left biblioblography: “I’M A LITTLE TEAPOT, SHORT AND STOUT…”

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

“I’M A LITTLE TEAPOT, SHORT AND STOUT…”

Thanks to Mark for emailing me this link.

Sometimes, in the frantic debate between theist and atheist, we forget who shoulders the burden of proof.

Or, to paraphrase John Donne: “Ask not for whom the burden of proof tolls: it tolls for thee.”

This of course is in reference to Russell’s Teapot:

Russell's teapot was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to refute the idea that the onus lies somehow upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion. In an article entitled Is There a God?, commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. “

So always, always remember, boys and girls: no proof? No can do. Presuppositionalism is always a rhetorical trap.

Now, how many lumps do you take in your tea? One, or two?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

192 comments:

GooseHenry said...

RA

Well you presuppose there is no God.

We know nothing with 100% certainty. For a sound belief about something all that is needed are valid premises.

Thus far, your syllogism seems to be

There is no proof for God, therefore he doesnt exist.

This conclusion is not supported by the argument.

Jerret said...

You forget how teaching works. Without Christian intervention (Most of the time before they can even think for themselves), children are born atheists. You (Christians) started out with "God exists.", thus burden of proof is on you.

We couldn't deny God's existence if you hadn't brought it up in the first place.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
We know nothing with 100% certainty. For a sound belief about something all that is needed are valid premises.
Ahem. Negative proof fallacy.
http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-proof
"The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."

I don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning with 100% certainty, but induction leads me to trust that it will.

So there ;P

Aviaa said...

Goosehenry,

There is no proof for God, therefore he doesn't exist.

I think the arguement being made is, "there is no proof for God, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists" (in italics underneath: and it's the responsibility of the person who is making the claim to provide the evidence... since without it, I have have no reason to to support the conclusion).

I'm pretty sure most atheists don't go around saying THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY EVER BE A GOD- NO MATTER WHAT! Atheism (okay, so my brand at least... we atheists are a varied bunch) is a lack of a belief in a god, not a statement of the absolute impossibility of a god. However, I see little enough evidence that I'm darn comfortable with my lack of belief.

Jerret,

We couldn't deny God's existence if you hadn't brought it up in the first place.

(Nods) Absolutely.

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
I think the arguement being made is, "there is no proof for God, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists"
Exactimundo.
I'm pretty sure most atheists don't go around saying THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY EVER BE A GOD- NO MATTER WHAT!
Hey, I'm open to the possibility - but by no means will anyone be able to convince me outside of my own personal experience.

Hey, come by more often.

Aviaa said...

Hey, come by more often.

Absolutely. I'm surprised that I hadn't found your blog earlier... it's good stuff.

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
I'm surprised that I hadn't found your blog earlier... it's good stuff.
Aw, shucks (he said, looking sheepishly at the ground, scuffing the ground w/his shoe). Thanks.

GooseHenry said...

Jerret

"You forget how teaching works. Without Christian intervention (Most of the time before they can even think for themselves), children are born atheists."

We don't know that.

"You (Christians) started out with "God exists.", thus burden of proof is on you.""

No. I say i have good reasons to believe in God. I never made the absolute claim "God exists".

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa,

"I think the arguement being made is, "there is no proof for God, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists" (in italics underneath: and it's the responsibility of the person who is making the claim to provide the evidence... since without it, I have have no reason to to support the conclusion)."

Well, i don't have any proof of anything. We could be brains in vats for all we know, after all it is logically possible.

I have reasons for believing in God. So my faith is valid.

I've yet to see any rationale yet for atheism. At best it can only exist in a vacuum, ie. by claiming that the reasons for faith aren't good enough. In my book that is a weak intellectual position.

"I'm pretty sure most atheists don't go around saying THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY EVER BE A GOD- NO MATTER WHAT! Atheism (okay, so my brand at least... we atheists are a varied bunch) is a lack of a belief in a god, not a statement of the absolute impossibility of a god. However, I see little enough evidence that I'm darn comfortable with my lack of belief."

Ok, so you consider it possible that there is a god?

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Ahem. Negative proof fallacy.
http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-proof
"The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist.""

No, not a fallacy. We know nothing with 100%. Brain in a vat-theory.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
No, not a fallacy. We know nothing with 100%. Brain in a vat-theory.
Yes, is a fallacy. I don't know 100% that there isn't a teapot orbitting the earth. I'd have to say, w/at least 99.99999999999999% certainty, then, that no such thing exists.
& I've never much cared for Descartes.

GooseHenry said...

RA

Actually i agree with you.

We cannot be sure 100% that we are not brains-in-vats or that there isn't a teapot orbiting the earth.

I dont believe we are/there is because of reasons.

What is your reason for believing there is no god?

Aviaa said...

Goosehenry:

Well, i don't have any proof of anything. We could be brains in vats for all we know, after all it is logically possible.

There is no absolute proof that anything exists… or, as RA points out, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning (shockingly, however, it did rise again this morning as predicted!). However, I can observe my reality (the sun has risen every morning for all mornings I can remember) and draw conclusions from it (the sun will rise again tomorrow morning). The stuff of reality might not be all there is (i.e. we might be brains in mystical vats or there might be a giant spaghetti monster orbiting above the earth), but reality is all that I have to work with, so the extra stuff that I can’t know of and have no evidence of is irrelevant to my reasoning process. I still hold: "there is no rational, reality based proof for God, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists." I added in rational and reality based, which for me is a given when constructing valid arguments.

Speaking of validity... you write:

I have reasons for believing in God. So my faith is valid.

If you mean that you find it valid, well then sure… lots of people find their own personal beliefs to be valid. However, unless you can back it up with logic that can translate into my world, I have no reason to find your beliefs valid.

You ask:

Ok, so you consider it possible that there is a god?

Sure. In the same way I consider it possible that my invisible friend from childhood is sitting in the chair across the room. I don’t think it’s likely but hey… (shrugs)... could be true, I suppose. I think it’s highly improbable there is a god, but I can’t rule it out (drum roll) because you can’t prove a negative! Can you disprove that my invisible friend from childhood isn’t sitting in the chair across the room?

loki said...

God(s) are possible, imo. An alien species 1 million+ years more advanced than us are gods by almost every definition of a god. In fact, this could match up with some of the polytheistic religions.

An omnipotent god? maybe.
An omnipotent god that requires every human to believe in him, yet allows almost as many definitions of him as there are people? extremely doubtful.

Also, faith, especially blind faith, is a horrid method for discovering and/or understanding truth about the reality that our senses present to us. This is why non-faithers think a typical faither has "a weak intellectual position."

say no to christ said...

Goose

I'm a hard core militant atheist, but if there is a god it is definitely a woman(since women are the creaters of life). BUT, for fun, lets say I am a goddess follower. You cant prove that there isnt a goddess. What makes your god any more valid than my goddess?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
We cannot be sure 100% that we are not brains-in-vats or that there isn't a teapot orbiting the earth.
No, but the odds are astronomically against it.
I dont believe we are/there is because of reasons.
Induction.
What is your reason for believing there is no god?
Induction.

Krystalline Apostate said...

loki:
An alien species 1 million+ years more advanced than us are gods by almost every definition of a god.
All save 1: no supernatural.
Hey, thanks for droppin' by, & say hey to thor & odin for me, wouldja? ;)

loki said...

All save 1: no supernatural
True. Yet, could any of us tell the difference between ridiculously advanced technology and/or biological evolution and the supernatural?

Hey, thanks for droppin' by, & say hey to thor & odin for me, wouldja? ;)

np. Thor and Odin hate you for that one time you did that one thing (you bastard), so I think its in your best interests for me to not pass that on.

Krystalline Apostate said...

loki:
True. Yet, could any of us tell the difference between ridiculously advanced technology and/or biological evolution and the supernatural?
Back in the bad old days? Nope. Today? I'd like to think so.
np. Thor and Odin hate you for that one time you did that one thing (you bastard), so I think its in your best interests for me to not pass that on.
Aye caramba! I told them that was Anansi: I'm not the trickster. Tell Wodin to have a chat w/his frickin' ravens about. & tell Thor it's high time he got rid of those environmentally-unsound goats, traded them in for horses, at least, or maybe a hybrid car.
It's slander, I tell ya!
Know any good lawyer gods?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
1 more item:
At best it can only exist in a vacuum, ie. by claiming that the reasons for faith aren't good enough.
Hey, that's a pretty good argument for refuting creationism. Mind if I borrow that?
If it only existed in a vacuum, how come 16% of the world's population (& growing) are secular?

GooseHenry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GooseHenry said...

Loki

"Also, faith, especially blind faith, is a horrid method for discovering and/or understanding truth about the reality that our senses present to us."

Exactly. Since atheism seems to be a blind faith (does not rest on any premises) it is not to be recommended.

Besides, are your senses your only means of understanding reality?

GooseHenry said...

"but reality is all that I have to work with, so the extra stuff that I can’t know of and have no evidence of is irrelevant to my reasoning process."

You are presupposing that God isnt' part of reality, that He is somehow "extra stuff"

"I still hold: "there is no rational, reality based proof for God, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists.""

Earlier you said that the "stuff you can't know" is irrelevant to your reasoning process. Above you reason based on things you don't know

"However, unless you can back it up with logic that can translate into my world, I have no reason to find your beliefs valid."

I'd say the same for you. I haven't heard one good logical argument for atheism yet.

"Can you disprove that my invisible friend from childhood isn’t sitting in the chair across the room?"

No but this does not validate your argument that God doesn't exist.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"If it only existed in a vacuum, how come 16% of the world's population (& growing) are secular?"

Probably because 16% of the population don't need reasons for believing something.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Probably because 16% of the population don't need reasons for believing something.
Bingo!
Why do you think that is?
I'd say the same for you. I haven't heard one good logical argument for atheism yet.
Keep on tryin', Goose. We really don't need a logical argument. We're not the ones making extravagant claims.
Science isn't a democracy. Pony up facts, or forget it.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Why do you think that is?"

Because reasoning leads to uncomfortable conclusions.

"Keep on tryin', Goose. We really don't need a logical argument."

Then we don't either.

"We're not the ones making extravagant claims."

Sure you are. You claim

1) Something came out of nothing
2) Morality comes from non-morality
3) Rationality comes from non-rationality

One would think some reasoning ought to be involved.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Because reasoning leads to uncomfortable conclusions.
Like the fact the universe doesn't care 1 little bit whether we live or die? Hey, I'm not crazy about that, but oh well.
Then we don't either.
Oh yes you do.
Sure you are. You claim

1) Something came out of nothing

No 1's ever said that. Unless you can come up w/this 'nothing', I'm going w/'matter's always existed'. It's your side of the fence that claims that, not ours.
2) Morality comes from non-morality
Non sequitur. Morality's just a word we use to describe our interactions in our species.
3) Rationality comes from non-rationality
No, rationality's built on the structures & dictums of nature.
One would think some reasoning ought to be involved.
I'm getting a little tired of this assinine finger-pointing.
It is all reason. Parameters are: sensory input, nervous system, interactions among herd creatures.

If believing helps you sleep at night, or gives you purpose, that's all fine & dandy.

But I'll be goddammed if I lend your POV any credence, because you HAVE NO PROOF of any of it.

Nuthin' personal.

GooseHenry said...

"No 1's ever said that. Unless you can come up w/this 'nothing', I'm going w/'matter's always existed'. It's your side of the fence that claims that, not ours."

You are implying an infinite chain of cause&effect. If it is infinite, there was never any original cause. If there never was an original cause we cannot be here.

"Non sequitur. Morality's just a word we use to describe our interactions in our species."

1) Behaviour does not encompass any "ought"
2) Reality would then be amoral

Then i say, in the future, act consistently with this worldview

"No, rationality's built on the structures & dictums of nature."

Reason (logic) is not a property of matter.

loki said...

Exactly. Since atheism seems to be a blind faith (does not rest on any premises) it is not to be recommended.

Goosehenry, while I wouldn't consider myself to be atheist, I can tell you, in general, atheists do not use blind faith or regular faith as a tool for understanding the reality presented to us. Perhaps if an atheist claimed, "I know there is no god of any kind," then you could say he/she has faith, but I doubt you could get many atheists to say that.

The main premise of atheism is: "I do not see sufficient reason to believe in any specific god. Therefore, I don't believe in any specific god." This does not require any faith at all. For example, not believing in the tea pot in space because there is no evidence of it requires 0 faith.

The burden of evidence is on the people making the extravagent claim because, guess what, they're making the claim. If I claim that I have an invisible purple dinosaur friend named Bill, would you require me to produce some sort of convincing evidence? By telling atheists to provide evidence against your god, would be like me saying to you, "provide evidence that Bill doesn't exist." Your response would probably be, "provide evidence he does exist or don't waste my time." My response is the same for your god-claim or anybody else's god-claim.

Krystalline Apostate said...

You are implying an infinite chain of cause&effect. If it is infinite, there was never any original cause. If there never was an original cause we cannot be here.
I’m implying nothing here. Unless you can prove an original, or 1st cause, then it’s all presuppostionalism.
Far as anyone knows, matter’s always existed.
1) Behaviour does not encompass any "ought"
2) Reality would then be amoral

Then i say, in the future, act consistently with this worldview

You’re going to have to explain that a little better.
Reason (logic) is not a property of matter.
Sure it is. Obedience to the laws of nature & physics isn’t contingent on man’s existence.

loki:
My response is the same for your god-claim or anybody else's god-claim.
Actually, this has been used on Goose in many different variations elsewhere.
His philosophical acumen seems to have evolved somewhat, so I wonder if he'll respond a little differently.
Fingers crossed.

Aviaa said...

goosehenry:

You are presupposing that God isnt' part of reality, that He is somehow "extra stuff"

No, I'm not presupposing. I'm stating that god isn't a part of my sensory, physical reality so he isn't part of my reasoning process. If you can find some way to transmit your "reality" of god into my sensory, physical reality, perhaps I'd reconsider.

"I still hold: "there is no rational, reality based proof for God, therefore I have no reason to believe he exists.""

Earlier you said that the "stuff you can't know" is irrelevant to your reasoning process. Above you reason based on things you don't know


(blinks)

My reasoning is that there is no evidence for god within my sensory, physical reality (I do know this).


"However, unless you can back it up with logic that can translate into my world, I have no reason to find your beliefs valid."

I'd say the same for you. I haven't heard one good logical argument for atheism yet.


They aren't the same. As stated and restated, a-theism is a lack of belief in someone else's claims. I haven't heard one good arguement for the belief that my invisible friend from childhood isn't sitting in the chair accross the room. However, I wouldn't inform someone that I haven't heard one good logical arguement for not-believing-in-invisible-friendism. I'd assume that since I'm coming up with an unlikely claim, it would be only logical for people to withhold belief until I provide compelling evidence. They don't have to provide evidence for a lack of belief. I have to provide evidence for belief.


"Can you disprove that my invisible friend from childhood isn’t sitting in the chair across the room?"

No but this does not validate your argument that God doesn't exist.


First of all (again): my argument is NOT that God doesn't exist. It's that I don't have evidence to compel me to believe he does exist.

Second, you miss my point. I draw the analogy between my invisible friend NOT to prove that god doesn't exist. I draw the analogy because it's a similar situation where you cannot, indeed, prove that a negative.

karen said...

Boy, this topic took off fast!

I very much like the way Aviaa put this:
If you can find some way to transmit your "reality" of god into my sensory, physical reality, perhaps I'd reconsider.

So, how about it, Goose?
Is your God even part of YOUR sensory, physical reality? If so, how?
It would seem if it is clear to one, it should be recognizable to others, and the one should be able to demonstrate it through physical or sensory evidence.

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
If you can find some way to transmit your "reality" of god into my sensory, physical reality, perhaps I'd reconsider.
Hear, hear!
Karen:
It would seem if it is clear to one, it should be recognizable to others, and the one should be able to demonstrate it through physical or sensory evidence.
Hey, if someone could shoot the data straight into my brain, I'd be a believer, true dat!

How about it, Goose? Can you transmit it via the 'laying on of hands' to any 1 of us?

GooseHenry said...

Loki

"The burden of evidence is on the people making the extravagent claim because, guess what, they're making the claim"

Ok. well the average atheist seems to belive that (as i said to RA)

1) Something came out of nothing OR an infinite set exists (which would imply that we cannot be here)
2) Morality comes from non-morality
3) Rationality comes from non-rationality

These are truly extraordinary claims. Which the atheist believes.

So according tu "burden of proof falls on the believer" the atheist, being a believer in extraordinary things, should at least present some rationale for holding this belief.

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

"I'm stating that god isn't a part of my sensory, physical reality so he isn't part of my reasoning process. If you can find some way to transmit your "reality" of god into my sensory, physical reality, perhaps I'd reconsider."

So only sensory physical reality fit into your reasoning process.

Statements like "it is wrong to torture people", laws of logic, propositions and so forth have no bearing on your reasoning then?

GooseHenry said...

Karen

"Is your God even part of YOUR sensory, physical reality?"

My God is by definition unseen.

Lots of things we know aren't part of our sensory reality.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"I’m implying nothing here. Unless you can prove an original, or 1st cause, then it’s all presuppostionalism."

Either there was a self-causing first cause (impossible in science) or the universe has existed for an infinite amount ofo tim (philosophical impossibility)Which are you going to pick?

"You’re going to have to explain that a little better."

Stop making moral judgements when people in fact are only acting contrary to customs.

"Sure it is. Obedience to the laws of nature & physics isn’t contingent on man’s existence."

Ever seen matter arranged in a logical relation?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Ok. well the average atheist seems to belive that (as i said to RA)
1) Something came out of nothing OR an infinite set exists (which would imply that we cannot be here)
2) Morality comes from non-morality
3) Rationality comes from non-rationality

These are truly extraordinary claims. Which the atheist believes.

Stop projecting your rationale onto us. I’ve already debunked these 3 items. 'Seeing is believing' I always say.
So according tu "burden of proof falls on the believer" the atheist, being a believer in extraordinary things, should at least present some rationale for holding this belief.
Absolutely pathetic. You’re the believer in extraodinary things. Stop shifting your burden.
So only sensory physical reality fit into your reasoning process.
That’s the beginning of reason.
Statements like "it is wrong to torture people", laws of logic, propositions and so forth have no bearing on your reasoning then?
No, because all these things exist independently of us.
My God is by definition unseen.
& unprovable. How terribly inconvenient for you.
Lots of things we know aren't part of our sensory reality.
Your speciocentricity is showing.
Either there was a self-causing first cause (impossible in science) or the universe has existed for an infinite amount ofo tim (philosophical impossibility)Which are you going to pick?
You already have my answer. The latter. Can you prove otherwise? How is it impossible, pray tell?
Stop making moral judgements when people in fact are only acting contrary to customs.
Aye caramba, you know I’m not a moral relativist anymore, right?
Ever seen matter arranged in a logical relation?
Since there is no such thing as chaos, all matter is contiguous.

I'm getting the distinct impression you think you've had some 'philosophical' epiphany, but I'd guess it was just indigestion.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Stop projecting your rationale onto us. I’ve already debunked these 3 items."

1) You imply an actual infinite. Got any proof for that such a thing exists?

2) Saying you are a moral naturalist doesn't help. Reality is still amoral which prevents you from making moral judgments in reality.

3) You imply that immaterial logical laws can have a causal effect on our physical brains.

Or else the laws of logic are material. In that case point them out to me.

You haven't debunked anything so far.

"Absolutely pathetic. You’re the believer in extraodinary things. Stop shifting your burden."

We both have a burden. I believe God exists, you don't. I've presented some reasons for my belief, you haven't for yours.

Seeing is believing is truly lousy epistemology. You know many things you haven't seen/heard/touched.

"No, because all these things exist independently of us."

So you admit that logical laws have no bearing on your reasoning?

"Lots of things we know aren't part of our sensory reality.

Your speciocentricity is showing."

"Debunk" the argument instead of me. Genetic fallacy.

"You already have my answer. The latter. Can you prove otherwise?"

It would be up to you to prove that an actual infinite exists, since you make the claim.

"Aye caramba, you know I’m not a moral relativist anymore, right?"

I know you are a moral naturalist now. Changing the wording doesn't let you off the hook.

"Since there is no such thing as chaos, all matter is contiguous."

