcendent knowledge. If their beliefs are a visitation from God, then they need not worry themselves about the seeming nonsense of their scriptural source and can ignore all those troublesome arguments that on an intellectual level present so many problems.

By virture of this sweeping theological declaration they are able to claim that all the absurdity of their position is "only apparent" to someone who is not of the elect, which is to say has not embraced the presupposition which insulates them from reality.

Of course, to the outsider, the philosophy of the presuppositionist is just another example of the need of any theistic belief system to privilege their worldview before any discourse begins. In the case of the presupp it amounts to hyper-privilege because it is unable to even entertain any counter argument as even worthy of contemplation.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: MaxMainspring ]</p>

Plump-DJ

Jack said..

Couple of points of response here.

1) Your last points are obviously not something we can deal wth. If our reason and perception is unreliable then we have no knowledge. We can use them all we like, we can cry about it but we have no knowledge.

2) Your first point seems to indicate that we do not in fact have an answer to that question. If our perpections are effects caused by the world around us and causes are not like the effects what makes us think our perceptions are any different? If there is no answer to this question how can we say that we know anything about the world? Assuming that our senses are reliable would seem ok to me, until I get hit with this question. I have no answer. I have *no* reason for thinking that my perceptions as effects are different to anything else we observe. Why would they? They're just another extension of the natural world in action. And hence i can't see how i can say I have knowledge.

The Other Michael

I want to thank everyone for chiming in on the topic. It appears that my original surmise wasn't far (if any) off.

cheers,
Michael

Vorkosigan

I have *no* reason for thinking that my perceptions as effects are different to anything else we observe. Why would they? They're just another extension of the natural world in action. And hence i can't see how i can say I have knowledge.

So you deny knowledge for all complex species, just humans, or just yourself? Or could it be that knowledge is part of that same natural world in action too....

Vorkosigan

Kris

I am not able to answer every post because I am only one person and I do not have the time needed to do so. I attempted to articulate my argument in a way people here can understand. You all are very intelligent but I do not think you are understanding my argument.

What is an axiom?
An axiom is a self-evident or universally recognized truth.

What is a worldview?
A worldview is the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

The Atheist worldview claims that the universe is only “Matter in motion” as Bahnsen has put it. That is what they judge evidence in light of. The Christian claims the universe is the creation of God and that is what they judge evidence in light of.

Which presupposition can account for those things that make life intelligible? I am not asking that you show me that axioms exist. I am asking you to look at your worldview and tell me how any invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist. How can you justify that they do exist? I would like to know how you can justify anything universal. If you can not account for those things that make life intelligible then why should I believe that your worldview is the true worldview? What we don’t know is how these things are able to be justified within the worldview Atheists say is true. A worldview should be able to explain the pre-conditions for reality and intelligibility. Atheism can not. Atheists blindly assume that they are living in an Atheistic world and when you ask them how they can do something they simply indicate that they can.

Below are a few of my points in an outline form. (outline doesn't seem to look like an outline, sorry.)

1. Atheists can not justify their worldview. Their worldview does not and can not account for invariant abstract entities. Anything that isn’t “Matter in motion” can not be explained using the Atheist worldview. Remember the definition of an axiom is a self-evident or universally recognized truth


A. Logic and reason - If logic and reason are reduced to chemical processes within the brain they can not be universal. What goes on in your brain isn’t what goes on in my brain and what goes on in my brain is different then what goes on with anyone else’s brain. Those things that go on in your brain can not be universal. Unless an Atheist can explain how logic and reason can be a universal recognized truth within their worldview of “Matter in motion” they should relinquish using such.

B. Morality – If morality is universal it stands to reason that I can judge the actions of someone else. Our society can judge other societies. We have a set standard for what is right and wrong. For the Atheist to believe in such a standard they must first justify how such a standard could exist without God. If morality is not universal it is reduced to the opinion of individuals. If right and wrong are reduced to the opinion of individuals you as an individual may not like what I am doing but you really have no moral objection to it. Your opinion is simply your opinion and can not be held in any higher regard then mine. Please tell me why your moral opinion should carry weight with me or anyone else for that matter. Why should my chemical processes agree with your chemical process?

C. Induction – For those people who have such a problem with begging the question this should be entertaining. How can an Atheist justify induction? I have heard in the past that they justify it through the “Order of the universe”. The universe has order so they can use induction. What is the problem with this statement? Well no one has examined everything in the universe so do we really know that the universe has order? We know that the parts of the universe we have seen has order but we have not seen or examined the entire universe to make sure that the “Universe” has order and not just parts. So why do Atheists say that the Universe has order? Because they use induction. They use induction to assume the order in the universe and then use the order in the universe to justify induction. Hmm, what is that called again? Anything universal and abstract can not be explained by Atheists to include induction.

2. Because Atheists can not justify their own worldview they must attack mine. Some feel that God isn’t a justification. That is not true. God is justification it’s just not justification an Atheist likes. It stands to reason that Gods creation would point to God. Please tell me why I should eliminate God as a possible justification. You expect a Christian, who believes that God created everything, to explain something that doesn’t include God? Can you explain the creation of an Explorer without pointing to Ford? You assume that God doesn’t exist and upon that assumption feel that God is an invalid answer to any question. Within the Christian worldview it is valid and it should be valid. Sense God exists it would be invalid not to point to Him.

To those of you who feel that you can build up what you “think” God is and then tear your perception down, that doesn’t work for me. You are just tearing down your perception of God not mine.

Thanks for all the posts
Kris

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kris ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I am not able to answer every post because I am only one person and I do not have the time needed to do so. I attempted to articulate my argument in a way people here can understand.

Oh shit! My thumb was in my eye! That's why I couldn't understand your post!

You all are very intelligent but I do not think you are understanding my argument.

Rather, we all think you don't have an argument.

The Atheist worldview claims that the universe is only “Matter in motion” as Bahnsen has put it. That is what they judge evidence in light of. The Christian claims the universe is the creation of God and that is what they judge evidence in light of.

Kris! What kind of atheist? Will you quit saying "atheist" when you mean "metaphysical naturalist"!

Which presupposition can account for those things that make life intelligible? I am not asking that you show me that axioms exist. I am asking you to look at your worldview and tell me how any invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist.

We've already explained it only about a hundred times, with references and even book suggestions.
But I'll explain it again. First, here are some books you might consider reading:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198524196/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Descent of Mind : Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/052148541X/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393318486/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">How the Mind Works</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226292061/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Explaining Science : A Cognitive Approach(Science and Its Conceptual Foundations)</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300083092/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">What Is Evolutionary Psychology : Explaining the New Science of the Mind (Darwinism Today)</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060976519/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Language Instinct</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262560038/ref=ed_oe_p/104-7565631-5411908" target="_blank">Character of Physical Law by Feynman</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195101073/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Adapted Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture</a>

Logic evolved. It isn't invariant, and it is simply a framework useful to humans to think about the world. No more, no less.

I would like to know how you can justify anything universal.

If you want an answer, read Don Brown's Human Universals. Universal behaviors, from marriage to gossip, are common in the human race. Can you say "evolution?"

If you can not account for those things that make life intelligible then why should I believe that your worldview is the true worldview?

You can believe anything you like. The problems arises when you try to convince someone else.

Atheism can not.

Oh, yes it can. Confucian atheists say that everything arose from the eternal chi. Taoist atheists have similar beliefs. There's a run down of atheist explanations of how the universe operates in Vol. II of Needham's Science and Civilization in China.

Oh! You meant metaphysical naturalists again.

Atheists blindly assume that they are living in an Atheistic world and when you ask them how they can do something they simply indicate that they can.

Yes, on most planets, the actual performance of an action indicates the ability to do it, but perhaps things are different where you come from.

A.Logic and reason - If logic and reason are reduced to chemical processes within the brain they can not be universal.

Correct! They are not universal. They are found only in some organisms on the third planet of the planet of the star Sol, popularly known as "Tellus."

What goes on in your brain isn’t what goes on in my brain and what goes on in my brain is different then what goes on with anyone else’s brain.