That sounds like eastern mystique to me. Did you just come home from tai chi class;)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
1) You imply an actual infinite. Got any proof for that such a thing exists?
No. You infer an actual infinite, in re: your deity. Got proof.
2) Saying you are a moral naturalist doesn't help. Reality is still amoral which prevents you from making moral judgments in reality.
No it doesn’t. I infer from the fact that I don’t want it done to me, ergo, I don’t do it to others.
3) You imply that immaterial logical laws can have a causal effect on our physical brains.
I imply that observable logical laws can have a causal effect.
Or else the laws of logic are material. In that case point them out to me.
Sure, logic dictates that if I throw a ball up in the air, it comes down. Logic dictates that if I cut down a tree, it’ll fall a certain way, depending on the angle I cut it. Logic dictates that if I shoot someone in the head, it’s a 99% probabilty they’ll die. Logic dictates that if I run out in the middle of a bustling freeway, chances are strong I’ll get hit by a car. Logic dictates that if an antelope stumbles, the tiger will eat the damn thing.
You haven't debunked anything so far.
None so blind as those who will not listen. Hehehehe.
We both have a burden. I believe God exists, you don't. I've presented some reasons for my belief, you haven't for yours.
Don’t need to. You need to prove it to me. Sell me that Edsel, baby.
Seeing is believing is truly lousy epistemology. You know many things you haven't seen/heard/touched.
That’s incorrect. By reading (& careful induction), I’ve actually ‘seen’ many things. ‘Seeing is believing’ is the ONLY epistemology.
So you admit that logical laws have no bearing on your reasoning?
No, logical laws don’t exist because of me, they exist independently.
"Debunk" the argument instead of me. Genetic fallacy.
Give me, then, an example of something I already ‘know’, completely divorced from any of my 5 senses, if you please.
It would be up to you to prove that an actual infinite exists, since you make the claim.
Naw. I can’t prove it either way. Neither can you. So until someone can actually provide the evidence either way, I’m just going w/, ‘It’s always been there.’
I know you are a moral naturalist now. Changing the wording doesn't let you off the hook.
They are definitely TWO DIFFERENT animals, so no, I didn’t change the wording at all. I forget the name of that fallacy. I’m not the 1 doing semantic gymnastics here.
That sounds like eastern mystique to me. Did you just come home from tai chi class;)
Actually, no & no. The Wiki entry defines Chaos thusly:
“Chaos derives from the Greek Χάος and typically refers to unpredictability. In the metaphysical sense, it is the opposite of law and order: unrestrictive, both creative and destructive.
The word χάος did not mean "disorder" in classical-period ancient Greece. It meant "the primal emptiness, space". It is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root ghn or ghen meaning "gape, be wide open": compare "chasm" (from Greek), and Anglo-Saxon gānian (= "yawn"), geanian, ginian (= "gape wide"); see also Old Norse Ginnunga Gap. Due to people misunderstanding early Christian uses of the word, the meaning of the word changed to "disorder". (The Ancient Greek for "disorder" is ταραχη.).
Mathematically chaos means an aperiodic deterministic behavior, which is very sensitive to its initial conditions; see chaos theory. “

Aviaa said...

goosehenry: My God is by definition unseen.
RA: & unprovable. How terribly inconvenient for you.


(grins)

goosehenry,

So only sensory physical reality fit into your reasoning process.

Statements like "it is wrong to torture people", laws of logic, propositions and so forth have no bearing on your reasoning then?


You are confusing evidence and reasoning. I use said sensory, physical evidence as the basis for my reasoning.

So, seeing as you apparently had no issue with any other points that I made, do we accept apparent my omniscience in all matters addressed but this? :P No cherry-picking arguments here! If you still believe that atheists should have to prove your god doesn’t exist, I still want to hear how you’re going to prove my invisible friend or Russel’s teapot or the like don’t exist.

Mesoforte said...

Well you presuppose there is no God.

Incorrect, it is not the presupposition, atheism (or without theism) is merely the complete lack of theistic belief. Don't build a straw man, my friend.

We know nothing with 100% certainty. For a sound belief about something all that is needed are valid premises.

Valid premises are founded upon evidence.

"You forget how teaching works. Without Christian intervention (Most of the time before they can even think for themselves), children are born atheists."

We don't know that.


Actually Goose, we do. If you would, please study children after they are born when they are raised without any cultural reference to any deity. They are athiests in the sense that I have defined above.

"You (Christians) started out with "God exists.", thus burden of proof is on you.""

No. I say i have good reasons to believe in God. I never made the absolute claim "God exists".


Well, i don't have any proof of anything. We could be brains in vats for all we know, after all it is logically possible.

Is your claim that we shouldn't trust out senses? Well then, if it is I will have to refute it-

"Perhaps the most concerted attack of skepticism is directed at the validity of sense perception. Sense perception constitutes the starting point, in effect, of knowledge, and to undercut the reliability of sensory evidence is to undercut the basis of man's knowledge. It comes as no surprise therefore, that one will often find a Christian theologian... employing skeptical arguments against the senses to his advantage. If the athiest demands sensory evidence of God's existence, the Christian quickly points to the supposed unrealiability of sense experience, while suggesting that God transends such crass and ineffective methods of revealing himself." (Atheism The Case Against God by George H. Smith.)

However, to doubt sensory perception is to doubt all communication, and you commit a fallacy because your position assumes that sensory perception is inaccurate while assuming that it is accurate.

I have reasons for believing in God. So my faith is valid.

What are the reasons and what evidence are these 'reasons' based on.

I've yet to see any rationale yet for atheism. At best it can only exist in a vacuum, ie. by claiming that the reasons for faith aren't good enough. In my book that is a weak intellectual position.

Actually, according to my definition of atheism, you are stating an opposite. Reason is the one that is attacked to make room for faith, not the other way around. Basically, the entire arguing point of 'faith' would not exist if it did not first create a vaccum in reason.

No. I say i have good reasons to believe in God. I never made the absolute claim "God exists".

You have in a previous post, and have still not completely defined the term. Please finish.

Ok, so you consider it possible that there is a god?

Define this 'god' thing.

Exactly. Since atheism seems to be a blind faith (does not rest on any premises) it is not to be recommended.

Not by my definition. A lack of theism is a negative beleif, i.e. it rests on not knowing theism.

Besides, are your senses your only means of understanding reality?

Actually they are. Don't say something is immaterial now, we've already gone over that.

You are presupposing that God isnt' part of reality, that He is somehow "extra stuff"

Well, you have to define 'god' first before we can do anything.

Earlier you said that the "stuff you can't know" is irrelevant to your reasoning process. Above you reason based on things you don't know

Goose, please rewrite this so that it makes grammatical sense.

I'd say the same for you. I haven't heard one good logical argument for atheism yet.

You haven't asked us to define athiesm yet.

No but this does not validate your argument that God doesn't exist.

What is 'god' first. Please define it.

1) Something came out of nothing
2) Morality comes from non-morality
3) Rationality comes from non-rationality


I never said that something came out of nothing, nor will I ever propose that.

Morality comes from, and is an invention of society.

Rationality just is, it doesn't come from non-rationality.

You are implying an infinite chain of cause&effect. If it is infinite, there was never any original cause. If there never was an original cause we cannot be here.

1) Behaviour does not encompass any "ought"
2) Reality would then be amoral


Reality just is.

Reason (logic) is not a property of matter.

It just is.

1) Something came out of nothing OR an infinite set exists (which would imply that we cannot be here)
2) Morality comes from non-morality
3) Rationality comes from non-rationality


Atheism doesn't presuppose any of this. Because Atheism is a negative belief, it does not make any positive claims.

So only sensory physical reality fit into your reasoning process.

Statements like "it is wrong to torture people", laws of logic, propositions and so forth have no bearing on your reasoning then?


Are you going to commit the fallacy of the Stolen Concept again, goose?

My God is by definition unseen.

Lots of things we know aren't part of our sensory reality.


Up until this point, you haven't defined 'god', so please do so.

And all those things are within our perception, or we wouldn't know about them.

Either there was a self-causing first cause (impossible in science) or the universe has existed for an infinite amount ofo tim (philosophical impossibility)Which are you going to pick?

Actually, a quantum rift is self-causing (take a look at quantum physics), however this is not a belief of atheism and is most likely a red herring type fallacy. Athiesm is a negative belief that only deals with theism, nothing more.

Stop making moral judgements when people in fact are only acting contrary to customs.

They are his customs, so he can make a judgement based within his society.

Ever seen matter arranged in a logical relation?

Matter just is.

Goose, why don't you ask us to define athiesm before you go off on your rant.

Mesoforte said...

You are implying an infinite chain of cause&effect. If it is infinite, there was never any original cause. If there never was an original cause we cannot be here

No, it just is. I probably have something that refutes 'first-cause' logic, but I don't feel like looking it up.

Mesoforte said...

BTW, Goose, when you do define this 'god' term, please do so completely and list all attributes of said term. Otherwise, I don't see the point of even bothering to argue. Anything I would argue against would essentially be building a straw man if I didn't have your definition.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF, aviaa:
Nice, very nice. Thanks for the contributions. Wonderful.

Well, Goose, there ya have it.
I'll adopt MF's challenge as well, so stipulation 1: define 'god' for us (try to keep it in a nutshell, if you could).
I'm also awaiting the answer to what I asked earlier: please illustrate something we all know, that is completely isolated from our 5 senses.
& aviaa's query's a good 1 as well - If you can find some way to transmit your "reality" of god into my sensory, physical reality, perhaps I'd reconsider.
To be fair, these are all large requests - choose whichever 1 you deem simplest, & we'll go from there.

Mesoforte said...

Goose

Preferably, do '1' of RA's statement. That way we can actually talk on equal terms. Until then though:

Found the First Cause thing-

"Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable of only demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause." (Atheism The Case Against God 237)

Professor John Hoppers says it even better-

"...the causal argument is not merely invalid but self-contradictory: the conclusion, which says that something (God) does not have a cause, contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause. If that premise is true, the conclusion cannot be true; and if the conclusion is true, the premise cannot be. Many people do not at once see this beause they use the argument to get to God, and then, having arrived where they want to go, they forget all about the argument... If the conclusion contradicts its own premise, we have the most damning indictment of an argument that we could possibly have: that it is self-contradictory." (Atheism The Case Against God 239)

Or Nathaniel Branden-

"Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist... All actions presuppose the existence of entities-and all emergences of new entities presupose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause to demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality... Existence-not "God"- is the First Cause." (Atheism The Case Against God 240)

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Incorrect, it is not the presupposition, atheism (or without theism) is merely the complete lack of theistic belief. Don't build a straw man, my friend."

I am not. Lack of theistic bellief might be your position, many others hold that there is no god.

So you don't have any position concerning Gods existence then?

"Valid premises are founded upon evidence."

Or a priori knowledge.

"Actually Goose, we do. If you would, please study children after they are born when they are raised without any cultural reference to any deity. They are athiests in the sense that I have defined above."

Nah, i think an isolated group of people (without any cultural reference whatsoever) quicly would make up a deity.

"You (Christians) started out with "God exists.", thus burden of proof is on you.""

"Is your claim that we shouldn't trust out senses? Well then, if it is I will have to refute it-"

No. Read it again. Don't build straw mans.

"What are the reasons and what evidence are these 'reasons' based on."

I've listed three. So far, your side cannot account for them.

"Actually, according to my definition of atheism, you are stating an opposite. Reason is the one that is attacked to make room for faith, not the other way around. Basically, the entire arguing point of 'faith' would not exist if it did not first create a vaccum in reason."

Nope. Justified faith, otherwise known as knowledge, is based on reasons.

"You have in a previous post, and have still not completely defined the term. Please finish."

If you can account for the laws of logic.

"Not by my definition. A lack of theism is a negative beleif, i.e. it rests on not knowing theism."

Ok, so do you think the biblical God exists?

"Actually they are. Don't say something is immaterial now, we've already gone over that."

No. You just begged the question last time we went over it. Revisit the post.

"You haven't asked us to define athiesm yet."

Sure i did.

"Morality comes from, and is an invention of society."

I'd like to see you live up to that next time somebody behaves immorally towards you

"Rationality just is, it doesn't come from non-rationality."

Then where does it come from?

"Reality just is."

"It just is."

Wow.

"Atheism doesn't presuppose any of this. Because Atheism is a negative belief, it does not make any positive claims."

Why do you say that, then contradict yourself in the next sentence?

"Are you going to commit the fallacy of the Stolen Concept again, goose?"

No. Have you ever seen A being equal to C, B being equal to C, therefore B and C must be equal?

"And all those things are within our perception, or we wouldn't know about them."

It is wrong to torture babies. This you know.

"They are his customs, so he can make a judgement based within his society."

Ok. But saying for example that the taleban are immoral cannot be said.

"Matter just is."

God just is.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Found the First Cause thing"

John Hoppers should read up on theology. God always is and is unaffected by time.

Moreover, he doesn't adress the issue of the first cause.

Nathaniel Branden is guilty of reifying the word existence.

GooseHenry said...

aviaa

"You are confusing evidence and reasoning. I use said sensory, physical evidence as the basis for my reasoning."

out go the laws of logic then.

"So, seeing as you apparently had no issue with any other points that I made, do we accept apparent my omniscience in all matters addressed but this?"

No, i just don't have time to write answers all the time.

I think most issues are dealt with in other comments.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Well, have you picked 1 of the 3 items I've stipulated?
Burden of proof is still on you my friend: you can't wiggle out of it.
Oh, a few things:
No. Have you ever seen A being equal to C, B being equal to C, therefore B and C must be equal?
You goofed that up.
Nah, i think an isolated group of people (without any cultural reference whatsoever) quicly would make up a deity.
I saw a post on god4suckers.net, about an aborigine tribe who had absolutely no mythology. I'll have to search for it: it was some mos. ago.
Nope. Justified faith, otherwise known as knowledge, is based on reasons.
Knowledge & faith have 2 different meanings.
I've listed three. So far, your side cannot account for them.
They have indeed been accounted for. You refuse to accept the accounting? Oh well.

Aviaa said...

Goosehenry,

out go the laws of logic then.

The laws of logic are based on evidence from sensory, physical reality. I’ve not stated that everything within my reality is such evidence. I’ve stated that everything within my reality is based on such evidence.

I think most issues are dealt with in other comments.
No. You often don’t deal with issues we’ve brought up; you ignore them and instead nit-pick over laws of logic that you feel we’ve somehow broken (yet generally have not- you seem to have a propensity for, deliberately or not, misunderstanding/ignoring what is actually being stated).

Refusing to answer questions posed to you and instead engaging in said nit-picking, isn’t really playing fair. It also doesn’t advance the discussion, as whenever we bring up a point about something you’ve stated and then you ignore it, you continue to act as if your original statement has gone unchallenged. This makes the discussion go in circles.

I understand that you don’t have all day to answer lots of smaller questions, so why don’t you take RA’s challenge and answer some of the three “big” questions posed?

say no to christ said...

Ra said:"I saw a post on god4suckers.net, about an aborigine tribe who had absolutely no mythology. I'll have to search for it: it was some mos. ago."


I read about the same tribe and others, not at god4suckers though. I read about them in a lot of the studies on indiginous peoples. And there is a big difference in indiginous peoples myths then in ours. Their myths focus on human connection with nature our myths focus on supernatural sky dadies and crazy stuff like that.

http://www.janesoceania.com/trobriands_online/index.htm

One example, I can find more if need too.

Mesoforte said...

So you don't have any position concerning Gods existence then?

You have to define god first.

Or a priori knowledge.

Knowledge is founded on evidence also. :p

Nah, i think an isolated group of people (without any cultural reference whatsoever) quicly would make up a deity.

Yes, but they wouldn't come up with it immediately would they. First they would go through an absense of beleif stage, atheism.


No. Read it again. Don't build straw mans.

I wasn't. I asked you a question, and if it was true, I was going ahead to refute it. ^_^

I've listed three. So far, your side cannot account for them.

I don't remember you listing any.

Nope. Justified faith, otherwise known as knowledge, is based on reasons.

Those reasons have to be based on evidence, so where is your evidense.

If you can account for the laws of logic.

I have, they just are. I just accounted for them, now why don't you define god.

Ok, so do you think the biblical God exists?

Which one?

No. You just begged the question last time we went over it. Revisit the post.

No I didn't. I merely pointed out that holding the laws of logic to be immaterial was a meaningless statement.

Sure i did.

Look at the previous comments, you haven't.

I'd like to see you live up to that next time somebody behaves immorally towards you

Are they within my society? If they are within my society, I can hold them by my societies rules.

Then where does it come from?

It doesn't, it just is/

Why do you say that, then contradict yourself in the next sentence?

What contradiction?

Why don't you insert what you are speaking of instead of your ABC's.

It is wrong to torture babies. This you know.

My society says it is wrong. I am a product of my society, so, I beleive it to be wrong.

Ok. But saying for example that the taleban are immoral cannot be said.

Yes they can, within the context of my society, I can make a judgement on another. And they can do the same back. Whichever one left standing is the winner.

God just is.

Define 'god.'

Mesoforte said...

Mesoforte

"Found the First Cause thing"

John Hoppers should read up on theology. God always is and is unaffected by time.

We don't know what god is, because you refuse to define him.

"...the causal argument is not merely invalid but self-contradictory: the conclusion, which says that something (God) does not have a cause, contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause. If that premise is true, the conclusion cannot be true; and if the conclusion is true, the premise cannot be. Many people do not at once see this beause they use the argument to get to God, and then, having arrived where they want to go, they forget all about the argument... If the conclusion contradicts its own premise, we have the most damning indictment of an argument that we could possibly have: that it is self-contradictory." (Atheism The Case Against God 239)

And as you can see, time isn't part of the equation. Your premise, that everthing has to have a cause is contradicted by your conclusion, god is the first cause and is not caused itself.

Moreover, he doesn't adress the issue of the first cause.

As you can see, above, he did. I think you aren't actually reading it.

Nathaniel Branden is guilty of reifying the word existence.


'To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.'

Existence is finite, it is not an abstraction and is very much part of material existence.

Mesoforte said...

I agree with aviaa you should actually respond to some of RA's challenges, or this conversation will go nowhere.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"please illustrate something we all know, that is completely isolated from our 5 senses."

We all know that our thoughts are our own.

"I saw a post on god4suckers.net, about an aborigine tribe who had absolutely no mythology. I'll have to search for it: it was some mos. ago."

One (or a few) out of all tribes?

"Knowledge & faith have 2 different meanings."

Knowledge is often defined as justified faith.

"You refuse to accept the accounting? Oh well."

Accounting? Logic just is, torturing babies for fun isn't necessarily evil and an actual infinite chain of cause and effect exists.

GooseHenry said...

aviaa

"The laws of logic are based on evidence from sensory, physical reality."

Please give an example of a logical relation you can grasp with your senses.

I answered one of RA's challenges.

GooseHenry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"And as you can see, time isn't part of the equation."

Sorry for being unclear. I mean that if God always existed he doesn't need a cause.

"Existence is finite, it is not an abstraction and is very much part of material existence."

Now you are reifying existence.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Knowledge is founded on evidence also. :p"

Not a priori knowledge. For example your thoughts are your own.

"Yes, but they wouldn't come up with it immediately would they. First they would go through an absense of beleif stage, atheism."

Who knows?

"Those reasons have to be based on evidence, so where is your evidense."

Well, i know my thoughts are my own. I know that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong.

I know that laws of logic that dictate how i am supposed to think exist.

I know that 100+100/50 equals 4. I cant recall ever seeing that.

"I have, they just are. I just accounted for them, now why don't you define god."

So they popped into existence from nothing?

"No I didn't. I merely pointed out that holding the laws of logic to be immaterial was a meaningless statement."

Why is that?

"Are they within my society? If they are within my society, I can hold them by my societies rules."

But they can tell you that what they are doing isn't really wrong, and you would have to agree to that. It would just be a convention of your mind.

"What contradiction?"

You make many positive statements. Energy&matter is all there is for example.

"My society says it is wrong. I am a product of my society, so, I beleive it to be wrong."

But it could be right in another context?

"Yes they can, within the context of my society, I can make a judgement on another. And they can do the same back. Whichever one left standing is the winner."