I'm glad YOU said this.

Those things that go on in your brain can not be universal.

Probably you didn't notice that this isn't an argument but an unconnected and unproven series of incoherent assertions.

Pardon, but all human brains are pretty much the same.

Unless an Atheist can explain how logic and reason can be a universal recognized truth within their worldview of “Matter in motion” they should relinquish using such.

But since logic and reason are different at different times and in different cultures, they can't be a "universally recognized truth." I notice you've been refusing to recognize our applications of logic, for example.

Morality – If morality is universal it stands to reason that I can judge the actions of someone else.

If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

You know, I am beginning to understand why SingleDad enjoyed thumping Jim Mitchell so much.

You know, morality is not universal, in case you haven't noticed. In India they burn widows, in the US they remarry.

You can judge anyone any time you want. It's getting someone else to pay attention that's the difficult part.

Our society can judge other societies. We have a set standard for what is right and wrong.

We do? Since when? Quick -- what does our nation believe about school prayer? Abortion? The Sandinistas? The War on Terrorism? The siting of dams and incinerators? Drilling in the Alaskan wilderness? Capital punishment? Smoking in public? Sex before marriage? Homosexual marriage?

We're lucky we have set moral standards.....I'd hate to see what disagreement looked like.

Kris- we don't need "set" moral standards to judge. We just need standards. I have "set" moral standards, so does everyone else posting here. What the hell does "set" mean, anyway?

If you're going to imply that we're all dense, as you did at the top of this post, you damn well better use terminology that is clear to others.

For the Atheist to believe in such a standard they must first justify how such a standard could exist without God.

Easy. My atheist buddhist wife can give you a long explanation of the source of morals.

All standards exist without god -- there are no gods -- so we don't need an explanation. But if you want to know how morality evolved, I suggest you reference some of the books above.

If morality is not universal it is reduced to the opinion of individuals.

Good.....you're starting to understand.

If right and wrong are reduced to the opinion of individuals you as an individual may not like what I am doing but you really have no moral objection to it.

What? Are you saying I am not entitled to an opinion about your behavior?

Your opinion is simply your opinion and can not be held in any higher regard then mine.

Correct. That's why I need to negotiate with you in areas where we feel there is friction. The problem occurs when authoritarians like yourself simply announced that they, and they alone have Truth and short-circuit any negotiations.

Please tell me why your moral opinion should carry weight with me or anyone else for that matter. Why should my chemical processes agree with your chemical process?

So we can live together as social animals, and enjoy the benefits of long-term cooperation, which are immense. Haven't you noticed yet that humans are social animals? Why do you think that is?

Induction – For those people who have such a problem with begging the question this should be entertaining. How can an Atheist justify induction?

Kris, did you ignore my post on this topic? I have already given you the explanation of how and why induction works. Give a response, please. Here it is again:

• My Philosophy of Materialism/naturalism
  Let's start out with a one-sentence summary: naturalism, when you come right down to it, is the belief that consciousness cannot operate directly on reality outside the mind.
  As far as my particular naturalist beliefs, I am an evolutionary naturalist. Human cognitive capacities are evolved capacities, just like those of other animals. It is undeniable that human abilities are well-adapted to the world in which humans function, and that these capacities are non-trivial. A fantastic amount of processing power is required just to walk or read a poem.
  
  Empiricist philosophers (that's you, SingleDad! ) have emphasized the role of perceptual experience in their analyses of knowledge because of the high degree of subjective certainty attached to such experience. The problem was then to get beyond this subjective experience. From an evolutionary perspective, there's a connection between subjective certainty and the objective reliability of our interactions with the world. Although the evolutionary history of some of these capacities for developing reliable perceptions of world is still in the dark, there's no denying the reliability of our perceptions.
  
  Traditional rationalism has focused on these subjective intuitions we have, that space-time is 3D and that time is linear. These judgements seem to be built into the way we think. Indeed, they seem to be (see Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution), since those aspects of the world relevant to our fitness have that structure. But rationalists, like empiricists, are still stuck with the problem of subjectivity. From their perspective, it seems impossible that one could ever discover what science has indeed discovered, that the cosmos has several dimensions, and so forth.
  
  Evolutionary theory provides an alternative. By looking back at their own evolutionary history, scientists can better understand their own cognitive situation and investigate the development of their own cognitive capacities. We know already that we have reliable perceptions about the world; the problem of induction is really not "how is it we can induct" but "how is it our inductions are so reliable?" The reply to Hume is contained in modern cognitive science, which has shown that inductive capacities are built into humans (and other animals). So are things like logic, the idea that things in the world have intentions, and so on. Most of these originate in the cognitive equipment necessary for competition in our highly developed social world. If you look at this Primer on Evolutionary Psychology you'll get a few simple examples of how logic (in that case, conditionals) operates in human social systems.
  
  In other words, the cognitive view starts with the realization that our perceptions are largely reliable, wonders why this is so, and then uses the tools of science to discover why, confirming that indeed our perceptions our reliable.
  
  Some of you I know are shouting "Hey wait! This is circular!" I would argue, as I think Wittgenstein did, that epistemology has been gripped by the idea that one must prove in Straight Lines. The philosopher reasons from first principles, then, grounded in A, moves on to B. The cognitive scientist starts with B and using B, goes back to find what A is all about. Circularity does not exist here, because at each iteration of the scientific process, something has changed: we have more knowledge about ourselves and the world. This is not circularity, but a positive feedback loop. Using our powerful cognitive abilities made reliable by evolution, we expand our knowledge of the world, thus understanding our own cognitive abilities better. This new knowledge enables us to better understand the world. And so on. As Giere noted in Explaining Science : A Cognitive Approach(Science and Its Conceptual Foundations) "the existence of these positive feedback loops is not a limitation that must be overcome by some special form of philosophical analysis. On the contrary, it is one of the things that makes modern science so powerful."
  
  As for pre-suppositions, I have none, save what mother nature built into all humans (and that is a formidable array). I don't believe that consciousness can directly operate on reality outside the mind, and there is no evidence that it can. That is not a presupposition, but a discovery backed by five centuries of scientific investigation. Western science has failed to show even a single example of it, while refutations of the supernatural in non-scientific formats go back 2,000 years in several cultures. As everyone knows, the supernatural was tossed out of science by theists beginning in the 16th century, who began to understand that it had no ability to explain the world around us. Subsequent investigation shows that the world gets along fine without it.
  
  I don't worry too much about what philosophy says about ontology or epistemology, because those answers are going to come from the cognitive sciences. That has pretty much been the trend over the last 300 years; that the realm of philosophy is being invaded and colonized by the sciences. Although philosophy is incredibly good as a poser of questions for the cognitive sciences to answer.

Please quit claiming that "atheists are X" when you mean "metaphysical naturalists are X."

I have heard in the past that they justify it through the “Order of the universe”.

No, Kris, we justify in many ways. I happen to follow Giere's analysis of the problem in Explaining Science (see above). A post or two ago I put supplied it for you. In the interests of politeness, you need to supply a serious critique of the issues in that post. The way in which humans induct has been explained: it is a capability found in many species, and evolved in.

Because Atheists can not justify their own worldview they must attack mine.

No, we attack your worldview because of its bloodthirsty, authoritarian ways, and because it is continually being thrust in our faces. If people of your worldview would stop the murder, bigotry and authoritarianism, we'd pay you no attention. Did you ever hear anyone in these forums attack Quakers, UUs or Bahais? They don't kill others and attempt to force everyone to live the same way, so they are no threat to a diverse and peaceful society. We only pay attention to presuppositionalists, whose arbitrary and subjective authoritarianism represents a danger to a free society.

The rest of the incoherent preaching has been eliminated.

In the future, I expect that you will learn to say "metaphysical naturalist" instead of "atheist." My buddhist wife has a worldview that is much older and richer than yours, and explains a hell of a lot more, and does it all without fomenting the hate that yours does.
Vorkosigan

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Kris, we attack presuppositionalism for three reasons.

1. Because presuppositionalists attack us. They assert that our worldview is false, that it is illogical, that it is "self-refuting".