No you can't. You can only say that they do it differently. It is impossible for you to say who is more right.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
We all know that our thoughts are our own.
But those thoughts themselves are a compilation of data culled from the 5 senses.
Please give an example of a logical relation you can grasp with your senses.
Every logical relation is graspable w/our senses. Every single 1. At the very least, visually.
I answered one of RA's challenges.
Actually, no. It was a trick question. A bit unfair, really.
It's impossible to find any such thing. W/O the 5 senses, if you were a brain in a vat, raised from infancy w/o the use of the 5 senses, the brain'd have no grooves.
Accounting? Logic just is, torturing babies for fun isn't necessarily evil and an actual infinite chain of cause and effect exists.
Look, this 'torturing babies' thing is not only disgusting, it's an appeal to emotion, pure rhetorical blackmail. I expected better from you.
One (or a few) out of all tribes?
It was an isolated tribe, if I recall proper. Still haven't found it. 2 mos. ago or more.
Now you are reifying existence.
Reify:
"To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence."
So existence is an abstract? How existential of you. ;)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Found it!
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/05/10/a-people-without-a-creation-myth/
Here's a snip:

"Living in the now also fits with the fact that the Pirahã don’t appear to have a creation myth explaining existence. When asked, they simply reply: “Everything is the same, things always are.” The mothers also don’t tell their children fairy tales — actually nobody tells any kind of stories. No one paints and there is no art."

I love the philosophy, but no art? No stories?
Hmmm...

Aviaa said...

goosehenry:

I said: "The laws of logic are based on evidence from sensory, physical reality."

You requested: Please give an example of a logical relation you can grasp with your senses.

Sure. Though, before I begin, let me clarify that I said I can grasp such with evidence from my senses rather than directly grasp them with my senses.

I’m rather fond of math, so let’s go for the commutative operation first. I can deduce that 2 + 3 is equivalent to 3 + 2 by, say, setting groups apples on my coffee table and determining that if I start with 2 apples and add 3 or start with 3 apples and add 2, I end up with the same result. I could do the same to prove multiplicative commutation, or to disprove commutation using either subtraction or division.

Or, to move away from math, how about your ABCs from earlier (syllogism)? Through careful observation and a bad experience with a hermit crab, I’ve deduced that if I don’t feed my pets for a month, then they will die.

So, 1: If I don’t feed my pets for a month (A), then they will die.(B)
2: I don’t feed my hermit crab. (A)
3: My hermit crab will die. (B)

(If A then B, A, therefore B… this is sound logic)

Very observable in a sensory, physical reality. Similarly, I could use this same 1st proposition to disprove a common logical fallacy: assuming that if B, then automatically A.

1: If I don’t feed my pets for a month (A), then they will die.(B)
2: My cat dies. (B)
3: I didn’t feed my cat for a month. (A)

IIf A then B, B, therefore A… but this isn’t sound logic!)

However, I really only accidentally starved my hermit crab. My cat was hit by a car.

Okay, enough morbid pet stories. :)

To me, being able to break such laws down into sensory, real world type things seems only natural. Laws of logic were created to describe how reality behaves, correct? Therefore, finding them within reality seems only common sense.

*** ***

In exchange for my above answer, could we revisit a request I made waaaaay up there? Specifically, since you want atheists to “prove” there is no god, I’d like you to similarly describe how you would “prove” that my imaginary friend isn’t sitting next to me right now.

Mesoforte said...

You make many positive statements. Energy&matter is all there is for example.

That's not an atheistic statement, that's a statement from the viewpoint of physics.

Sorry for being unclear. I mean that if God always existed he doesn't need a cause.

Your conclusion is still violating its premise- Everything has to have a cause. God is the first cause, and is not caused itself.

"(2) The theist may object to this last remark, claiming that not only must there be a first cause, but this first cause cannot be part of the natural universe. The universe does not explain the reason for its own existence. but a supernatural first cause does provide us with an explanation. This transcendent first cause, therefore, explains the previously unexplained.

Assuming for the moment that the universe requires a causal explanation, does the positing of a first cause privide us with that explanation? How does the cocept of god function as an explanatory concept in this instance? A supernatural first cause, a god, supposedly caused the universe to exist. Consider the nature of this "explanation." Does it provide one with a conceptual grasp of the ussue being considered? Does it provide a causal explanation in any meaningful sense? No, it does not.

To posit god as the cause of the universe still leaves two crucial questions unaswered: What caused the universe? How dit it cause the universe? To say that a god is responsible for the existence of the universe is vacuous without knowledge of god's nature and the method used in creating existence. If god is to serve as a causal explanation, we must have knowledge of god's attrubutes by virtue of which he has the capacity to create matter from nonexistence, and knowledge of the causal process involved in creation, by virtue of which god is designated as a cause.

If, as the theist asserts, the existence of the universe requires a causal explanation, the positing of a transcendent furst cause or god does not provide us with this explanation. The thist's solution consists of saying: An unknowable being using unknowable methods "caused" the unoverse to snap into existence. This, remember is offered as an explanation, as a rational solution to an apparent problem. This is supposed to solve on's intellectual doubts about the mystery of existence.

To say that god caused the universe to exist is to argue that man can never comprehend the existence of the universe. The theist demands a causal explanation of the iniverse and then fails to provide an explanation. Even if a supernatiral being did exist, the "problem" of existence woudl be as puzzling as before. After all, how did it create existence from nonexistence? "Somehow" is not an explanation, and "through some incomprehensible means" is a poorer explanation still. The thist is trapped in a dilemma of his own making- the "mystery" of existence- and he must confront an unitelligble universe." (Atheism the Case Against God 237-238)

However, seeing as you still refuse to define 'god', I don't see the point of continuing with you. I guess I'll see you when you reach a higher stage of philosophical maturity.

Mesoforte said...

Energy&matter is all there is for example.

And you always forget anti-matter too.

Mesoforte said...

And sorry for the spelling mistakes, it was a lot to type.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"But those thoughts themselves are a compilation of data culled from the 5 senses."

No. There is wishful thinking, delusions, fantasies, dreams, expectations, logical inferences where we go from the known to the unknown etc.

"Every logical relation is graspable w/our senses. Every single 1. At the very least, visually."

I believe you are confusing laws of physics with laws of logic here.

"Look, this 'torturing babies' thing is not only disgusting, it's an appeal to emotion, pure rhetorical blackmail. I expected better from you."

Ok. Robbing old ladies. Beating people up for no reason. Cruelty towards animals even.

"Reify:
To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence."
So existence is an abstract? How existential of you. ;)"

Well i exist materially. My life, education, existence and so forth don't.

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

"So, 1: If I don’t feed my pets for a month (A), then they will die.(B)
2: I don’t feed my hermit crab. (A)
3: My hermit crab will die. (B)

(If A then B, A, therefore B… this is sound logic)"

Here you are just applying inductive logic. The logical relation between A and B is not observable. It is all in your mind.

In factm it is the laws of logic that permit you to make the inference in 1st place.

It's easy to confuse physical laws (lack of food caused death)with logical laws.

"Laws of logic were created to describe how reality behaves, correct? Therefore, finding them within reality seems only common sense."

Laws of logic exist only to separate truth from falsity. They describe relations between premises&conclusion.

"In exchange for my above answer, could we revisit a request I made waaaaay up there? Specifically, since you want atheists to “prove” there is no god, I’d like you to similarly describe how you would “prove” that my imaginary friend isn’t sitting next to me right now."

Alright. I don't think he is sitting next to you, because as you say, he is imaginary.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"I guess I'll see you when you reach a higher stage of philosophical maturity."

Ok...?

Wart said...

Mesoforte said...

“Your conclusion is still violating its premise- Everything has to have a cause. God is the first cause, and is not caused itself.”

I respectfully disagree. This is (1) a straw man argument and (2) a category fallacy.

The first premise of the Cosmological argument (and its variants) is not ‘everything has to have a cause’ (at least in its formal usage) _ it’s_ everything [that comes into existence] has to have a cause.’ Also, it’s not a not an inductive argument. Rather, it’s predicated on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It is an a priori argument, it is predicated on the distinction between a potential and actual infinite—along with the impossibility of a concrete (as opposed to abstract) actual infinite.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Hi Wart, & welcome.
The first premise of the Cosmological argument (and its variants) is not ‘everything has to have a cause’ (at least in its formal usage) _ it’s_ everything [that comes into existence] has to have a cause.’
Actually, the Britannica states that the Cosmological argument is:
"Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency. The first-cause argument begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes. Each cause is itself the effect of a further cause or set of causes; this chain moves in a series that either never ends or is completed by a first cause, which must be of a radically different nature in that it is not itself caused. Such a first cause is an important aspect, though not the entirety, of what Christianity means by God. The argument from contingency follows by another route a similar basic movement of thought from the nature of the world to its ultimate ground."
Though truthfully, it's getting a little hairy in here.;)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
No. There is wishful thinking, delusions, fantasies, dreams, expectations, logical inferences where we go from the known to the unknown etc.
No, all 6 items you list are the culmination of data that you’ve culled from your 5 senses. Everything that goes on in your head is culminated from a vast interlocking tapestry of near-synthesia. Structure stems from nature. Logic is built from that structure, completely contingent on the laws of physics.
I believe you are confusing laws of physics with laws of logic here.
Logic is inextricably linked w/physics. You can’t separate them.
Ok. Robbing old ladies. Beating people up for no reason. Cruelty towards animals even.
Which goes back to moral naturalism, which employs evolutionary game-theory to resolve a set of problems, recurring or no.
Well i exist materially. My life, education, existence and so forth don't.
Aye caramba! Do I have to define the word ‘exist’ for you?
” To have actual being; be real.”
So your life, education, and existance aren’t real?

Wart said...

Thank you for the kind welcome.

There are many variants of the argument. Though, when put in the structure of a propositional formulation, rather than a descriptive of the argument—it’s namely how I described it above. However, I should also clarify that this is how contemporary theistic philosopher formulate the argument.

I wanted to point it out because from the comments, it does appear that ‘mesoforte’ is oversimplifying his rebuttal, but then again, this is just a comment section.

Mesoforte said...

_ it’s_ everything [that comes into existence] has to have a cause.

So, you're saying that this 'god' thing doesn't exist because it never came into existence. If said 'god' exists, then it would have to come into existence, meaning, it would have to have a cause, based on the premise, "everything that comes into existence, has to have a cause."

If you are going to say that said 'god' is infinite/eternal, you are violating part of your ealier premise [nothing can exist infinitely (universe), which is necessary to posit a first cause for the universe.]. Otherwise, we could hold that the universe exists infinitely.

The main problem is though, you still have to justify the first premise of the First Cause argument [the origin of the universe requires a causal explanation] without doing that, you can't posit a first cause.

Also, postiting a 'god' outside of the universe, time, or just trandscendant in any way does not act as an explanatory concept for the causal explanation.

"The theist's solution consists of saying: An unknowable being using unknowable methods "caused" the universe to snap into existence."

From answers.com-

a priori

Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

From www.candleinthedark.com/logic-

We can call a deductive logical system an a priori system. This means that we can make up such a system without any observation or experimental examination.We can create a set of categories like squares or circles or letters, and a set of self consitent rules that follow a set of definitions, all without having to ever experience such "things". Philosophers like to say that a "brain in vat" set apart from the rest of the universe could create an a priori system.

Seeing as Goose refuses to define all of the rules by which to run this argument, or even defined his 'god' term, I don't see why you even bother to make a distiction between a priori argument and an inductive argument.

Secondly, deductive arguments don't really prove anything, do they? As you have said-

"It is an a priori argument, it is predicated on the distinction between a potential and actual infinite—along with the impossibility of a concrete (as opposed to abstract) actual infinite."

Potential and actual infinite- along with the impossibility of an actual inifinte. If its impossible for an actual infinite, then there is not point in the argument.

Principle of Sufficient Reason

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens, does so for a definite reason. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz. In other words, it denies that contingent events are really so, rather than a description of our ignorance of their detailed causes. It is therefore strongly linked to ideas of determinism. Its importance is mainly historical, in relation to the debate on determinism, and Continental rationalism in general.

"Thus the sufficient reason, which needs no other reason, must be outside this series of contingent things, and must be found in a substance which is its cause, and which is a necessary being, carrying the reason of its existence with itself. Otherwise, we would not yet have a sufficient reason where one could end the series."

In fact Leibniz had a more nuanced and characteristic version of the principle, in which the contingent was admitted on the basis of infinitary reasons, to which God had access but humans did not. Without this qualification, the principle can be seen as a description of a certain notion of closed system, in which there is no 'outside' to provide unexplained events with causes. It is also in tension with the paradox of Buridan's ass.

The principle was one of the four recognised laws of thought, that held a place in European pedagogy of logic and reasoning (and, to some extent, philosophy in general) in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. It was influential in the thinking of Leo Tolstoy, amongst others, in the elevated form that history could not be accepted as random.


The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens, does so for a definite reason.

Again, you would violate your premise by positing a being [god] as the first cause of the universe and then saying that it didn't require a cause also. If anything needs a sufficient reason to 'happen', then the 'god' would need a sufficient reason to happen.

Mesoforte said...

I wanted to point it out because from the comments, it does appear that ‘mesoforte’ is oversimplifying his rebuttal, but then again, this is just a comment section.

Until he defines his term, I don't see the point of going all out.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Wart:
Also -
a category fallacy.
Since I'm not very good at recognizing the more nuanced fallacies, I looked that up, came up w/category error, at fallacyfiles.org:
"An error of ascribing characteristics to an object which is of the wrong type, or category, of thing for that kind of characteristic."
I don't see MF doing that at all. MF has been asking Goose to define the the characteristics for the premiss, in order to rebut the premiss.
Goose has actually been rather taciturn on this subject.

It seems the list of fallacies have grown over the past year or so.

Krystalline Apostate said...

I'm gonna take a quick nap. Youse guys behave now, okay? ;)

Aviaa said...

goosehenry,

Here you are just applying inductive logic. The logical relation between A and B is not observable. It is all in your mind.

Correct. But I never said the logical relation itself was observable... just that the logical relation exists as a tool to describe how reality functions. The source is still reality.


Alright. I don't think he is sitting next to you, because as you say, he is imaginary.

I’m assuming that you actually know that’s not what I was looking for. Let me reword it... so, let’s say that I truly and fully have faith there is an invisible person sitting next to me (much as many truly and fully have faith there is a god). If, as you claim, there is a burden of prove on the dissuader, how would you prove that this person is not sitting next to me?

Wart said...

mesoforte said:

So, you're saying that this 'god' thing doesn't exist because it never came into existence.

No. The argument is that God never >came into existence< precisely because he always existed. I will address your upcoming objection below.

If said 'god' exists, then it would have to come into existence, meaning, it would have to have a cause, based on the premise, "everything that comes into existence, has to have a cause."

Again the argument is qualified with >>everything that comes into existence<< expressly to exclude God in the premise.

If you are going to say that said 'god' is infinite/eternal, you are violating part of your ealier premise [nothing can exist infinitely (universe), which is necessary to posit a first cause for the universe.]. Otherwise, we could hold that the universe exists infinitely.

We know that the universe had a beginning by its expansion and cooling. You can posit a static universe, but you would have to reconcile that with modern cosmology. Set theory concedes the existence of an actual infinite. Hence, a hierarchy of infinite sets. However, the actual infinite of set theory is a timeless or abstract infinity. Indeed, that’s what makes it actual.

The main problem is though, you still have to justify the first premise of the First Cause argument [the origin of the universe requires a causal explanation] without doing that, you can't posit a first cause.

Causation can be verified with induction-- do you agree? If not, then what are the alternatives? The only other is that the universe has no cause, which does beg for philosophical justification (considering contemporary cosmology as well).

Also, postiting a 'god' outside of the universe, time, or just trandscendant in any way does not act as an explanatory concept for the causal explanation.

It is an explanatory concept; unless you can enumerate all possibilities for causation exhaustively and explicitly eliminate ‘god.’ However, what I think you meant to say was that causation does not ‘necessitate’ God. I agree. Precisely because I don’t believe there is a deductive proof for God’s existence. However, a continual weakness in common rebuttals is the inadequate exploration of alternatives.

Seeing as Goose refuses to define all of the rules by which to run this argument, or even defined his 'god' term, I don't see why you even bother to make a distiction between a priori argument and an inductive argument.

It’s a technical distinction, but important. The cosmological arguments do not >>necessitate<< Gods existence (deductively), because someone can always posit—even ad hoc—an alternative causation. Inductively, God can be supported as a probable conclusion (e.g, w/teleological arguments etc..).

Secondly, deductive arguments don't really prove anything, do they? As you have said-

"It is an a priori argument, it is predicated on the distinction between a potential and actual infinite—along with the impossibility of a concrete (as opposed to abstract) actual infinite."


As far as deduction, the premises ought to provide sufficient support for the conclusion (P1, P2, conclusion) that is adequate enough that, if the premises are true (P1, P2), the conclusion would necessarily follow; that specifically why I reject the cosmological arguments as deductive.

Potential and actual infinite- along with the impossibility of an actual inifinte. If its impossible for an actual infinite, then there is not point in the argument.

As to an infinite, there can be an actual infinite, but only an abstract, not a concrete infinite. You cannot have a temporal infinitude, for a temporal infinite is incomplete, whereas an actual infinite is unincreasable.

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens, does so for a definite reason.

Again, you would violate your premise by positing a being [god] as the first cause of the universe and then saying that it didn't require a cause also. If anything needs a sufficient reason to 'happen', then the 'god' would need a sufficient reason to happen.


Let’s clarify a couple things with Leibnizian cosmology:

Leibniz wrote:

“Our reasonings are founded on two great principles, that of Contradiction…And that of Sufficient Reason, in virtue of which we consider that no fact can be real or actual, and no proposition true, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although most often these reasons cannot at all be known by us.”

Thus, the principle of sufficient reason says that every truth of fact (contingent true proposition) has an explanation. To say ‘anything that happens’ may slightly mischaracterize Leibniz’ conceptual intent. However, this is not an axiom you can directly demonstrate, but it’s difficult to challenge without undermining rationality.

Leibniz would say, Why is there something rather than nothing? and Why does this particular world exist instead of some other possible world?. What this brings to the table is that contingent existence does not meet sufficient reason; in other words, it’s not self-explanatory, unlike nonexistence. It also assumes that the universe is a contingent state of affairs. I have seen the Leibnizian cosmological argument not only for the particular effect, but the relation between this effect and all the alternatives, which gives it more explanatory power.

However, this seems strenuous to argue for, since I myself reject a necessary deduction.

Mesoforte said...

No. The argument is that God never >came into existence< precisely because he always existed. I will address your upcoming objection below.

What evidence do you have to establish that premise?

We know that the universe had a beginning by its expansion and cooling. You can posit a static universe, but you would have to reconcile that with modern cosmology. Set theory concedes the existence of an actual infinite. Hence, a hierarchy of infinite sets. However, the actual infinite of set theory is a timeless or abstract infinity. Indeed, that’s what makes it actual.
Causation can be verified with induction-- do you agree? If not, then what are the alternatives? The only other is that the universe has no cause, which does beg for philosophical justification (considering contemporary cosmology as well).

Either or fallacy, but that's beside the point.

"The contradiction of the causal argument [of the universe] stems from its basic flaw: its demand for a causal explanation of the universe, the totality of all existence.

When one asks for the cause of something, whether it be an entity or event, one is aksing for the entity or action of an entity (prior event) that caused it. Causal explanation is possible only withing the context of the existence... 'What caused the universe?" is an absurd question, because before somethin can act as a cause, it must first exist- i.e., it must first be part of the universe. The universe sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation." Or to quote JS Mill, "As a fact of experience...causation cannot legitmately be extended to the material universe itself, but only to its changeable phenomena." (Atheism the Case Against God 240)

My favorite law of physics-

1.Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change.

2.Time is nothing above or over change in the physical universe.

The universe has 'always' existed in the sense of 'time'. The energy that makes up eveything within has been there as long as time has been.

Asking for a causal explanation of the universe contradicts the conceptual framework of causality.

It is an explanatory concept; unless you can enumerate all possibilities for causation exhaustively and explicitly eliminate ‘god.’

Not the definition I was thinking of.

Inductively, God can be supported as a probable conclusion (e.g, w/teleological arguments etc..).

Depend's on how you define 'god'.