2. Because presuppositionalism is a pile of... well, let's say "garbage". It is riddled with logical fallacies and double standards.

3. Because the Bible, the basis of the Christian presuppositionalist worldview, is inadequate for the task. It contains hundreds of errors, contradictions, ambiguities, failed prophecies and so forth. It does not provide a stable foundation for a worldview. It is false, it is illogical, it is "self-refuting".

phaedrus

Sometimes i wonder are these guys worth the time and effort? Some frogs will never get out their wells.

madmax2976

Just a few more thoughts……

<strong> Yeah right. We’re supposed to listen to a CPist for the definition of our own position. It would less embarassing for CPists if they would first attempt to learn about what they are attempting to attack before doing so. Atheism is not a “worldview” and I’ve never heard any atheist claim that the universe is “only matter in motion”. Have you nothing more than straw man fallacies to support your worldview?

<strong> This all depends on what you mean by “justify”. If by justify you mean prove that something is universal, we don’t. Of course you can’t either so that doesn’t mean much.

Please also define what you mean by “laws of logic”. Are you speaking about the descriptions written down in a book or are you speaking about our concepts of reasoning that we describe by a term we call logic?

Have you nothing more than poorly worded challenges to support your worldview and/or attack ours?

<strong> Even assuming your right, since you can’t “account” for them, I don’t see why you’d have a problem with this. You worldview doesn’t account for anything. It asserts. There’s a big difference.

<strong> Please explain it under your own worldview. Note that I’m not asking you to conject or speculate. Anyone can do that. I want to see your explanation that can be verified and thus qualified as an actual explanation. If you can’t do this, your attack here is nothing but hot air and the precursor to a blatant double standard.

<strong>[/quote]1. Atheists can not justify their worldview. Their worldview does not and can not account for invariant abstract entities. Anything that isn’t “Matter in motion” can not be explained using the Atheist worldview. Remember the definition of an axiom is a self-evident or universally recognized truth </strong>[/quote]

The CPist continues to embarrass himself. Atheism is not a worldview. It is a position on a particular subject and thus makes no pretense about “accounting” for “invariant abstract entities”, in and of itself. But again, I suspect your purposely using “account” in order to maintain vagueness in your argument. YOU can’t “account” for these things, if by account you mean actually explain these things. Your speculations and mere assertions hardly qualify as explanations. Have you nothing more than an attack based on a double standard to support your own worldview?

<strong> Why does logic have to be “universal”? We reason a particular way we term "logical" in order to understand each other and the world around us. I see no reason to assume or conclude that my sense of what is reasonable or unreasonable is “universal”. That sounds extremely arrogant. An alien species might very well find some things reasonable that I find unreasonable and vice versa.

However, since you can’t explain how logic is universal either, your attack here is just another example of your double standard. Does CPism have nothing more than this going for it?

<strong> I don’t understand how it exists with a God, so this statement is hogwash from the start.

<strong> Er.. hello. Not “liking what you are doing” IS a moral objection. My morals are highly connected to my likes, dislikes and opinions.

<strong> By “carry more weight”, what do you mean? If you mean to ask why they are “better”, they may or may not be. Of course “better” is subjective.
I may very well hold MY opinion in higher regard than yours, so you are obviously quite wrong. Likewise you may hold your opinion in higher regard than mine, so again you would be quite wrong. Its obvious to me you have no idea what you are talking about here.

<strong> I’ll address this one just as soon as you “justify” it. Note again that it will take more than your speculation to qualify as actual justification. Why CPists think their imaginative conjectures should be qualified as actual explanations and justificiations I have no idea.

<strong> Its not “justification” - period. Its your imaginative speculation. Justification requires actual evidence. You apparently have none. We can speculate just as well. We’re just not arrogant enough to count our speculations as actual explanations.

<strong> I don’t even eliminate a deity as a possible explanation, so I don’t know why you would. Of course I don’t eliminate leprechuans and unicorns as possible entities either. But I’m far more interested in what is likely to be true rather than what is merely possible.

<strong> Within your worldview that’s fine. It has nothing to do with those who don't share your worldview however.

<strong> To those like yourself who feel that you can build up what you think atheism is and then tear your perception down, that doesn’t work for us. You are just tearing down your perception of atheism, not ours.

Kyle Smyth

"I am not able to answer every post because I am only one person and I do not have the time needed to do so. I attempted to articulate my argument in a way people here can understand. You all are very intelligent but I do not think you are understanding my argument."

Alright, to be perfectly clear, why don't I outline your argument as I see it, and if I am wrong then you will know right where to correct me.

"A worldview should be able to explain the pre-conditions for reality and intelligibility."

This seems to be your foundational principal.

"Which presupposition can account for those things that make life intelligible? I am not asking that you show me that axioms exist. I am asking you to look at your worldview and tell me how any invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist."

The litmus test you offer to use in judging what you term world views.

"If you can not account for those things that make life intelligible then why should I believe that your worldview is the true worldview? What we don't know is how these things are able to be justified within the worldview Atheists say is true. A worldview should be able to explain the pre-conditions for reality and intelligibility. Atheism can not. Atheists blindly assume that they are living in an Atheistic world and when you ask them how they can do something they simply indicate that they can."

And here is your argument.

Boiled down your logic runs like this

A=A world view ought to explain all required
aspects of 'reality and intelligibility'

At this point I am going to explain what I think you mean by those two things.

Reality I assume to be the world around us, the universe if you will.

Intelligibility I assume you mean to be the ability of the human mind to perceive the universe in an intelligible or understandable way, which agreeably requires consistency in the mind of the observer.

B=in order to provide an explanation of 'reality and intelligibility' any worldview must account for the laws of logic and other such abstracts

C=Atheism cannot provide said explanations, thus God is real.

Now by this point either I am way off or I have understood your argument from the get go, and I believe that the majority of responses you have gotten deal with this argument.

Now to get into my response of this augment as I see it:

A= A worldview is merely there to provide ease of comprehension. I choose to believe/not believe in god/metaphysical naturalism because it helps me deal with the world. Worldviews have abstract ideas in them, i.e. if you believe in the christen god you must then believe in the abstract idea of omni-benevolence, omni-presence and omni-power. The all seeing all knowing all powerful god is for all intents a purposes a moral equivalent to the mathematical infinity, a concept known only in the abstract. Can one understand the concept of infinity (either moral or mathematical) without believing in that god? Yes, and I am living proof. In terms of abstracts like the laws of logic they are universal only to the extent that they aid our ability to understand and explain natural systems. The laws of logic are not universal, should our minds function in a vastly different way, our logic would be vastly different. You and I may be completely unable to imagine this, but just because you cannot perceive it does not make it true. If you need an example of a potentially very different logical foundation, the example of a quantum being was posited, read about what we know quantum mechanics and then explain to me exactly how our logical system would survive in such a natural system. When you say that presuppositions must explain 'reality and intelligibly' I think you missed the boat by a few hundred years. Descartes (spelling?) has already given us the 'brain in a jar' problem. Reality does not need to be explained or proven, we deal with it as best we can under the assumption that we are real or at the very least it certainly FEELS like we are real. As far as intelligibility goes, all that represents is an agreement in society about standardized (to a degree) communication. Language and logic then only become communication tools, a protocol required to engage in data transfer. Conclusion, your premise is just wrong.

B= If your premise falls, so does your litmus test, for exactly the same reasons.

C=since you took the time to provide an outline, Ill take the time to deal with it.

1-An explanation of logic can be provided as a function of thought and social evolution. Our thoughts are created by our brains, which function as bio-chemical batteries/computers. If you have a qualm about that idea, ok, you don?t have to believe it, but it is an explanation that atheism/metaphiscal naturalism offers. You have you agree that the standard for proving your argument wrong can?t be converting you from your chosen belief to metaphysical naturalism or atheism, so that explanation answers your challenge.

1A-My digestive tract is nothing more then an electrochemical system, funny how Pepto-Bismol seems to work for so many people. While I agree that within each body are potentially great variations form the next, they all work on the same foundational principals. If you want to dispute THE BASIS OF MODERN MEDICINE then you go right ahead, but at that point I am going to have to stop.