Seeing as you have teleological listed though-

"The crux of the teleological argument- and its fundamental error- lies in the assumption that order presupposes concsious design (where "order"refers to regularity in nature). This is demonstrably false. It is true that order exists in the universe, that there is regularity in nature, that entities will behave in the same way under the same circumstances- but it is not valid to unfer from this the exustence of a master designer. On the contrary, order is simply the manifestation of causality, and causality is a derivative, a logical corollary, of the Law of Idenity... It is a mustake to confuse "order" with "design." If there is design in nature, there must be a designer, but the same is not ture of order. Order does not presuppose an orderer, it is simply entailed by the nature of existence itself." (Atheism the Case Against God)

As far as deduction, the premises ought to provide sufficient support for the conclusion (P1, P2, conclusion) that is adequate enough that, if the premises are true (P1, P2), the conclusion would necessarily follow; that specifically why I reject the cosmological arguments as deductive.

Are the premises really true? Perhaps, what are all the premises, including a definition of this 'god' concept.

Wart said...

mesoforte said...

No. The argument is that God never >came into existence< precisely because he always existed. I will address your upcoming objection below.

What evidence do you have to establish that premise?

That is a good question. I assure you, the framing of the argument is not a conveniently introduced ‘loophole’ for God. This is how a friend conveys it: The cause of time, space, and matter must transcend its creation, and must be personal. Otherwise, for the cause to be non-personal would require a prompt of some sort to which the effect responds. An illustration of a personal cause would be a scenario in which we answer our door after it has been knocked. The person who knocks freely chooses to do so. Both cause and effect cannot be eternally existent, otherwise the door would be infinitely knocked on at the same time as eternally being answered. The contradiction is clear. An impersonal cause of the universe would require a property of the as of yet uncreated universe to precede its existence, to which it would respond in its coming into existence. Thus, the cause of our universe must be personal and uncaused, otherwise, the willing of creation could not occur.

Either or fallacy, but that's beside the point.

Please demonstrate the false dilemma. Either the universe began to exist or it didn’t. Your positing that it didn’t, what is our evidence for this? We know that the universe had a beginning by its expansion and cooling.

Please respond to my statements:

You can posit a static universe, but you would have to reconcile that with modern cosmology. Set theory concedes the existence of an actual infinite. Hence, a hierarchy of infinite sets. However, the actual infinite of set theory is a timeless or abstract infinity. Indeed, that’s what makes it actual.

Causation can be verified with induction-- do you agree? If not, then what are the alternatives? The only other is that the universe has no cause, which does beg for philosophical justification (considering contemporary cosmology as well).


"The contradiction of the causal argument [of the universe] stems from its basic flaw: its demand for a causal explanation of the universe, the totality of all existence.

When one asks for the cause of something, whether it be an entity or event, one is aksing for the entity or action of an entity (prior event) that caused it. Causal explanation is possible only withing the context of the existence... 'What caused the universe?" is an absurd question, because before somethin can act as a cause, it must first exist- i.e., it must first be part of the universe. The universe sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation." Or to quote JS Mill, "As a fact of experience...causation cannot legitmately be extended to the material universe itself, but only to its changeable phenomena." (Atheism the Case Against God 240)


This is a premature dismissal w/out engaging the argument. It isn’t enough to say that causation is only relevant within the universe. Suppose A causes B, which causes C. If A wholly causes B, and B wholly causes C, then A is really the cause of C. B only serves as an intermediate cause. So B doesn't really serve as the explanation for C, because it in turn is dependent on A. But with an infinite regress of causes, nothing is a real explanation. Nothing is a real cause of anything, in this sense.

The universe has 'always' existed in the sense of 'time'. The energy that makes up eveything within has been there as long as time has been.

Asking for a causal explanation of the universe contradicts the conceptual framework of causality.


"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking

Re: The Law of Conservation

With this, you grant to the universe the exact property of self-existence that you deny God. You can either deny the First Law of Thermodynamics and believe the universe came into existence from nothingness, or believe that it is itself self-existing. However, a valid law of science that is found to apply anywhere, applies everywhere and to everything in the universe, including the universe as a whole.

The only position that appears to be consistent with the Law of conservation, its application and causality is that the universe was created by a self-existent external agent not subject to the laws operational (pot scripted in creation) in the universe it created.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Wart:
The cause of time, space, and matter must transcend its creation, and must be personal.
Oh, not this again.
This stems from the biblical verse, "& a thousand years is like unto a day to the lord." This is the only place where anyone, anywhere, can draw this inference.
I have posited elsewhere, that all creators are bound by the same laws of their creation. Induction, deduction.
You can either deny the First Law of Thermodynamics and believe the universe came into existence from nothingness, or believe that it is itself self-existing.
I'm sorry, but I think that's a load of bollocks.
Until you can provide proof that matter and/or energy sprang out of nowhere (& note, I'm not saying the universe), I'm going to assume that they've always been around.
& no, I'm not positing a 'static' universe (only a dolt would posit that: what on earth would that mean anyways).
You can play all the fancy word games you like, but provide evidence, if you please.
You sound a lot like BF, BTW.

GooseHenry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

"Correct. But I never said the logical relation itself was observable... just that the logical relation exists as a tool to describe how reality functions. The source is still reality."

The laws of physics explain how nature functions.

The laws of logic exist to separate true statements from false statements.

For example, you can observe certain state of affairs. Using the laws of logic you can infer something about the unknown on the basis of the premises you observed.

It is a conceptual thinking pattern. It cannot be derived from nature.

"I’m assuming that you actually know that’s not what I was looking for. Let me reword it... so, let’s say that I truly and fully have faith there is an invisible person sitting next to me (much as many truly and fully have faith there is a god). If, as you claim, there is a burden of prove on the dissuader, how would you prove that this person is not sitting next to me?"

1st of all, it is logically possible. 2nd i would ask what reasons you have for holding this belief.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"No, all 6 items you list are the culmination of data that you’ve culled from your 5 senses."

Not necessarily. When associating freely one can come up with almost anything. A logical inference about the unknown might be such that it has never been observed.

Moreover, you can know that these thoughts are your own. I am not referring to content now, only to the fact that you can know that they are your own.

Moreover you can knw logical truths, moral truths etc. without ever having observed them.

"Logic is built from that structure, completely contingent on the laws of physics."

The laws of physics govern material, causal processes. The laws of logic govern mental processes. Nothing in the material world can be logical.

For example, in Aviaas example, the conclusion that the turtle will die was logical. The fact that it died was an effect (lack of food being the cause)

The brain is totally material. Hence its functions are governed by the laws of physics. Or do you deny that?

If logic is just a description of how the brain works, who is to say who is right when people disagree?

Logic governs the relations between premises&conclusion. They cannot be empirically tested like the laws of physics.

"Logic is inextricably linked w/physics. You can’t separate them."

They are two separate systems.

"Which goes back to moral naturalism, which employs evolutionary game-theory to resolve a set of problems, recurring or no."

Ok. So you agree that these things are amoral by nature? Ie. they could be seen as moral in some context?

"Aye caramba! Do I have to define the word ‘exist’ for you?
” To have actual being; be real.”
So your life, education, and existance aren’t real?"

Red herring. The point was that these things aren't substances, they are abstract, ie. they cannot cause anything.

Aviaa said...

For example, you can observe certain state of affairs. Using the laws of logic you can infer something about the unknown on the basis of the premises you observed.

It is a conceptual thinking pattern. It cannot be derived from nature.


Indeed. I observe that I have a dog. Using my carefully constructed childhood premises, I can infer that if I don’t feed my dog, he shall die based on the casual relationship I observed as a child. Or based on the casual relationship that others observed and told me about, wrote about, etc. I don’t even have to stop feeding my dog! I can just know, with quite reasonable certainty, that this would be the logical outcome.

I’m not claiming I “derived” the laws of logic from nature when I was a child or that anyone else said, “hey! Dead hermit crab! Let’s invent cause and effect!” I was just trying to demonstrate that I find evidence of these laws in the sensory, physical world- as you requested me to provide an example of. I still hold, however, that the formal rules of logic we have today are just descriptions (slowly developed over many, many years by many, many different people in various degrees of sophistication) of the ways that accurately describe the relationship between premises and ways that don’t.


1st of all, it is logically possible. 2nd i would ask what reasons you have for holding this belief.

Deep faith. I have a strong feeling that he is sitting next to me on the couch. Not to mention that ever since I felt him descend onto my couch, I have had an influx of good fortune. I have no sensory, physical evidence (shrugs)… but I have yet to see any for your god yet either. What makes it logically more likely your god exists than my invisible couch-friend? You claim atheists hold a burden of proof to logically disprove your god. Can you logically disprove my couch-friend?

Mesoforte said...

This is how a friend conveys it: The cause of time, space, and matter must transcend its creation, and must be personal. Otherwise, for the cause to be non-personal would require a prompt of some sort to which the effect responds... Both cause and effect cannot be eternally existent, otherwise the door would be infinitely knocked on at the same time as eternally being answered....An impersonal cause of the universe would require a property of the as of yet uncreated universe to precede its existence, to which it would respond in its coming into existence. Thus, the cause of our universe must be personal and uncaused, otherwise, the willing of creation could not occur.

How does this establish that the universe needs a causal explanation. The comparison of the universe to a door is a poor one at best. There is nothing in the universe that can compare with the universe, so merely saying that it is like a door that needs to be knocked on is a inaccurate comparison. Better yet, where does this 'door that needs to be knocked on come from?'

This is a premature dismissal w/out engaging the argument. It isn’t enough to say that causation is only relevant within the universe. Suppose A causes B, which causes C. If A wholly causes B, and B wholly causes C, then A is really the cause of C. B only serves as an intermediate cause. So B doesn't really serve as the explanation for C, because it in turn is dependent on A. But with an infinite regress of causes, nothing is a real explanation. Nothing is a real cause of anything, in this sense.


Again, causation is only understandable through the framework of the universe. To posit that it is not understood through the conceptual framework of the universe is impossible.

With this, you grant to the universe the exact property of self-existence that you deny God. You can either deny the First Law of Thermodynamics and believe the universe came into existence from nothingness, or believe that it is itself self-existing. However, a valid law of science that is found to apply anywhere, applies everywhere and to everything in the universe, including the universe as a whole.


"In physics, the principle that certain quantities within an isolated system do not change over time."

Incorrect. If you really knew the second law of thermodynamics, you would know that it only applies in a closed system. The universe isn't a closed system, it is an open system. Its bounds are infinite, as it is constantly expanding.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Not necessarily. When associating freely one can come up with almost anything. A logical inference about the unknown might be such that it has never been observed.
Moreover, you can know that these thoughts are your own. I am not referring to content now, only to the fact that you can know that they are your own.
Moreover you can knw logical truths, moral truths etc. without ever having observed them.

Sure, they belong to me. Where did I get them? I culled them from my 5 senses. That covers everything.
The laws of physics govern material, causal processes. The laws of logic govern mental processes. Nothing in the material world can be logical.
Whaa…??? But if we subtract the laws of physics, logic gets tossed out to boot.
Here is the ‘philosophy of physics’, straight from the Britannica:
” physics, philosophy of
Philosophical investigation of the concepts, problems, and methods of physics and related sciences. The philosophy of physics traditionally has been concerned with clarifying the logical structure, ontological commitments, and intertheoretic relations of fundamental physical theories, including relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics. The field also addresses various metaphysical and epistemological aspects of problems encountered in the foundations of theoretical physics. Examples include the apparent “directed” nature of time, the meaning of probabilistic descriptions of the initial state of the universe in statistical mechanics, the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (the problem of stating in precise terms the conditions in which probabilistic as opposed to deterministic laws apply to the motion of an elementary particle), and the problem of reconciling quantum mechanics with special, and ultimately general, relativity”
The brain is totally material. Hence its functions are governed by the laws of physics. Or do you deny that?
Why on earth would I?
If logic is just a description of how the brain works, who is to say who is right when people disagree?
1 evaluates the premiss via testing.
Logic governs the relations between premises&conclusion. They cannot be empirically tested like the laws of physics.
Bollocks.
They are two separate systems.
Bollocks again. You gotta be kiddin’ me.
Ok. So you agree that these things are amoral by nature? Ie. they could be seen as moral in some context?
What things, exactly?
Red herring. The point was that these things aren't substances, they are abstract, ie. they cannot cause anything.
You’re getting sillier by the minute. Your LIFE is substantive. Are you talking the biological sense? All 3 of these things are, by the definition of ‘substance’ real. If you’re going to define ‘substance’ in a philosophical sense, give me your rendition of it. Is it dualistic or monistic? Are we talking Aristotle, Descartes, Parmenides, Heraclitus?
Define your terms a little better, please.

Mesoforte said...

This is how a friend conveys it: The cause of time, space, and matter must transcend its creation, and must be personal. Otherwise, for the cause to be non-personal would require a prompt of some sort to which the effect responds... Both cause and effect cannot be eternally existent, otherwise the door would be infinitely knocked on at the same time as eternally being answered....An impersonal cause of the universe would require a property of the as of yet uncreated universe to precede its existence, to which it would respond in its coming into existence. Thus, the cause of our universe must be personal and uncaused, otherwise, the willing of creation could not occur.

Even better, cause and effect are only understood within the framework of the universe. Cause and effect do not exist outside of the framework of the universe.

Mesoforte said...

Oops, wrote Second Law of Thermodynamics, not first. Same thing applies-

the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes

Krystalline Apostate said...

wart:
The cause of time, space, and matter must transcend its creation, and must be personal.
Ah, yes. Ingersoll moment coming on - "Man in his ignorance supposed all phenomenon to be created in direct reference to him."
Otherwise, for the cause to be non-personal would require a prompt of some sort to which the effect responds.
That sounds like wish-fulfillment to me.
An illustration of a personal cause would be a scenario in which we answer our door after it has been knocked. The person who knocks freely chooses to do so.
'Knock, & ye shall be answered.' Nice effort to slip that in.
Both cause and effect cannot be eternally existent, otherwise the door would be infinitely knocked on at the same time as eternally being answered. The contradiction is clear.
1 follows another. If it's multi-layered, so what?
An impersonal cause of the universe would require a property of the as of yet uncreated universe to precede its existence, to which it would respond in its coming into existence. Thus, the cause of our universe must be personal and uncaused, otherwise, the willing of creation could not occur.
Oh, please. This sounds like so much existential sophistry. Newsflash: universe doesn't care, it's not tied directly to us, & unless you can come up w/something better, matter has always existed, & it doesn't care either.
This sounds like some permutation of the anthropic principle.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Sure, they belong to me."

And that you can know. Excellent

"Where did I get them? I culled them from my 5 senses."

Not your logical inferences about the unknown, you didn't. Or your knowledge about morality.

"Whaa…??? But if we subtract the laws of physics, logic gets tossed out to boot."

No, the laws of logic would still be true in a universe without matter.

"The brain is totally material. Hence its functions are governed by the laws of physics. Or do you deny that?

Why on earth would I?"

Because you say the brain is logical. Sorry, causal processes are non-rational by definition.

If you still say the brain is logical i cal appela to magic.

"1 evaluates the premiss via testing."

Actually, we usually refer to the laws of logic.

"Bollocks again. You gotta be kiddin’ me."

Laws of physics govern causal processes. These are non-rational through and through.

You yourself claim that the universe only consists of matter&energy governed by the laws of physics. How do you account for logical laws in this?

"What things, exactly?"

Robbing old ladies. Beating people up.

"You’re getting sillier by the minute. Your LIFE is substantive."

My body is. the word life is an abstract term.

"If you’re going to define ‘substance’ in a philosophical sense, give me your rendition of it. Is it dualistic or monistic? Are we talking Aristotle, Descartes, Parmenides, Heraclitus?
Define your terms a little better, please."

Generally, a substance is something that can have properties and cause things physically.

I am a dualist, Cartesian i believe.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Not your logical inferences about the unknown, you didn't. Or your knowledge about morality.
Bull puckey. It’s all just nuanced observation.
No, the laws of logic would still be true in a universe without matter.
Idle speculation, that. Prove it.
Because you say the brain is logical. Sorry, causal processes are non-rational by definition.
whose definition are you using? Non-rational? What?
If you still say the brain is logical i cal appela to magic.
You usually do.
Actually, we usually refer to the laws of logic.
Which are firmly founded on physical law.
Laws of physics govern causal processes. These are non-rational through and through.
Non-rational? You’re crossing my eyes at this point. Causal processes are non-rational? You’ve gotta be joking.
You yourself claim that the universe only consists of matter&energy governed by the laws of physics. How do you account for logical laws in this?
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this: no physical law, no logic.
Robbing old ladies. Beating people up.
More often than not, children can’t tell what is immoral (that’s the right term, BTW) as opposed to its opposite. This isn’t hardcoded – it’s a taught reflex.
My body is. the word life is an abstract term.
Back to quibbling over semantics, are we?
Generally, a substance is something that can have properties and cause things physically.

I am a dualist, Cartesian i believe.

Then you’ve just contradicted yourself (again). It was Descartes who said, ‘Cogito ergo sum’ (I think therefore I am), after sitting in his oven for 3 days (?). By the transitive properties, nothing would exist unless you thought yourself into existence.

I can see the dualism, though. You have a penchant for bifurcation. ;)

GooseHenry said...

RA

RA

"Idle speculation, that. Prove it."

You mean the laws of logic are material somehow? Where are they?

"whose definition are you using? Non-rational? What?"

Notice i didn't say irrational. It is not a matter of definition. Logic is not a property of matter, and if you claim it is, please give some example/evidence of this.

"Which are firmly founded on physical law."

Are you making this up? They laws of logic describe how we ought to think for our conclusions to be true.

"Non-rational? You’re crossing my eyes at this point. Causal processes are non-rational? You’ve gotta be joking."

Listen, rationality implies how we ought to think given certain premises. It is possible to think otherwise, but then our conclusion is false (irrational)

A chain of events can never be true or false. They just are. They are neither rational or irrational.

"More often than not, children can’t tell what is immoral (that’s the right term, BTW) as opposed to its opposite. This isn’t hardcoded – it’s a taught reflex."

Yes. But we can be wrong. If we are taught that robbing old ladies (or anyone for that matter) is right then we are simply wrong. Anyone who thinks differently is a sociopath, objectively.

"Then you’ve just contradicted yourself (again)."

Again? I didn't see you pointing anything out earlier.

"It was Descartes who said, ‘Cogito ergo sum’ (I think therefore I am), after sitting in his oven for 3 days (?). By the transitive properties, nothing would exist unless you thought yourself into existence."

I might be wrong about this, that is why i said i believed i was a Cartesian Dualist.

Anyway, the point was that abstract terms cannot have any causal effect.

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

"I’m not claiming I “derived” the laws of logic from nature when I was a child or that anyone else said, “hey! Dead hermit crab! Let’s invent cause and effect!” I was just trying to demonstrate that I find evidence of these laws in the sensory, physical world- as you requested me to provide an example of. I still hold, however, that the formal rules of logic we have today are just descriptions (slowly developed over many, many years by many, many different people in various degrees of sophistication) of the ways that accurately describe the relationship between premises and ways that don’t."

I think there is some confusion here, still.

Logic applies to the way you form your beliefs. If the premises are true you hold a justified belief.

On the basis that you observed your pet dying from lack of food you inferred that lack of food causes death.

"Deep faith. I have a strong feeling that he is sitting next to me on the couch."

I'd say you've probably dabbled in the occult and i'd ask you to repent.

"Not to mention that ever since I felt him descend onto my couch, I have had an influx of good fortune."

Well. Since this is just an example, it's hard to say.

But...If you believed this was true, i'd call you to repentance since there is only one true God. All others are false.

"What makes it logically more likely your god exists than my invisible couch-friend?"

I have reasons for holding my beliefs. On the basis of them i believe everything else is false. Other religions, couch-friends.

It is all about justified beliefs.

"You claim atheists hold a burden of proof to logically disprove your god."

No, again i don't claim they have to disprove God. But i do think they should be able to account for a coherent worldview without God.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
You mean the laws of logic are material somehow? Where are they?
Oy gevalt. Logic is how we interpret physical law.
Notice i didn't say irrational. It is not a matter of definition. Logic is not a property of matter, and if you claim it is, please give some example/evidence of this.
Oh no no no no no no. You postulated, you prove it. Find me an example where logic is divorced from matter/reality.
Are you making this up? They laws of logic describe how we ought to think for our conclusions to be true.
& our conclusions need to have some basis in the real world, do they not?
Listen, rationality implies how we ought to think given certain premises. It is possible to think otherwise, but then our conclusion is false (irrational)
Contingent on the consequences in the physical world.
A chain of events can never be true or false. They just are. They are neither rational or irrational.
Holy crap, you’re starting to sound like me.
Yes. But we can be wrong. If we are taught that robbing old ladies (or anyone for that matter) is right then we are simply wrong. Anyone who thinks differently is a sociopath, objectively.
Whatever you say, Inspector Javert. ;)
Again? I didn't see you pointing anything out earlier.
Sure. You claim that my side of the fence claims nothing came from something. It’s your side of the fence that claims that.
I might be wrong about this, that is why i said i believed i was a Cartesian Dualist.
That’s fine. You try to be honest at least. That’s appreciated.
Anyway, the point was that abstract terms cannot have any causal effect. Again, you’re joshing me. All I have to do is look at history. ‘Manifest Destiny’. ‘Ubermensche’. ‘The Holy Land’. Blood libel. Any metaphysical religious rubbish that results in murder, large or small. Mind you, these are all abstract terms, that changed the cultures they came from. ‘God’ is an abstract term: non-subtantive, amorphous, that defies definition. & look where it got you.
I could give you a list of 'abstract terms' that impacted history, but then, I could publish a novel on that alone.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Oh, Gooooossseee....
But i do think they should be able to account for a coherent worldview without God.
Nope: burden of proof still goes to the believer. You'll have to demonstrate that our 'worldview' is incoherent w/o gawd.
Which was what this thread was all about.
Fancy a cup of tea, do you?
You get an 'A' for effort, obviously you've been doing your homework.

Mesoforte said...

Pssss...RA, just tell goose that holding the laws of logic as immaterial is a meaningless statement without a universe of discourse. ^_~

I think this post has the one of the highest amount of comments outside of any other.

Aviaa said...

goosehenry,
I think there is some confusion here, still.

Logic applies to the way you form your beliefs. If the premises are true you hold a justified belief.

On the basis that you observed your pet dying from lack of food you inferred that lack of food causes death.


Confusion, eh? I actually think all of this is coming from the fact that we are answering two different questions. I believe you want me to show that I can somehow see logic itself. I never claimed that I could see logic itself- just evidence that it merrily functions within my world. I can. But that’s not what you want me to demonstrate. But I never claimed what you want me to demonstrate. And so we go round and round…


I have reasons for holding my beliefs. On the basis of them i believe everything else is false. Other religions, couch-friends.

It is all about justified beliefs.


I have reasons for believing my couch-friend exists, such as my feelings of happiness/faith that come from sitting on the couch and good fortune since he descended and all that stuff. You have better evidence for your god?

Did I also mention that I believe my couch-friend created the universe? So, you have evidence that your one, true god created the universe? Instead of some other god… or my couch-friend?

No, again i don't claim they have to disprove God. But i do think they should be able to account for a coherent worldview without God.

First, let’s look back for a moment:

A-theism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. You say, I haven't heard one good logical argument for atheism yet and we both have a burden. I believe God exists, you don't. I've presented some reasons for my belief, you haven't for yours. Both imply that atheists need to argue for a-theism (specifically, argue for a lack of a belief in a god). As you’ve now noted in your more recent post, we apparently don’t need to do this anymore. Just the worldview stuff.

Let’s go from there. You claim we should be able to account for a coherent worldview without god. I think the burden still rests with you, because:

I start with a basic worldview. My worldview holds that the sensory, physical reality (this includes the products of observation and thought such as the laws of logic- see, I keep on refining my definition for you) is all there is. I’m happy with this worldview and it makes sense to me. I don’t need the supernatural (your’s or anyone else’s) for it to all make sense to me.

As RA says, if you (or others) want to show there must be more, you (or they) must show evidence of why there must be more. I’d actually argue that you’ve been attempting to do this with your piddling over the semantics of pretty much everyone else on the board. I just wouldn’t argue that you’ve succeeded in providing such evidence.

Do you have evidence to support your worldview other than just your belief that our worldview isn’t adequate? Do you have evidence that your god, in particular, must be the way to fill this perceived gap between our worldview and your worldview? Why not my couch-friend instead?

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Pssss...RA, just tell goose that holding the laws of logic as immaterial is a meaningless statement without a universe of discourse. ^_~
I've tried, I tell ya, but he's a stubborn goose. ;)
I think this post has the one of the highest amount of comments outside of any other.
This'll be the 100th. Yay! Yep, it's either that, or my readership's getting larger. Sunday's usually a dead day.

aviaa:
Why not my couch-friend instead?
He's not shaped like a potato, is he? ;)

Aviaa said...

ra:
He's not shaped like a potato, is he? ;)

What a ridiculous question! He's invisible, remember? (rolls eyes)

I’d certainly not presume to know the “true shape” of invisible couch-friend. Such speculation would blasphemous. You’re risking the ire of invisible couch-friend! Repent! ;P

(he does smell kind of starchy though)

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
I’d certainly not presume to know the “true shape” of invisible couch-friend. Such speculation would blasphemous. You’re risking the ire of invisible couch-friend! Repent! ;P
So what's he gonna do? Smite me w/a throw-pillow? Pelt me w/upholstery?
(he does smell kind of starchy though)
Hmmm...a little sour cream'll cure that right up.

Aviaa said...

ra,
So what's he gonna do? Smite me w/a throw-pillow? Pelt me w/upholstery?

Indeed, all of those and more. Do you dare risk it?

Hmmm...a little sour cream'll cure that right up.

Good idea. (heads to refrigerator to remedy couch-friend-deity-smell problem)

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
Indeed, all of those and more. Do you dare risk it?
"I dare do all that a man dare do, who dares do more is none." - Macbeth.
Now there's a guy who had invisible...friends?
Good idea. (heads to refrigerator to remedy couch-friend-deity-smell problem)
A simple air freshener may suffice.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Oy gevalt. Logic is how we interpret physical law."

No, logic is a tool for telling bad thinking from good thinking.

"Oh no no no no no no. You postulated, you prove it. Find me an example where logic is divorced from matter/reality."

Again:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
C) Socrates is mortal

You can never watch this "happen" in nature through laws of physics. It is a thought pattern.

Socrates is material, true, and so is man. But the logical relation between these propositions cannot be observed in nature.

Given that everything is a result of mindless, non-rational causal processes, just how did logic arise?

"& our conclusions need to have some basis in the real world, do they not?"

Our conclusion are based on premises from the real world. The conclusion, if sound, is a statement about how things "must" be according to the laws of logic.

Question; are these laws material or not?

"Contingent on the consequences in the physical world."

No, the laws of logic tell us how we ought to believe given some premises.

"Sure. You claim that my side of the fence claims nothing came from something. It’s your side of the fence that claims that."

No, we claim that God is a necessary being that always is, hence he doesn't need a cause.

"Again, you’re joshing me. All I have to do is look at history. ‘Manifest Destiny’. ‘Ubermensche’. ‘The Holy Land’. Blood libel. Any metaphysical religious rubbish that results in murder, large or small. Mind you, these are all abstract terms, that changed the cultures they came from. ‘God’ is an abstract term: non-subtantive, amorphous, that defies definition. & look where it got you.
I could give you a list of 'abstract terms' that impacted history, but then, I could publish a novel on that alone."

Look, people can cause things to happen in a cause-and-effect like manner. A book can fall on your toes and cause a reaction.

Abstract terms like existence and so forth do not hold any causal power.

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

"I have reasons for believing my couch-friend exists, such as my feelings of happiness/faith that come from sitting on the couch and good fortune since he descended and all that stuff. You have better evidence for your god?"

Well 1st of all, this is only a fictional example. Kind of hard to say what it would be in real life, for me anyway.

The reasons i believe in the biblical God would be that Jesus said it was so.

"Did I also mention that I believe my couch-friend created the universe?"

Got reasons for believing that?

"So, you have evidence that your one, true god created the universe?"

No, but i have reasons to believe that there is a creator.

"Instead of some other god… or my couch-friend?"

Well, if we go with some other deity we are going to run into contradictions.

"A-theism is simply the lack of a belief in a god."

But why do you then constanly argue for the non-existence of God?

Your atheism seems to be "i don't believe there is a God"

"I start with a basic worldview. My worldview holds that the sensory, physical reality (this includes the products of observation and thought such as the laws of logic- see, I keep on refining my definition for you) is all there is."

Are the laws of logic part of sensory, physical reality? How about moral law?

"I’m happy with this worldview and it makes sense to me."

Have you seen your own thoughts? Have you got sensory, physical evidence that support your worldview that sensory, physical reality is all there is?

"Do you have evidence to support your worldview other than just your belief that our worldview isn’t adequate? Do you have evidence that your god, in particular, must be the way to fill this perceived gap between our worldview"

That is what we are discussing. Do you have sensory, physical evidence that your worldview is adequate?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
No, logic is a tool for telling bad thinking from good thinking.
& how do we differentiate between good & ‘stinkin’ thinking’? Thru measurement of the impact of said thinking from testing it in the real world.
You can never watch this "happen" in nature through laws of physics. It is a thought pattern.
Sure is. A thought pattern measured out via observation.
Socrates is material, true, and so is man. But the logical relation between these propositions cannot be observed in nature.
So Socrates isn’t a man? What?
Given that everything is a result of mindless, non-rational causal processes, just how did logic arise?
Rinse. Repeat. It arose from physical laws & a combination of the input of the 5 senses.
Our conclusion are based on premises from the real world. The conclusion, if sound, is a statement about how things "must" be according to the laws of logic.
& the real world is founded on what? Repeat after me: physical law.
Question; are these laws material or not?
Physical laws are: logical laws are based on these. These terms, as you’ve pointed out, are mere labels we use to translate the natural world to our own structures.
No, the laws of logic tell us how we ought to believe given some premises.
Based on the material world. Whether directly or indirectly.
No, we claim that God is a necessary being that always is, hence he doesn't need a cause.
An abstract term that defies the laws of logic. W/no way to test empircally the existence of this abstract term. I claim that matter has always existed, until proved otherwise.
Look, people can cause things to happen in a cause-and-effect like manner. A book can fall on your toes and cause a reaction.
Likewise, a neo-nazi, using abstract terms of a vile philosophy, can go out & commit hate crimes.
Abstract terms like existence and so forth do not hold any causal power.
That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever heard. Just the term existence has spawned millions of pages of philosophy. We can see the impact that ‘abstract terms’ have on our lives, our cultures. I could give you a million examples where this is wrong.

Thus far, you’ve failed to make any sort of a case.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I'll field this one -
But why do you then constantly argue for the non-existence of God?
A good question.
It takes no degree to see that this antiquated nonsense is injurious to the human race. It spawns the denial of responsibility: it gives birth to insanity: it drives Mankind to the brink of destruction.
If you people weren't so goddammed intrusive, trying to remake the world into what you'd rather it would be, I'm sure the bulk of us would leave you to your own devices.
Instead, religion seeks to mold the clay of the world to a sculpture of their own vision. Bring everyone to heel & kneel.
If you were all to sit on your hands, & keep your collective fingers out of the pie, I'd be more than happy to leave you to it.
But instead, it's war. Trample underfoot the unbeliever, & take no prisoners. I am an unwilling soldier, drafted into this from necessity, not desire.
I know this isn't what you represent. But too many on your side of the fence are like this.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"& how do we differentiate between good & ‘stinkin’ thinking’? Thru measurement of the impact of said thinking from testing it in the real world."

No, we use logic to differentiate. You do it all the time.

"Sure is. A thought pattern measured out via observation."

Alright, give an example of logic being observed.

"So Socrates isn’t a man? What?"

Yes he is a man. But the relation between these premises cannot be derived from nature.

"Rinse. Repeat. It arose from physical laws & a combination of the input of the 5 senses."

Give some example, at least. I fail to see physical things standing in logical relations to each other.

"Physical laws are: logical laws are based on these. These terms, as you’ve pointed out, are mere labels we use to translate the natural world to our own structures."

So the logical laws are just how our brains happen to function?

"An abstract term that defies the laws of logic."

Well, now you use logic, not testing, to evaluate a statement.

But, just how does the statement defy the laws of logic?

"I claim that matter has always existed, until proved otherwise."

So you are implying an actual infinite then?

"Likewise, a neo-nazi, using abstract terms of a vile philosophy, can go out & commit hate crimes."

True.

"That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever heard. Just the term existence has spawned millions of pages of philosophy. We can see the impact that ‘abstract terms’ have on our lives, our cultures. I could give you a million examples where this is wrong."

This is some sort of equivocation or something...

Existence itself doesn't cause anything. Peoples thought about it can cause people to write about it, i suppose.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

I browsed through your dialogue with Wart.

It seems that you agree to the entrophy of the universe and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds, since it is an isolated system.

If it always has been (=infinite) it would then be totally enthropic.

So it must have had a beginning, right?

Existance cannot exist on its own. It must be an existance of something right?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Alright, give an example of logic being observed.
Sure.
A red-hot burner. Using logic, we follow from what is culled from our 5 senses, that it would be illogical to put our hands directly on it.
Yes he is a man. But the relation between these premises cannot be derived from nature.
Bullshit. Definition of mortal: “ Liable or subject to death.
Of or relating to humankind; human: the mortal limits of understanding.
Of, relating to, or accompanying death: mortal throes.
Causing death; fatal: a mortal wound..”
Give some example, at least. I fail to see physical things standing in logical relations to each other.
Then you need to get out more. I am a man. I can die. I know this from observing this fact from nature. All people die. Logic dictates that I will die some day.
So the logical laws are just how our brains happen to function?
No, it’s the physical senses that are a function of our brain that interpet them.
Well, now you use logic, not testing, to evaluate a statement.
Logic dictates that I test an unknown, in order to verify it.
But, just how does the statement defy the laws of logic?
It’s completely unverifiable.
So you are implying an actual infinite then?
I’m open to the possibility. Does it take the form of a deity? No.
This is some sort of equivocation or something...
Existence itself doesn't cause anything. Peoples thought about it can cause people to write about it, i suppose.

Do you mean the label, or the actual ‘existence’ of existence? If existence itself doesn’t cause anything, what does that do to your ‘first cause’ clause?

GooseHenry said...

RA

"A red-hot burner. Using logic, we follow from what is culled from our 5 senses, that it would be illogical to put our hands directly on it."

No, that's misusing the word logical. It is logical of you to infer that the burner is dangerous. It would be illogical of you to think that your hands would be ok even though you can conclude from previous observations that the burner is hot.

Logic doesn't apply to the act of putting your hands on the burner.

"Bullshit. Definition of mortal: “ Liable or subject to death.
Of or relating to humankind; human: the mortal limits of understanding.
Of, relating to, or accompanying death: mortal throes.
Causing death; fatal: a mortal wound..”"

Now you merely define mortal as a set of properties. Given that socrates is a man, he logically has these properties.

Without ever seeing Socrates, you can infer that he is mortal since he was a man.

"Then you need to get out more. I am a man. I can die. I know this from observing this fact from nature. All people die. Logic dictates that I will die some day."

Logic does not dictate that anybody is going to die. The belief that you will die, however, is a logical one which rests on valid premises.

"Logic dictates that I test an unknown, in order to verify it."

No, logic allows you to make inferences about the unknown based on what is known.

Can we now conclude that logic is not observable in nature?

"I’m open to the possibility. Does it take the form of a deity? No."

Well, if the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, wouldn't it according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics be enthropic by now?

Also, actual infinites tend to have absurd consequences when applied to real life examples.

"Do you mean the label, or the actual ‘existence’ of existence? If existence itself doesn’t cause anything, what does that do to your ‘first cause’ clause?"

existence of existence? This is getting deeeeep;)

It doesn't do anything, i suppose...?

It seems that the naturalist worldview only allows for two explanations:

1) The universe popped into existence
2) It has always existed.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
No, that's misusing the word logical. It is logical of you to infer that the burner is dangerous. It would be illogical of you to think that your hands would be ok even though you can conclude from previous observations that the burner is hot.

Logic doesn't apply to the act of putting your hands on the burner.

Ergo, doing it would be illogical. Not doing it would be logical.
Now you merely define mortal as a set of properties. Given that socrates is a man, he logically has these properties.

Without ever seeing Socrates, you can infer that he is mortal since he was a man.

So every time I point out the definition of the word, you’re going to quibble over semantics, & say, “Now you’re using an abstract term by setting properties?” Terribly dishonest of you, old bean.
Logic does not dictate that anybody is going to die. The belief that you will die, however, is a logical one, which rests on valid premises.
Quibble, quibble.
No, logic allows you to make inferences about the unknown based on what is known.
Right, based on physical law.
Can we now conclude that logic is not observable in nature?
No, because logic is contingent on nature.
Well, if the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, wouldn't it according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics be enthropic by now?
Are you talking about ‘entropic’? No, because we have no way of knowing how the universe is a closed system.
Also, actual infinites tend to have absurd consequences when applied to real life examples.
Such as…?
It seems that the naturalist worldview only allows for two explanations:

1) The universe popped into existence
2) It has always existed.

I’d really like an example of where a naturalist propounds #1.
It doesn't do anything, i suppose...?
You may want to give that a deeper think, I’d guess.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Ergo, doing it would be illogical. Not doing it would be logical."

Listen son, you are redefining logic at this moment&applying it to matter.

Neither atheistic nor theistic scholars would agree with you on this, "methinks".

"Terribly dishonest of you, old bean."

Old bean?

"Are you talking about ‘entropic’? No, because we have no way of knowing how the universe is a closed system."

Closed system? Isn't it enough that it is isolated? Have we any reason to believe it is somehow connected to another universe?

Don't you belive in the big bang theory?

"Such as…?"

Well the moon revolves around the earth 12 times a year and the earth around the sun once/year. If this has been going on for an infinite amount of time, the mooon will have revolved around the earth just as many times as the earth has evolved around the sun (=infinite amount of times)

12 times infinite = infinite

"I’d really like an example of where a naturalist propounds #1."

the big bang

Aviaa said...

Goosehenry,
The reasons i believe in the biblical God would be that Jesus said it was so.

What if he didn’t and people just recorded that he did? What if he was lying to cover up the fact that the true god is my invisible couch-friend? Any other evidence that wouldn’t require me taking someone else’s word on the matter?

I wrote: Did I also mention that I believe my couch-friend created the universe?

You wrote: Got reasons for believing that?

Sure. He told me so.

I wrote: So, you have evidence that your one, true god created the universe?

You wrote: No, but i have reasons to believe that there is a creator.

Indeed, my invisible couch-friend.

Well, if we go with some other deity we are going to run into contradictions.

Like what?

I wrote: "A-theism is simply the lack of a belief in a god."

You wrote: But why do you then constanly argue for the non-existence of God?

RA already answered this one perfectly.

Your atheism seems to be "i don't believe there is a God"

Nope, but close. I have no reason to believe there is a god. Were god standing in front of me, I wouldn’t close my eyes, plug my ears, and yell, “I can’t hear you!” However, this has yet to happen.

Are the laws of logic part of sensory, physical reality? How about moral law? and Have you seen your own thoughts?

Laws of logic and moral law are products of me, other people and the way reality functions. Products of. Based on. Found through the evidence of. These are the phrases in the sentences that you keep on ignoring when you challenge me to see, feel, or whatever else these laws.

Have you got sensory, physical evidence that support your worldview that sensory, physical reality is all there is?

I don’t need to support my lack of a belief in that extra stuff (like I don’t need to support my lack of belief in a god) unless you prove that this extra stuff is somehow necessary.

I wrote: "Do you have evidence to support your worldview other than just your belief that our worldview isn’t adequate? Do you have evidence that your god, in particular, must be the way to fill this perceived gap between our worldview"

You wrote: That is what we are discussing. Do you have sensory, physical evidence that your worldview is adequate?