1B-"Morality ? If morality is universal it stands to reason that I can judge the actions of someone else." BBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT! Wrong! Logically I don?t even need to go further, but just for the heck of it Ill repost my response to this question you asked and have had answered before (and not just by me).
"Issue 1-Hitler
Hitler aggressively sought out to exterminate (in the most literal sense one can impart) alternate viewpoints. From a cognitive standpoint we had the right to judge him simply because it was very logical to assume that no matter what he said today that it is very likely that we would be on the chopping block the next day, thus Hitler could be judged absent reference to the supernatural simply because it was logical to assume that we were being threatened. On a more biological level Hitler represented a backwards step. In recent human history (especially with the advent of the metaphor and philosophy of the great melting pot of the Americas) human expansion is no longer a predominantly racial equation. A good mate is no longer defined by a narrow set of physical criteria hashed out by our gut or clear-cut dominance games, but a complex set of social codes that vary greatly form individual to individual. The ideal best mate has changed form the 'most fit' to the 'most well adjusted'. Correspondingly evolved human morality (which is a function of social evolution and thus subject to change at a MUCH greater pace then the term evolution implies) would demand that Hitler?s attempt to make what you look like the defining criteria for survival and breeding would be repugnant to a society that had spent hundreds of years erasing many of those barriers. The reason that our society was striving to change those barriers does not require a god, but was simply a manifestation of the tendency for humanity to adapt to its surroundings when it cannot adapt its surroundings to humanity. The increase of many different races and ethnicities co-existing plus the change of spousal requirements means that looks and lineage would become less and less important. At that point Hitler?s philosophy becomes morally repugnant on the basis of an evolved empathy theory.
Issue 2-Rape
This one is easy. If you cannot get your genes into the gene pool by proving yourself as a viable mate, but instead force them though the shortcut of rape then you are cheating all those that are not taking part of that shout cut, you are cheating the extension of a linage (thus offending greatly all within it), you are endangering the possibility that the victim will be allowed or able to function well in a reproductive and social sense, and any act of violence is deemed as dangerous, hurtful, and indicative of a tendency of violence, thus proving that you are a risk to the community. I don't need god to tell me rape is wrong.
Now, I believe that those two questions provide very good examples of universal morals that are derived not form god but rather form a social evolved morality (which is probably what created god in the first place). Since I have answered those questions out side the context of god and explained their origin in the natural world to the best of my ability, I think I can now go on to say that the idea that god needs to be presupposed for rational or moral thought to be quite the flawed construct."

Like I said, asked and answered. Bear in mind that those answers are only my explanations based of my understanding of the world. Thinking and personal reflection recommended. *Results may vary.

"Your opinion is simply your opinion and can not be held in any higher regard then mine. Please tell me why your moral opinion should carry weight with me or anyone else for that matter. Why should my chemical processes agree with your chemical process?"

Who exactly said that it should and needs to in order to prove that metaphysical naturalism or atheism is a viable theory?

C-Universal order is deduced from experimentation. We test for consistency and constantly find it. It is called science, and if the systems that we lived in are not ordered then science would not work, but it does. Further more I don?t know of anyone claiming that the universe is understood.

2.Why are we attacking Christian dogma? Excuse me, but who started the Inquisition? Unchecked faith is VERY dangerous, and I am just doing my part to check it, just as you are checking my faith in my perceptions. As for your analogy to the Explorer/Ford is really a false one. There is no other possible explanation to give for the creation of an Explorer. The creation of the universe however has many (and God certainly is one of them), but in order to prove that you must provide a test (which you seemed perfectly willing to do above) and there is NO test that can prove that any of creation was created. Now this is not to say that your belief system is false, just that you cannot use it to dismiss science. The inability of science to prove that god does not exist fundamentally means that it cannot be used to disprove your god. So its all a choice you make based on what you believe, so if you want to believe in your god, go for it.

Finally, does anyone else find it terribly amusing that we are having an argument about the universals of logic?

Pax-