That’s not what I asked. I asked if you had evidence to support your “extra stuff”, including god and why he in particular must be the way to fill this gap. For the answer to your question, see the comment directly above.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Listen son, you are redefining logic at this moment&applying it to matter.
Son? I’m 47. How old are you? My point is, no matter? No logic.
Neither atheistic nor theistic scholars would agree with you on this, "methinks".
Example please.
Old bean?
Sorry. Too much British humor in my youth.
Closed system? Isn't it enough that it is isolated? Have we any reason to believe it is somehow connected to another universe?
No, we don’t. However, to borrow 1 of your pat responses, we don’t know either way.
Don't you belive in the big bang theory?
Sure. Until something better comes along.
Well the moon revolves around the earth 12 times a year and the earth around the sun once/year. If this has been going on for an infinite amount of time, the mooon will have revolved around the earth just as many times as the earth has evolved around the sun (=infinite amount of times)

12 times infinite = infinite

Well, first, you’re positing that the earth has always existed. The big bang theory (or even your theory) stipulates that there was no earth at 1 point. Also, the moon was, & I quote from answers.com:
” Most astronomers believe the Moon formed from a cloud of fragments ejected into Earth orbit when a Mars-sized body struck the proto-Earth early in the solar system's history.”
So that’s not a good real-world example.
the big bang
Er, ummm, no. The big bang is about the universe, not matter. Matter was there before the universe. So matter equals nothing?

"Nature is but an endless series of efficient causes. She cannot create but she eternally transforms. There was no beginning and there can be no end." - Ingersoll

Mesoforte said...

It seems that you agree to the entrophy of the universe and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds, since it is an isolated system.

Actually, I think I said this-

The universe isn't a closed system, it is an open system. Its bounds are infinite, as it is constantly expanding.

Its not an isolated system. But, I have something on the 'entrophy' argument-

"Two fallacies are obvious in this argument, even to the person unfamiliar with physics. ...At best, the entrophy argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source, and this source need bear no resemlance to the Christian God.

Second... [the] advocates of the entrophy argument are incosistent. Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics an inexonorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins [the arguer], because it "has never been contradicted." Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal and trasnendent god from suffering a gruesome heat-death? If the second Law os not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist assert the second Law applies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances, be contradicted." (Atheism the Case Against God 254-255)

"Reconciling the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the present state of the universe is not as hopeless as theists like to pretend. To begin with, the Second Law is simply a statement of statistical prbability, and there is nothing inherently contradictory in supposing that a closed system can decrease in entropy or fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entopy states. But this probability is extremely unlikely, so it is usually ignored in practical applications.

More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only in closed systems, which according to many physists, reders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole. Professor Grunbaum, A physicist, write:

An inherent limitation on the applicability of the... entrophy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact it has no applicability at all to a spatiallyinfinite universe..." (Atheism, the Case Against God 255)

"Finally, according to Landau and Lifstitz, authors of Statistical Physics

...in the general theory of relatvity the universe as a while must be regarded not as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equillibrium." (Atheism the Case Against God 256)

If it always has been (=infinite) it would then be totally enthropic.

You forget how I define time. Time is nothing more than change in the physical universe. As long as there has been change, the universe (matter and energy together) has been there. Matter has always been here, in the sense of time defined. And, if you would read up a little on physics, you would know that the Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply to the universe as a whole.

So it must have had a beginning, right?

Well, when you are capable of talking about causality through the framework of non-existence, then you can posit a first cause. However, seeing as how causality presupposes the conceptual framework of the universe, you cannot philosophically ask for a first cause, without contradicting yourself. :p

Existance cannot exist on its own. It must be an existance of something right?

My definition of existence-

Being a part of the universe. That's what it means to exist. If you are not part of the universe, you are nothing, literally. Consider, what is outside of the universe? Nothing, literally so.

And asking whether existence can exist?

Mesoforte said...

Let me finish-

The term 'exist' assumes the conceptual framework of 'existence'. Seeing as the universe is the totality of all existence, you would have to go outside the universe (non-existence) to posit the first question. So asking this is a type of 'Fallacy of the Stolen Concept,' I think, or at least it renders any explanation you could possibly come up with to be meaningless. Especially since you have no discource in non-existence.

And I'm not reifying the words 'time' or 'existence', I'm giving you the philosophical defintions.

So, if you want to continue with your pursuit of the 'First Cause', please 1) Define this 'god' thing you're positing as a first cause, amd 2) Show how you can discuss causality outside the conceptual framework of the universe. Because, as long as you don't define what you're positing as a cause, the conversation goes nowhere.

I know that you are afraid that when you reveal the attributes of your god, we will find it illogical or irrational, however if you refuse to put your neck on the line along with ours or at least allow the conversation clarity, I don't really see why we should waste time typing.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Wow. Definitely 8.6 on the Richter scale. Your education's showing, & it's a pretty sight indeed.
Which model do prefer? Chaotic inflation, brane cosmology, or oscillatory universe?

GooseHenry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

"What if he didn’t and people just recorded that he did? What if he was lying to cover up the fact that the true god is my invisible couch-friend? Any other evidence that wouldn’t require me taking someone else’s word on the matter?"

Well, since Jesus reportedly did miracles and rose from the dead, in my book he has the authority to teach us about God. I'll take his word for it.

"Sure. He told me so."

Ok. Are you for real now or are we still kidding around? Let's start with that.

"Indeed, my invisible couch-friend."

See above question.

"Like what?"

Like everything is Maya, an illusion, according to the Hindus. Which renders all morality useless. And how can anybody know everything is an illusion if nobody has seen it from the outside? But you cannot step outside since everything is an illusion.

"RA already answered this one perfectly."

Yes, but then atheism is a belief that there is no God, not a lack of belief.

"Nope, but close. I have no reason to believe there is a god."

That is called agnosticism.

"Laws of logic and moral law are products of me, other people and the way reality functions."

No. People are selfish and contradict themselves all the time.
Ergo, logic&morality are not descriptions of behaviour.

"I don’t need to support my lack of a belief in that extra stuff (like I don’t need to support my lack of belief in a god) unless you prove that this extra stuff is somehow necessary."

I asked if you, by your own criteria, can support your own epistemology?

"That’s not what I asked. I asked if you had evidence to support your “extra stuff”, including god and why he in particular must be the way to fill this gap. For the answer to your question, see the comment directly above."

I have reasons to believe that nature is not all there is. Moral laws, rationality seems to be evidence of this. People, in my opinion, seem unique and above the rest of creation.

On top of that we have the accounts of Jesus ministry.

I have reasons to believe there is a creator. The biblical God fits the bill.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Son? I’m 47. How old are you?"

30, hehe, i knew you were older than me. Just kidding;)

"My point is, no matter? No logic."

Logic are laws for proper reasoning&argumentation. Again, no piece of matter can stand in a logical relation to another. It can only stand in spatio-temporal relations.

Laws if physics describe action, laws of logic describe truth&falsity.

"Example please."

Well, i cannot even find anyone who brings it up for discussion. You are making the claim here...

"Sure. Until something better comes along."

Well, the theory implies that at some point, something popped into existence.

"Well, first, you’re positing that the earth has always existed."

I was just showing the absurdity of actual infinites in reality.

Lets say you have an infinite amount of quarters& an infinite amount of pennies (or whatever your coins are called). You would then have an infinite amount of money.

Take away all the pennies, and you would still have an infinite amount of money.

"Er, ummm, no. The big bang is about the universe, not matter. Matter was there before the universe. So matter equals nothing?"

Did matter exist without time&space?

Mesoforte said...

Wow. Definitely 8.6 on the Richter scale. Your education's showing, & it's a pretty sight indeed.
Which model do prefer? Chaotic inflation, brane cosmology, or oscillatory universe?


RA, I want say something, but I don't want to say it where theological eyes can see. Can I use your emai? Its hillarious, but I really don't want any of them to read it.

Oscillatory universe- A closed-universe model in which the expansion of the universe slows and reverses, causing a collapse into a singularity which then explodes into a new universe, repeating the cycle.

I don't know if there's anything that can stop its expansion. I really don't. Certainly, if you can get a point with enough gravitational pull, you could draw the universe back into a singularity, but I'm not sure how likely that is.

Brane cosmology is a protoscience motivated by, but not rigorously derived from, superstring theory and M-theory. The idea is to solve problems in cosmology using speculative particle physics theories and in turn use cosmological observations to motivate ideas in string theory.

The central idea is that our visible, four-dimensional universe is entirely restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the bulk. The additional dimensions may be taken to be compact, in which case the observed universe contains the extra dimensions, and then no reference to the bulk is appropriate in this context. In the bulk model, other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.

As one of its attractive features, the model can "explain" the weakness of gravity relative to the other fundamental forces of nature. In the brane picture, the other three forces (electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces) are localised on the brane, but gravity has no such constraint and so much of its attractive power "leaks" into the bulk. As a consequence, the force of gravity should appear significantly stronger on small (sub-millimetre) scales, where less gravitational force has "leaked". Various experiments are currently underway to test this. For example, in a particle accelerator, if a graviton were to be discovered and then observed to suddenly disappear, it might be assumed that the graviton "leaked" into the bulk.


I'll have to consult Nathan on this one. At the moment, I don't know enough about Quantum Physics (which is the discipline I think it is in.) I'm working on it.

Chaotic inflation theory was invented by Andrei Linde. It states that universes can come to existence from a very small amount (less than a hundred-thousandth gram) of matter through inflation.

According to chaotic inflation theory it is theorically possible to "cook up a new universe in a laboratory". It raises the question of whether our universe was created in this manner.


I don't know if you could show that, but it sounds kind of like 'God's Debris' by Scott Adams, where the universe started from a singularity popping in and out of existence and then expanded outward.

But, I guess I take the universe differently than most people I know. The universe is just the matter and energy within it. It will never cease to exist, because there will just be nothing within the universe. Life will certainly at one point be impossible within our universe because by the rate of its expansion, it will be impossible for stars to be born. And you need stars for life. If there is a force powerful enough to take the universe back in on itself, then oscillatory universe idea would be the most likely. I'll have to start researching String Theory too. T_T More work.

But, this idea that you can't posit a cause for the universe comes from that book I keep drawing out of. It was published back in 1989, but it covers the basics of atheism and alot of the Cosmological argument basics.

(All definitions taken from www.answers.com)

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
RA, I want say something, but I don't want to say it where theological eyes can see. Can I use your emai? Its hillarious, but I really don't want any of them to read it.
Please do. You're not going to swear me to secrecy, are ya?
But, this idea that you can't posit a cause for the universe comes from that book I keep drawing out of.
'The Case Against God' that you cite? Interesting.
You definitely have a better handle on the quantum physics than I do, gotta say.

Mesoforte said...

Again, no piece of matter can stand in a logical relation to another.

Goose, we've gone over this already, holding the laws of logic to be immaterial is a meaningless statement. So quit implying it.

That is called agnosticism.

Incorrect, agnostics say "We cannot know." Atheists says, "I do not beleive."

I have reasons to believe that nature is not all there is. Moral laws, rationality seems to be evidence of this.

Rationality is the commitment to reason. Reason is the faculty that idenifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. It is by abstracting the immediately given concretes of his experience into concepts, and integrating these into still wider concepts that man aquires knowlerge... Rationality is not immaterial. The universe is composed of material, matter and energy. The only thing that's immaterial is outside of the universe, or 'nothing'. So, you can't hold Reason or morality to be immaterial without going through discourse in non-existence again. (Atheism the Case Against God)

Did matter exist without time&space?

Again, matter composes the universe, all of it is the universe. Time is only understood through the context of the universe. Space is just an attribute of the universe. You can't have space without the universe. You can't have time or space without the universe. Again, you would have to go outside the universe to posit this question.

So, you still have two challenges to face-

1) Define 'god'
2) Show how you can explain anything outside of the conceptual framework of the universe without it being a meaningless statement.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Its not an isolated system."

What? Is it related to some other universe?

"Two fallacies are obvious in this argument, even to the person unfamiliar with physics. ...At best, the entrophy argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source, and this source need bear no resemlance to the Christian God."

That is not the point of the cosmological argument either.

"Second... [the] advocates of the entrophy argument are incosistent. Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics an inexonorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins [the arguer], because it "has never been contradicted." Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal and trasnendent god from suffering a gruesome heat-death? If the second Law os not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist assert the second Law applies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances, be contradicted." (Atheism the Case Against God 254-255)"

Well, God by definition is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. So this is kind of a straw-man argument.

"An inherent limitation on the applicability of the... entrophy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact it has no applicability at all to a spatiallyinfinite universe..." (Atheism, the Case Against God 255)"

But the universe is not spatially infinite since it hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, right?

"You forget how I define time. Time is nothing more than change in the physical universe. As long as there has been change, the universe (matter and energy together) has been there."

So the universe has always existed? Infinite chain of "changes" going backwards?

"Matter has always been here, in the sense of time defined."

So no beginning then?

"Well, when you are capable of talking about causality through the framework of non-existence, then you can posit a first cause."

Non-existence of what? The fact that the universe didn't exist does not imply total non-existence of everything. In fact, wouldn't it be up to you to explain how the law of causality wouldn't apply in this case?

"My definition of existence-

Being a part of the universe. That's what it means to exist. If you are not part of the universe, you are nothing, literally. Consider, what is outside of the universe? Nothing, literally so."

Your definition? According to christian theology, God is timeless, spaceless and immaterial and could therefore exist ontologically before the universe.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
30, hehe, i knew you were older than me. Just kidding;)
You are forgiven, my son.
Logic are laws for proper reasoning&argumentation. Again, no piece of matter can stand in a logical relation to another. It can only stand in spatio-temporal relations.
You’re joking, right?
Laws of physics describe action, laws of logic describe truth&falsity.
How on earth can you have laws of logic w/o the laws of physics?
Well, i cannot even find anyone who brings it up for discussion. You are making the claim here...
& you were the 1 claiming people would challenge it. I think you’re perhaps the 1st person to ever have made the claim.
Well, the theory implies that at some point, something popped into existence.
No it doesn’t. Have you even read anything about the big bang?
I was just showing the absurdity of actual infinites in reality.
Ergo, your deity is absurd because he/she/it can’t be infinite. No?
Lets say you have an infinite amount of quarters& an infinite amount of pennies (or whatever your coins are called). You would then have an infinite amount of money.

Take away all the pennies, and you would still have an infinite amount of money.

ROFLMAO! Guess you’d be rich as god, ey? Imagine being SWALLOWED by all that money. There’d be no room for any of it. We’d all get squished. Gawd’s piggybank, ey?;)
There’s no such thing as infinite, way I see it.
Did matter exist without time&space?
Wow, you really don’t know anything about the big bang theory, do you?
The basic definition is: “A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.”
I think you’d better do some more homework, before you taste any more toejam.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Goose, we've gone over this already, holding the laws of logic to be immaterial is a meaningless statement. So quit implying it."

Repeating that statement does not change the fact that logical relations do not occur in matter.

"Incorrect, agnostics say "We cannot know." Atheists says, "I do not beleive."

To say there is no reason to believe is not a position about the existence of God. Agnosticism would be the closest label here.

"I do not believe there is a god" would be a statement about the existence of God.

"Rationality is the commitment to reason. Reason is the faculty that idenifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. It is by abstracting the immediately given concretes of his experience into concepts, and integrating these into still wider concepts that man aquires knowlerge..."

In other words, by studying cause and effect we can observe logic.

No, we observe laws of physics that way.

"Rationality is not immaterial. The universe is composed of material, matter and energy. The only thing that's immaterial is outside of the universe, or 'nothing'. So, you can't hold Reason or morality to be immaterial without going through discourse in non-existence again. (Atheism the Case Against God)"

Begging the question again.

"Again, matter composes the universe, all of it is the universe. Time is only understood through the context of the universe. Space is just an attribute of the universe. You can't have space without the universe. You can't have time or space without the universe. Again, you would have to go outside the universe to posit this question."

Ok, so matter&time&space go hand in hand. None exists without the other.

"1) Define 'god'
2) Show how you can explain anything outside of the conceptual framework of the universe without it being a meaningless statement."

God has, according to biblical revelation, the attributes timeless, spaceless and immaterial. In other words, could exist outside the universe.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"You’re joking, right?"

No, not joking. Matter can be i all sorts of relation. Spatially and temporally. Heaver than. Numerically.

But not logically.

"How on earth can you have laws of logic w/o the laws of physics?"

The laws of logic would still hold given that the laws of physics would be different.

"No it doesn’t. Have you even read anything about the big bang?"

No, but there still has to be a first cause.

"Ergo, your deity is absurd because he/she/it can’t be infinite."

No, because by definition He is timeless.

"There’s no such thing as infinite, way I see it."

Good.

"Wow, you really don’t know anything about the big bang theory, do you?"

Either way, there has to be a first cause, since as we can agree, infinites do not exist.

Mesoforte said...

"Two fallacies are obvious in this argument, even to the person unfamiliar with physics. ...At best, the entrophy argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source, and this source need bear no resemlance to the Christian God."

That is not the point of the cosmological argument either.

"Second... [the] advocates of the entrophy argument are incosistent. Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics an inexonorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins [the arguer], because it "has never been contradicted." Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal and trasnendent god from suffering a gruesome heat-death? If the second Law os not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist assert the second Law applies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances, be contradicted." (Atheism the Case Against God 254-255)"

Well, God by definition is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. So this is kind of a straw-man argument.

If it is immaterial, it is non-existent.

But the universe is not spatially infinite since it hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, right?

Time is nothing more than change in the universe. In that sense it has existed infinitely.

So the universe has always existed? Infinite chain of "changes" going backwards?

It has existed as long as there has been change.

So no beginning then?

You can't logically posit it, as I say again and again.

Non-existence of what? The fact that the universe didn't exist does not imply total non-existence of everything. In fact, wouldn't it be up to you to explain how the law of causality wouldn't apply in this case?

Existence is to be part of the universe. If there is no universe, there is no framework for existence. Basically, Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.

Your definition? According to christian theology, God is timeless, spaceless and immaterial and could therefore exist ontologically before the universe.

You keep making my point. Something that is immaterial is non-existent. And to be without change (time) would make it impossible to create the universe as it would require a change or the movement of time for said being to create the universe.

Repeating that statement does not change the fact that logical relations do not occur in matter.

And you repeating every time does not change that your 'immaterial' explanation is a meaningless explanation.

To say there is no reason to believe is not a position about the existence of God. Agnosticism would be the closest label here.

Agnostics say that knowledge of 'god' is impossible. Implicit atheism fits the label better.

"I do not believe there is a god" would be a statement about the existence of God.

A negative statement. There is no positive assertion.

In other words, by studying cause and effect we can observe logic.

Did I say that. I'm pretty sure I was clarifying what you were talking about, ie rationality is a commitment to reason.

Begging the question again.

"Rationality is not immaterial. The universe is composed of material, matter and energy. The only thing that's immaterial is outside of the universe, or 'nothing'. So, you can't hold Reason or morality to be immaterial without going through discourse in non-existence again. (Atheism the Case Against God)"

That is a statement of what is logically possible. Holding it to be immaterial is a logically impossible statement. So again, to prove the immateriality of reason and morality, you would have to go outside the context of existence.

Ok, so matter&time&space go hand in hand. None exists without the other.

Matter composes the universe, space is an attribute of the universe, and time is change within the universe. As long as there has been time, there has been matter, as long as there has been space, there has been matter, as long as the universe has been, there has been matter.

"1) Define 'god'
2) Show how you can explain anything outside of the conceptual framework of the universe without it being a meaningless statement."

God has, according to biblical revelation, the attributes timeless, spaceless and immaterial. In other words, could exist outside the universe.

Existence means to be part of the universe. To say something exists outside of the universe is a meaningless statement. To say something is without space is a meaningless statement because without space it is no longer something. To say something is without space violates the word something.

But, you said timeless, spaceless, and immaterial so we'll just have to look at the 'Biblical' god.


Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

According to this, this 'god' is part of the physical universe (He spake to Moses), capable of speaking in tense (within time/change). He also has a face, composed of material (neccasary to be seen).

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
No, not joking. Matter can be i all sorts of relation. Spatially and temporally. Heaver than. Numerically.

But not logically.

Let’s make sure we have the right definition here – formal logic: “The study of the properties of propositions and deductive reasoning by abstraction and analysis of the form rather than the content of propositions under consideration.”
The laws of logic would still hold given that the laws of physics would be different.
Which laws? You realize that if there was no gravity, the ‘laws’ would change radically, don’t you?
No, but there still has to be a first cause.
Well, there could be, but chances are nil it’s an anthropic principle.
No, because by definition He is timeless.
Begging the question. If you say there’s nothing infinite, then your deity can’t be timeless. Psalm 90:4, right?
Either way, there has to be a first cause, since as we can agree, infinites do not exist.
Seems I’ve contradicted myself, doesn’t it? Let me rephrase it.
I think matter’s always been around. In varying stages. Whether it was dark matter, anti-matter, or the matter we’re accustomed to. However, the concept of absolute nothingness can’t be proven, has no concrete evidence to support it. Complete speculation.
Infinity translates to:
”The quality or condition of being infinite.
Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
An indefinitely large number or amount.”
So which is it? If your deity is timeless, then it’s infinite. But you say that infinites don’t exist. So which is it?

“Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities.” - Lord Dunsany

Mesoforte said...

That is not the point of the cosmological argument either.


Its not my fault if you don't present your argument.

Mesoforte said...

And you still haven't done #2

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
And you still haven't done #2
Umm...what was #2, again? Sorry.

Hey Goose:
No, because by definition He is timeless.
Then why would he want burnt meat as a sacrifice? Or show his backside to Moses?
Why even play the entire shooting match in the 1st place?

Mesoforte said...

Umm...what was #2, again? Sorry.


2) Show how you can explain anything outside of the conceptual framework of the universe without it being a meaningless statement

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"If it is immaterial, it is non-existent."

This is just a non-supported statement.

So your thoughts, feelings and so forth are non-existent?

"Time is nothing more than change in the universe. In that sense it has existed infinitely."

Ok, so you claim that actual infinites exist.

"You can't logically posit it, as I say again and again."

It never began to expand?

"Existence is to be part of the universe. If there is no universe, there is no framework for existence. Basically, Fallacy of the Stolen Concept."

How do we know that?

"Something that is immaterial is non-existent. And to be without change (time) would make it impossible to create the universe as it would require a change or the movement of time for said being to create the universe."

Rests on the assumption that immaterial things do not exist. Which is a blanket statement.

"A negative statement. There is no positive assertion."

Implies that "matter&energy is all there is"

"Did I say that. I'm pretty sure I was clarifying what you were talking about, ie rationality is a commitment to reason."

And reason is built on logic. Changing the wording does not alter that fact.

"That is a statement of what is logically possible. Holding it to be immaterial is a logically impossible statement."

No, that is not how logic is applied. It is logical to assume that there are immaterial things given valid reasons.

"So again, to prove the immateriality of reason and morality, you would have to go outside the context of existence."

Rests totally on the assumption that energy&matter is all there is.

God has, according to biblical revelation, the attributes timeless, spaceless and immaterial. In other words, could exist outside the universe.

"Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

According to this, this 'god' is part of the physical universe (He spake to Moses), capable of speaking in tense (within time/change). He also has a face, composed of material (neccasary to be seen)."

1) There is nothing stopping him from revealing himself
2) A face can be immaterial, it can be a vision

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Let’s make sure we have the right definition here – formal logic: “The study of the properties of propositions and deductive reasoning by abstraction and analysis of the form rather than the content of propositions under consideration.”"

Ok, no disagreement there.

"Which laws? You realize that if there was no gravity, the ‘laws’ would change radically, don’t you?"

No the laws of logic.

"Begging the question. If you say there’s nothing infinite, then your deity can’t be timeless."

If He is not subject to time, he is not subject to infinity.

"Seems I’ve contradicted myself, doesn’t it? Let me rephrase it.
I think matter’s always been around. In varying stages. Whether it was dark matter, anti-matter, or the matter we’re accustomed to. However, the concept of absolute nothingness can’t be proven, has no concrete evidence to support it. Complete speculation."

It is not speculation, it is reasoning based on what we know. Laws of physics, causal laws and such.

"Infinity translates to:
”The quality or condition of being infinite.
Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
An indefinitely large number or amount.”
So which is it? If your deity is timeless, then it’s infinite. But you say that infinites don’t exist. So which is it?"

Look at the definition. It doesn't say not subject to time, it says unbounded amount. With timeless i mean not subjet to, unaffected by, time.

Mesoforte said...

This is just a non-supported statement.

No, it is supported by a very simple observation. Nothingness is outside of the universe. Within the universe things exist. The things that exist withing the universe are material, energy and matter. If something were to exist in nothing, it would be part of the universe, thus negating the term nothing. To exist means to be within the universe.

So your thoughts, feelings and so forth are non-existent?

They aren't immaterial. They are within the universe.

Ok, so you claim that actual infinites exist.

Only in the sense of time that I define.

It never began to expand?

Is that a change? Did I not say that time was merely change? We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change. What do you find so hard to acccept.

How do we know that?

Its a simple observation, as stated above.

Rests on the assumption that immaterial things do not exist. Which is a blanket statement.

Again, that immaterial is nothing is a simple observation-

Nothingness is outside of the universe. Within the universe things exist. If something were to exist in nothing, it would be part of the universe, thus negating the term nothing. To exist means to be within the universe.


And reason is built on logic. Changing the wording does not alter that fact.

And ignoring #2 does not help your argument any.

No, that is not how logic is applied. It is logical to assume that there are immaterial things given valid reasons.

The term 'immaterial things' is a contradiction. 'Things' is a statement of material, it cannot be the opposite of immaterial. Consider the philosophical concepts within terms before you use them.

Rests totally on the assumption that energy&matter is all there is.

Assumption? That's an observation, and the only observation you can support with evidence.

1) There is nothing stopping him from revealing himself
2) A face can be immaterial, it can be a vision


It doesn't say vision, it says that the LORD spoke to Moses face-to-face as a man does with his friend. He speaks within time (he is not timeless), he acts within space (he speaks to Moses as a man does his friend) and Moses sees him. You're being illogical.

Mesoforte said...

it cannot be the opposite of immaterial

Shoud say it cannot be the opposite, immaterial.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"They aren't immaterial. They are within the universe."

Are they material?

"Only in the sense of time that I define."

Can it be freely defined? Whichever definition of time you use, yuo are still implying actual infinites.

How do we know that?

"Its a simple observation, as stated above."

No, immaterial would mean not detectable with the 5 senses. To say that we can conclude that immaterial things do not exist by observation is begging the question.

"Nothingness is outside of the universe."

No, it can be an abstract term also. Even if it would be outside the universe, it does not follow that everything outside the universe is nothing.

"The term 'immaterial things' is a contradiction. 'Things' is a statement of material, it cannot be the opposite of immaterial. Consider the philosophical concepts within terms before you use them."

ok, entities then. Sorry for upsetting you by using the wrong term.

"Assumption? That's an observation, and the only observation you can support with evidence."

Begs the question. I guess the only evidence for the immaterial would have to be material also?

"It doesn't say vision, it says that the LORD spoke to Moses face-to-face as a man does with his friend. He speaks within time (he is not timeless), he acts within space (he speaks to Moses as a man does his friend) and Moses sees him. You're being illogical."

No. What would stop God from appearing? It doesn't require a physical body.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
No the laws of logic.
Oh, I think they would. Drastically.
If He is not subject to time, he is not subject to infinity.
-SIGH- let’s define infinite, shall we?
“Having no boundaries or limits.” That pretty much defines your deity, doesn’t it? So to say said deity isn’t subject to anything, is to say that it is infinite, doesn’t it?
But you’re basing your concept of your deity on a couple of fragments that state that ‘a 1000 years are as 1 day.” This is ALL YOU HAVE TO GO ON. So what is the average lifespan of a god? A million years? A billion? Why would a limitless being want animal sacrifices, anyways? It’s from the same book.
It is not speculation, it is reasoning based on what we know. Laws of physics, causal laws and such.
Really. You’ll have to show your work on that, please. Complete nothingness? Complete void? I’m not making the claim for this: you are.
Look at the definition. It doesn't say not subject to time, it says unbounded amount. With timeless i mean not subjet to, unaffected by, time.
It SAYS: “Unbounded byspace, time, or quantity. ”. I know what timeless means.
So what say you?

Mesoforte said...

Are they material?

They are a part of the universe.

Can it be freely defined? Whichever definition of time you use, yuo are still implying actual infinites.

No, I am merely making a simple observation of the universe.

No, immaterial would mean not detectable with the 5 senses. To say that we can conclude that immaterial things do not exist by observation is begging the question.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

I'm not claiming your viewpoint is false, I'm claiming that your viewpoint is meaningless without discource in non-existence. Two totally different things.

Immaterial- not consisting of matter, which also means not consisting of energy. Saying that we can conlude that immaterial beings exist a contradiction in terms.

Your premise, that 'immaterial' is not detectable to the five senses is also an appeal to ignorance.

Ideas are material-

www.answers.com-

Something, such as an idea or information, that is to be refined and made or incorporated into a finished effort.

No, it can be an abstract term also. Even if it would be outside the universe, it does not follow that everything outside the universe is nothing.

Look, do you not understand that every concept you think of assumes the conceptual framework of the universe. There is no way you can talk about the existence of anything outside of the conceptual framework of the universe and remain coherent and not contradict yourself.

ok, entities then. Sorry for upsetting you by using the wrong term.

Entities assume the conceptual framework of the universe also. Try again.

Begs the question. I guess the only evidence for the immaterial would have to be material also?

I'm not claiming your viewpoint is false, I'm claiming that your viewpoint is meaningless without discource in non-existence. Two totally different things.

No. What would stop God from appearing? It doesn't require a physical body.

It says that Moses spoke to god face to face as one does with his friend. It doesn't say 'appear' either, it speaks of speaking face to face, as in this 'god' has a face that is visible, or else Moses would not be 'speaking face to face', but would have whatever it is revealed in a vision. However, it doesn't say that. This verse also shows that your 'god' is within time ( he spake) and that your god is within space (face to face). You cannnot interpret this any other way and remain coherent. You can always change your premise and admit that the thing you are talking about is part of the universe, but then you no longer beleive in the Biblical god.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"They are a part of the universe."

Do they consist of matter&energy?

"No, I am merely making a simple observation of the universe."

So do actual infinites exist or not?

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."

And this is a straw man. I never claimed immaterial entities exist because we can't disprove them, i said if immaterial entities exist we shouldn't expect to be able to observe them with our 5 senses.

"Immaterial- not consisting of matter, which also means not consisting of energy. Saying that we can conlude that immaterial beings exist a contradiction in terms."

No. This just rests on the assumption that that which exists has to consist of energy&matter.

"Something, such as an idea or information, that is to be refined and made or incorporated into a finished effort."

Are your ideas material? Energy&matter?

"Look, do you not understand that every concept you think of assumes the conceptual framework of the universe."

You do not know what my thinking assumes.

"There is no way you can talk about the existence of anything outside of the conceptual framework of the universe and remain coherent and not contradict yourself."

Why not?

"Entities assume the conceptual framework of the universe also. Try again."

We do not know the conceptual framework of the universe. You say it is only energy&matter. I think otherwise. That is what we are discussing.

"It says that Moses spoke to god face to face as one does with his friend. It doesn't say 'appear' either, it speaks of speaking face to face, as in this 'god' has a face that is visible, or else Moses would not be 'speaking face to face', but would have whatever it is revealed in a vision. However, it doesn't say that. This verse also shows that your 'god' is within time ( he spake) and that your god is within space (face to face). You cannnot interpret this any other way and remain coherent. You can always change your premise and admit that the thing you are talking about is part of the universe, but then you no longer beleive in the Biblical god."

If i said that God cannot appear to whoever he likes, i would have contradicted myself by now.

The same biblical God you describe also created the universe. He was before time, space&matter.

According to the bible, which you quote, he is both created the universe and appeared to Moses.

I believe both biblical accounts. Therefore i believe in the biblical God.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Oh, I think they would."

Try some thought experiments on that.

"Really. You’ll have to show your work on that, please. Complete nothingness? Complete void? I’m not making the claim for this: you are."

Sure. If time, space and matter appeared along with the universe, something separate from this had to exist before (ontologically before). In our universe, there are no uncaused effects. Therefore the bang probably was caused by something not a part of the universe and not part of time, space and matter.

Something along these lines. I just apply causal laws and such that we kan know.

"So what say you?"

Separate from time, space&matter. He has to be, since He existed without it.

Mesoforte said...

Something that has been bothering me for a while, the logical implications of saying that minds/ideas/logic is immaterial. Be sure to read all of it.

"God as an "axiom"

The laws of reason are the result of the observable identity of all objects. Everything has a specific identity (identity) which acts in a certain way on other objects (causality). No contradiction (non-identity) can exist. Because we can observe reality in that manner, we can rely on logic as a tool to root out contradictions in our thinking.

Theists reject these claims and attempt to put forth god as the first axiom. Yet there are multiple problems with this naked assertion. First, axioms must be self evident - so that contradicting them leads to a self refutation. Since saying "God does not exist" does not lead to an internal contradiction, god cannot serve as an axiom.

Next, if you are a Christian, then you believe that God made a decision of creating the universe. Therefore god is a being with free will. If one states that god is the first axiom, that this makes logic absolute, which means that god cannot change this decision, and could not have made it any other way. This has two self refuting ramfications for the theist:

1) If your god cannot change logic, and had to make logic precisely as it is (a necessary ramification of god as an axiom) your god has no free will : it is not a personal being, it is a mechanism. You have left Christianity and gone into deism.

2) If logic must be as it is and cannot be changed, then god is inferior to logic, then god is inferior to logic - whether one wants to argue that logic is 'co-equal to god' or "part of his nature" all all of these ad hoc, non biblical claims all sum up to the same problem: that something else is superior to god, and outside of god, and responsible for logic

Either way, your belief is irrelevant. Whatever God's nature is, it is creator and omnipotent, therefore everything is continually contigent to it. For this reason, no theist can uphold the absolute nature of anything - including logic. If you refuse to accept this, then you are not a theist.

The first axiom, existence exists... is independent from a need for a beginning or a creation, especially if we properly conclude that existence always was, or that there was never a time when "nothing" existed.

Remember also:
1. Logic laws are not abstract entities. They exist tangibly in human minds.
2. Logic exists and is universal because all existants have a specific identity. Whatever exists, exists in a specific form. Given that, logic develops this fact in a method to prevent contradictions (positing existants with more than one form) from persisting in our cognition.

Conclusion:

Logic is a means for evaluating when a truth claim is valid. Something that is "beyond logic" (god) is unknowable by definition, and therefore is beyond discussion. You should not believe at all, if that is your position, since you believe in no-thing. The 'supernatural" is a proposed "entity" outside of reason and outside of matter. It is not matter, it is not energy, it is a "no-thing" There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by oberservation of nature that will serve to characterize it's antithesis. Inference from the natural world can only lead to more of the natural.

Pity the poor theologian who posits that logic is the result of divine creation, making it contingent, while demanding that the atheist explain why logic is necessary! This error is foundational. Theists need to clean up their own house before they come outside to play.

On why immateriality is incoherent

s.

We literally have no reason to hold that logical rules are immaterial or transcendent, arguments that attempt to support such a claim suffer from at least five logical fallacies.

An argument from ignorance fallacy - Neurology cannot completely account for the existence of minds, ergo minds (or some component of the mind) is immaterial.

Correction : An inability to complete account for a phenomena does not indicate that a counter view is automatically correct.

This leads us to fallacy 2:

False dichotomy fallacy: Either materialism can completely account for the mind, or the mind is immaterial

Correction An immateralist cannot simply assume that an incomplete materialist account necessarily leads to immateriality.

Reification fallacy Immaterialists often claim, through ignorance, that materialism implies that ideas must be identical to their representation - i.e. One ought to expect to open up a brain and see the color green, which would account for the idea of green.

Correction: We can refute this easily, through analogy: by the same logic, one would expect to open up a TV set and see tiny actors! Clearly neuroscience provides support for the claim that ideas exist as neurochemical transmissions along neural connections: synapses. To return to the TV analogy, we would expect to see electronics transmitting data sent as electrical impulses.

This leads us to error 4

Category Error It is a category error to expect to see the color green in a brain, when materalists hold that the color green is represented in neurochemical transmission - i.e. neurochemical data which represents the color green. To expect to view a neurochemical transmission as the color "green" is a category error, because we need a brain to experience this data. This error is akin to expecting to see musict, and then announcing that a failure to see music indictes that music must be immaterial, not soundwaves!

This leads us to error 5
Strawman Fallacy The immaterlist position bases itself on an ignorant view of neuroscience. "

www.candleinthedark.com/logic

"addendum: Confusing "abstract" for "non material"

Some also argue that logic is an abstract, immaterial entity. Whether we call an idea "contrete" or "abstract" they both take place in physical minds. All ideas exist tangibly in human minds. If you have evidence of something that is neither matter nor energy, please tell me at once.

If you do so, promise me that you will share the nobel prize with me, as it will be the most revolutionary discovery in human history.

Think of the situaton thusly: To exist, a thing must have identity. Another word for "identity" is a limit. A limit is not a "law" it is merely a facet of existence itself.

The universe has limits.

The human mind is capable of grasping these limits. We give these limits 'words"

These words become "laws"

But the laws themselves don't float about in the ether! You are confusing our observations of the limits of the universe for "immaterial laws"

The limitations themselves are materialistic - i.e. the nature of matter itself. To exist is to have identity. "

www.candleinthedark.com/logic

Mesoforte said...

Do they consist of matter&energy?

Read above.

So do actual infinites exist or not?

Read above.


And this is a straw man. I never claimed immaterial entities exist because we can't disprove them, i said if immaterial entities exist we shouldn't expect to be able to observe them with our 5 senses.

I'm pretty sure you claimed they exist somewhere above and of course if you would read the last comment, you might realize something about calling anything immaterial.

Are your ideas material? Energy&matter?

Read above comment.

You do not know what my thinking assumes.

So, you can think in terms of non-existence then?

Why not?

Read above comment completely.

We do not know the conceptual framework of the universe. You say it is only energy&matter. I think otherwise. That is what we are discussing.

Yes you do. If you know what matter and energy is, then you know its conceptual framework.

The same biblical God you describe also created the universe. He was before time, space&matter.

If he was before change, then he couldn't have caused the universe.

According to the bible, which you quote, he is both created the universe and appeared to Moses.

That verse contradicts your earlier premises.

I believe both biblical accounts. Therefore i believe in the biblical God.

Then you beleive in a contradiction. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

Aviaa said...

Gosh, I go away for about 24 hours… and… oh my. I need to catch up (prepares self to “hunker down” and read, though she’s not exactly sure what “hunker down” means).

Mesaforte- what I’ve made it through so far, I’ve really enjoyed. Excellent points and very well expressed!


Goosehenry,
Well, since Jesus reportedly did miracles and rose from the dead, in my book he has the authority to teach us about God. I'll take his word for it.

Reportedly. You’re taking other people’s word on something that sounds pretty outlandish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or some such thing.

I wrote: some stuff about invisible couch-friend
You wrote: Ok. Are you for real now or are we still kidding around? Let's start with that.

Entirely hypothetical. However, I have approximately the same amount of faith in invisible couch-friend as I have in your Judeo-Christian god. I could say, observe, etc. all sorts of things about my invisible couch-friend… with or without believing in him. I could claim (with or without believing) that he has declared me his prophet. I could even get my friends to write a book about the ‘miracles’ I performed in the name of invisible couch-friend, all of which would be impossible to verify 2000 years later.

A couple notes: a) my belief (were I to have it) in invisible couch-friend doesn’t compel you to believe in him b) it would be utterly unfair for me to attempt to pass into law the “will” of invisible couch-friend and c) it would be very easy to fabricate a religion around invisible couch-friend that would “fit the bill” as a creator. Doesn’t make him any more real, though.


I wrote: "Like what?"

Like everything is Maya, an illusion, according to the Hindus. Which renders all morality useless. And how can anybody know everything is an illusion if nobody has seen it from the outside? But you cannot step outside since everything is an illusion.


Sounds kind of like your brains in vats. I agree, not very likely. What about Zeus, Allah, Baal, Krishna, or whoever else. Do you claim that all other gods/religions present contradictions and that only yours does not?

I wrote: "RA already answered this one perfectly."

You wrote: Yes, but then atheism is a belief that there is no God, not a lack of belief.

(blinks). What? Why???? You’ll have to give me a bit more of a transition from what he said to what you claim in order for me to open that one up again.

That is called agnosticism.

Answered by MF already. I’ll add: agnosticism, to me, isn’t even part of the a-theism, theism dichotomy.

"Laws of logic and moral law are products of me, other people and the way reality functions."

No. People are selfish and contradict themselves all the time.
Ergo, logic&morality are not descriptions of behaviour.


I (still) didn’t say they were. I said they were products of me and others used to describe the way reality functions. To rephrase a comment you made to MF, misrepresenting what I’m saying over and over again doesn’t make it wrong.

"I don’t need to support my lack of a belief in that extra stuff (like I don’t need to support my lack of belief in a god) unless you prove that this extra stuff is somehow necessary."

I asked if you, by your own criteria, can support your own epistemology?


Well, then: yes, indeed, I can. Was there a particular element of it in question this time around or was it just a general question?

"That’s not what I asked. I asked if you had evidence to support your “extra stuff”, including god and why he in particular must be the way to fill this gap. For the answer to your question, see the comment directly above."

I have reasons to believe that nature is not all there is. Moral laws, rationality seems to be evidence of this. People, in my opinion, seem unique and above the rest of creation.


We still disagree about the moral law/rationality issue as noted by the fact that we are still going in circles about it above, in addition to your going in circles about the same issue with RA and MF.

People being unique in what ways? I’m not arguing that they aren’t… I just need clarification as to what you think constitutes “so unique that there must be a creator.”

On top of that we have the accounts of Jesus ministry.

Hearsay that I have no reason to accept as particularly valid.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Be sure to read all of it."

Sure. I'll shorten it all down somewhat.

"Since saying "God does not exist" does not lead to an internal contradiction, god cannot serve as an axiom."

I don't put forth God as the first axiom.

"1) If your god cannot change logic, and had to make logic precisely as it is (a necessary ramification of god as an axiom) your god has no free will : it is not a personal being, it is a mechanism. You have left Christianity and gone into deism.

2) If logic must be as it is and cannot be changed, then god is inferior to logic, then god is inferior to logic - whether one wants to argue that logic is 'co-equal to god' or "part of his nature" all all of these ad hoc, non biblical claims all sum up to the same problem: that something else is superior to god, and outside of god, and responsible for logic"

God did not create logic. It is a reflection of his logical character. He cannot make the law of non-contradiction false since he cannot contradict Himself.

"Either way, your belief is irrelevant. Whatever God's nature is, it is creator and omnipotent, therefore everything is continually contigent to it. For this reason, no theist can uphold the absolute nature of anything - including logic. If you refuse to accept this, then you are not a theist."

God is absolute and unchanging and the laws of logic reflect that.

"Remember also:
1. Logic laws are not abstract entities. They exist tangibly in human minds.
2. Logic exists and is universal because all existants have a specific identity. Whatever exists, exists in a specific form. Given that, logic develops this fact in a method to prevent contradictions (positing existants with more than one form) from persisting in our cognition."

What, logic develops things? In order to prevent contradictions?

Why should "it" care?

"Logic is a means for evaluating when a truth claim is valid. Something that is "beyond logic" (god) is unknowable by definition, and therefore is beyond discussion."

I do not see how the premises support this conclusion.

"Inference from the natural world can only lead to more of the natural."

This is a blanket statement. Many would disagree.

"Pity the poor theologian who posits that logic is the result of divine creation, making it contingent, while demanding that the atheist explain why logic is necessary!"

That is why i do not claim it is contingent.

We literally have no reason to hold that logical rules are immaterial or transcendent, arguments that attempt to support such a claim suffer from at least five logical fallacies.

"An argument from ignorance fallacy - Neurology cannot completely account for the existence of minds, ergo minds (or some component of the mind) is immaterial.

Correction : An inability to complete account for a phenomena does not indicate that a counter view is automatically correct.

This leads us to fallacy 2:

False dichotomy fallacy: Either materialism can completely account for the mind, or the mind is immaterial

Correction An immateralist cannot simply assume that an incomplete materialist account necessarily leads to immateriality.

Reification fallacy Immaterialists often claim, through ignorance, that materialism implies that ideas must be identical to their representation - i.e. One ought to expect to open up a brain and see the color green, which would account for the idea of green.

Correction: We can refute this easily, through analogy: by the same logic, one would expect to open up a TV set and see tiny actors! Clearly neuroscience provides support for the claim that ideas exist as neurochemical transmissions along neural connections: synapses. To return to the TV analogy, we would expect to see electronics transmitting data sent as electrical impulses.

This leads us to error 4

Category Error It is a category error to expect to see the color green in a brain, when materalists hold that the color green is represented in neurochemical transmission - i.e. neurochemical data which represents the color green. To expect to view a neurochemical transmission as the color "green" is a category error, because we need a brain to experience this data. This error is akin to expecting to see musict, and then announcing that a failure to see music indictes that music must be immaterial, not soundwaves!

This leads us to error 5
Strawman Fallacy The immaterlist position bases itself on an ignorant view of neuroscience. "

www.candleinthedark.com/logic

"addendum: Confusing "abstract" for "non material"

Some also argue that logic is an abstract, immaterial entity. Whether we call an idea "contrete" or "abstract" they both take place in physical minds. All ideas exist tangibly in human minds. If you have evidence of something that is neither matter nor energy, please tell me at once."

Phew. Ok, fine. Since all mental "events" according to the above are "projections" of physical brain events, they must be governed by the laws of physics.

Physical processes are governed by the laws of physics right? But correct thinking must be governed solely by the propositional content of the thoughts.

According to the above, the thoughts must be based solely on physical causation&physical laws and the mental just kind of rides on top of it.

Think of the situaton thusly: To exist, a thing must have identity. Another word for "identity" is a limit. A limit is not a "law" it is merely a facet of existence itself.

"The universe has limits.

The human mind is capable of grasping these limits. We give these limits 'words"

These words become "laws""

Well, could you give an example of this? And how it eventually leads to what we call laws of logic? It is kind of hard to grasp.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Read above."

It implies determinism. Ok, if you agrree to that.

"I'm pretty sure you claimed they exist somewhere above and of course if you would read the last comment, you might realize something about calling anything immaterial."

No, i said there are reasons to believe these entities exist.

"So, you can think in terms of non-existence then?"

No, but i don't have a problem with something existing ontologically before the universe or immaterial entities.

"Yes you do. If you know what matter and energy is, then you know its conceptual framework."

No, we cannot know how the universe operates.

"If he was before change, then he couldn't have caused the universe."

Well. Change must be caused, also.

"Then you beleive in a contradiction. You are the weakest link, goodbye."

Goodbye, then

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

Some comments. The posts are getting ridiculously long and i don't fell like spending all my freetime on this post.

"Reportedly. You’re taking other people’s word on something that sounds pretty outlandish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or some such thing."

I am just giving you a reason for my belief.

"Entirely hypothetical. However, I have approximately the same amount of faith in invisible couch-friend as I have in your Judeo-Christian god. I could say, observe, etc. all sorts of things about my invisible couch-friend… with or without believing in him. I could claim (with or without believing) that he has declared me his prophet. I could even get my friends to write a book about the ‘miracles’ I performed in the name of invisible couch-friend, all of which would be impossible to verify 2000 years later.

A couple notes: a) my belief (were I to have it) in invisible couch-friend doesn’t compel you to believe in him b) it would be utterly unfair for me to attempt to pass into law the “will” of invisible couch-friend and c) it would be very easy to fabricate a religion around invisible couch-friend that would “fit the bill” as a creator. Doesn’t make him any more real, though."

Well, i think Jesus performed his ministry in the way He did in order to avoid these kind of problems.

Ie. His ministry was totally public among both hostile&friendly witnesses and the evidence was there to be checked out.

"Sounds kind of like your brains in vats. I agree, not very likely. What about Zeus, Allah, Baal, Krishna, or whoever else. Do you claim that all other gods/religions present contradictions and that only yours does not?"

I do claim that. For example teh greek pantheistic system were not really about gods, they were all subject to fate in some way. Same for the norse mythology. Moslem theology has its share of problems, i can't recall straight off the bat. The Hindu gods are, as you say, brains in vats;)

"I (still) didn’t say they were. I said they were products of me and others used to describe the way reality functions. To rephrase a comment you made to MF, misrepresenting what I’m saying over and over again doesn’t make it wrong."

You are saying that morals&logic are descriptive, but in reality they are prescriptive, ie. they imply an oughtness about how one should think/act. Nature does not have these properties.

"Well, then: yes, indeed, I can. Was there a particular element of it in question this time around or was it just a general question?"

I mean if you have sensory, physical evidence of the fact that sensory, physical thins are all there is?

"We still disagree about the moral law/rationality issue as noted by the fact that we are still going in circles about it above, in addition to your going in circles about the same issue with RA and MF."

Well, i for one cannot imagine any causal process in nature that contains the property "oughtness"

"People being unique in what ways? I’m not arguing that they aren’t… I just need clarification as to what you think constitutes “so unique that there must be a creator.”"

Well, if we are objectively valuable that value has to come from somewhere other than ourselves, right?

Mesoforte said...

God did not create logic. It is a reflection of his logical character. He cannot make the law of non-contradiction false since he cannot contradict Himself.

So, logic exists before god? And you god contradicts himself. Hmm.... he must not exist then.

We literally have no reason to hold that logical rules are immaterial or transcendent, arguments that attempt to support such a claim suffer from at least five logical fallacies.

"An argument from ignorance fallacy - Neurology cannot completely account for the existence of minds, ergo minds (or some component of the mind) is immaterial.

Correction : An inability to complete account for a phenomena does not indicate that a counter view is automatically correct.

This leads us to fallacy 2:

False dichotomy fallacy: Either materialism can completely account for the mind, or the mind is immaterial

Correction An immateralist cannot simply assume that an incomplete materialist account necessarily leads to immateriality.

Reification fallacy Immaterialists often claim, through ignorance, that materialism implies that ideas must be identical to their representation - i.e. One ought to expect to open up a brain and see the color green, which would account for the idea of green.

Correction: We can refute this easily, through analogy: by the same logic, one would expect to open up a TV set and see tiny actors! Clearly neuroscience provides support for the claim that ideas exist as neurochemical transmissions along neural connections: synapses. To return to the TV analogy, we would expect to see electronics transmitting data sent as electrical impulses.

This leads us to error 4

Category Error It is a category error to expect to see the color green in a brain, when materalists hold that the color green is represented in neurochemical transmission - i.e. neurochemical data which represents the color green. To expect to view a neurochemical transmission as the color "green" is a category error, because we need a brain to experience this data. This error is akin to expecting to see musict, and then announcing that a failure to see music indictes that music must be immaterial, not soundwaves!

This leads us to error 5
Strawman Fallacy The immaterlist position bases itself on an ignorant view of neuroscience. "

www.candleinthedark.com/logic


Well, you didn't respond to this part, so I guess you agree that you commit at least five logical fallacies whenever you say that the laws of logic are immaterial.

Phew. Ok, fine. Since all mental "events" according to the above are "projections" of physical brain events, they must be governed by the laws of physics.

Is there sometihng wrong with that? I don't particularly see anything wrong with the mind being goverened by the laws of physics.

Physical processes are governed by the laws of physics right? But correct thinking must be governed solely by the propositional content of the thoughts.

According to the above, the thoughts must be based solely on physical causation&physical laws and the mental just kind of rides on top of it.

I don't think you know what logic is-

Logic (Greek logos, "word," "speech," "reason") is the science that evaluates valid reasoning within arguments. That's it. Surprised? It's not a set of laws that governs the universe - that's physics. It's not a set of laws that governs human behavior - that's psychology. It's not transcendent or immaterial - that's incoherent. It's a set of rules, created in sentient brains, that tells us when an argument works - when an argument actually supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make.

While some logicians refer to these axioms as the "Three laws of thought", implying that all cognition relies on them, it is important to realize that not all logical systems rely on these axioms, and some logical systems do not rely on axioms at all! (They rely instead of rules or definitions definded within the system.)

It is also important to avoid conflating or confusing the so called "laws of thought" with set of nomological (Physical) laws for the universe. The universe is not 'logical', it merely IS. Do not confuse cosmology for classical logic! Also, don't confuse the laws of clasic logic for psychology: the so called laws of thought are not rules for human behavior, they don't even cover all human thought: in our dreams, we are able to imagine contradictions, like being both the victim and the attacker, or being both young and old at the same time.


www.candleinthedark.com/logic

Logic is composed of the rules that govern arguments.

No, we cannot know how the universe operates.

Wow, you sound like an agnostic know. If we didn't know how the universe (all matter and energy within) operated, our species would have died out a long time ago.)

Well. Change must be caused, also.

To say that a being existed before change means that said being cannot change or be changed. That means he can't act as a cause (which requires change).

Seeing as you admit to beleiving in a contradiction, rendering your beleif to be illogical, you cannot claim that you hold a logical beleif at this point.

Mesoforte said...

"Think of the situaton thusly: To exist, a thing must have identity. Another word for "identity" is a limit. A limit is not a "law" it is merely a facet of existence itself.

"The universe has limits.

The human mind is capable of grasping these limits. We give these limits 'words"

These words become "laws""

Well, could you give an example of this? And how it eventually leads to what we call laws of logic? It is kind of hard to grasp. "


A tree has a limit, it can only be all the things we associate with the stimuli that our eyes recieve from the object. That limit is its idenity (law of idenity). That limit is understood to us as a word. Eventually, said word becomes a law (most people who speak English can agree on what the word tree means.)

I think that's what he means, or he just means that to have limits is to exist.

Mesoforte said...

God did not create logic. It is a reflection of his logical character. He cannot make the law of non-contradiction false since he cannot contradict Himself.

"2) If logic must be as it is and cannot be changed, then god is inferior to logic, then god is inferior to logic - whether one wants to argue that logic is 'co-equal to god' or "part of his nature" all all of these ad hoc, non biblical claims all sum up to the same problem: that something else is superior to god, and outside of god, and responsible for logic"

:p

The first axiom, existence exists... is independent from a need for a beginning or a creation, especially if we properly conclude that existence always was, or that there was never a time when "nothing" existed

No need for a first cause.

www.candleinthedark.com/logic

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
If we didn't know how the universe (all matter and energy within) operated, our species would have died out a long time ago.)
I confess, you've lost me on this 1. Please explain.

Mesoforte said...

A spear. A spear (no matter how primitive) was something our species hunted with. If we didn't know about matter (parts of the universe) (how to fashion a spear), it is very likely that our species would have died out. Matter isn't just some abstract, if we didn't know about matter and how we could fashion two large peices of matter (stick and pointy stone) together, we wouldn't be alive.

Our species has very few other mechanisisms of hunting or defending itself, right.

Mesoforte said...

Mesaforte- what I’ve made it through so far, I’ve really enjoyed. Excellent points and very well expressed!

Mesoforte, but I'll let it slide. ^_~

Thanks for the compliment. It makes staying up until 4 in the morning worth it. ^_^

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Matter isn't just some abstract, if we didn't know about matter and how we could fashion two large peices of matter (stick and pointy stone) together, we wouldn't be alive.
Okay, thanks. That's what I thought you meant.
Just that, I got this flash of a Cro-Magnon man drawing E=Mc2 on his cave wall, or somethin'. Hehehehe.

Mesoforte said...

Just that, I got this flash of a Cro-Magnon man drawing E=Mc2 on his cave wall, or somethin'. Hehehehe.

Wouldn't that be strange. Perhaps atomic weapons were instinctual then. ^_~ (jk)

Aviaa said...

mesoforte,

So sorry mesoforte. (blushes)

goosehenry,

Some comments. The posts are getting ridiculously long and i don't fell like spending all my freetime on this post.

I understand. I’m actually getting a little worn down by it all myself... especially now that it’s weekday posting versus weekend posting.


Some comments from me in respose to your comments:

I am just giving you a reason for my belief.

And I’m just explaining why I think your evidence is extremely weak and why, if you were to expect me to accept evidence for your god, you’d have to come up with something better.

Well, i think Jesus performed his ministry in the way He did in order to avoid these kind of problems.

Ie. His ministry was totally public among both hostile&friendly witnesses and the evidence was there to be checked out.


I suppose I’m not entirely convinced the historical Jesus even existed, based on the relative dearth of writings about him in the years closely surrounding his lifetime. The only people that wrote about him in any depth were his purported supporters, correct? This would indicate to me that he was either a) fabricated or b) not well known, and therefore the specifics of his ministry could have been fabricated. Once again, I think your evidence is very weak.

I do claim that. For example teh greek pantheistic system were not really about gods, they were all subject to fate in some way. Same for the norse mythology. Moslem theology has its share of problems, i can't recall straight off the bat. The Hindu gods are, as you say, brains in vats;)

I’m pretty sure there are at least a few (Allah would be my best bet) who would fit the bill as a creator. However, I’m tired and not going to look it up at the moment. See, aren’t you glad that the burden of proof doesn’t rest on you to disprove all of these other gods? ;) You only have to battle with evidence that I would go search for… and I’m not going to at the moment. Makes like a bit easier when only have to defend what you believe rather than what you don’t believe, eh?

You are saying that morals&logic are descriptive, but in reality they are prescriptive, ie. they imply an oughtness about how one should think/act. Nature does not have these properties.

The rules of logic are descriptive (though you’ll come back and tell me they're not- but if I give you an example, you’ll tell me that they're not anyway, so I’m not going to finger stamina). Morals are a product of human and societal evolution. Which I know you don’t buy either. But just telling me that it isn’t this way won’t get us anywhere. Unless you have something new on this one, I’d vote for dropping it.

I mean if you have sensory, physical evidence of the fact that sensory, physical thins are all there is?

(blinks) Not my burden of proof. And you’re still ignoring my "and the products of" additions. As above, unless you have something new on this one, I’d vote for dropping it.

Well, i for one cannot imagine any causal process in nature that contains the property "oughtness"

(above)

Well, if we are objectively valuable that value has to come from somewhere other than ourselves, right?

What?

Mesoforte said...

I do claim that. For example teh greek pantheistic system were not really about gods, they were all subject to fate in some way.

He cannot make the law of non-contradiction false since he cannot contradict Himself.

You wrote 2:37 PM, August 07, 2006 @ http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20169168&postID=115411491654856941&isPopup=true-

Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, omniscient. Creator of all things.

I seem to recall that you listed all of these when defining your deity a couple of weeks ago.

Seeing as you defined your god as thus-

You defined him as omniscient (he knows everything.) If your deity truly knows everything, he would be bound to the decisions he is going to make, considering that if he didn't he would be contradicting his omniscience (by doing what was different than he was supposed to do.) Necessarily, an omniscient being is bound by fate. This renders your point pointless as your god (like those of the Greeks) is bound by fate.

Of course, these three terms also beggar me to question, "If 'god' is omnipotent, could he create a square circle?" Well, if he created a square circle, he would be illogical (as you claim he is logical) by the Law of Self-Contradiction (and you claim that he cannot contradict himself). If he cannot create a square circle though, then he is not omnipotent.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Necessarily, an omniscient being is bound by fate.
"You would think the better part of omniscience would be knowing when to stop." - Lucifer, Devil in the Gateway

Mesoforte said...

"You would think the better part of omniscience would be knowing when to stop." - Lucifer, Devil in the Gateway

??? That's an old comic RA.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
??? That's an old comic RA.
Wow - 2001. It's been 5 yrs. already?
So it's a comic. I've learned some pretty interesting things from comics. I've learned some interesting things from the boob tube (few & far between). I've learned some things from blogging, from talking to people, or just watching nature take its course.
Life's a kaleidoscope: sometimes the colors pick you, sometimes you pick the colors.

Mesoforte said...

Well, I didn't quite get what it meant. I pretty much have tossed away my brain until tomorrow, (arguing really drains it). My brain's not comprehending what that quote means exactly. Sorry, about that.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Well, I didn't quite get what it meant. I pretty much have tossed away my brain until tomorrow, (arguing really drains it). My brain's not comprehending what that quote means exactly. Sorry, about that.
Hey, get some rest my friend. You've earned it.
It's no big whoop.
It was in response to the 'omniscience bound by fate' comment.
Sometimes I just pull these things outta my head.
Omniscience bound by fate sounds...contradictory.

Mesoforte said...

Well, omniscience entails that one knows all the factors and conclusions involved in decision making (plus a bunch of other things, but let's stick with this). I've always held that the only reason that we have 'free-will' and chance, is because there is no being that understands all of the factors involved. But, if you know all of the factors and you know what the conclusions are, you create this thing called Fate. You have to follow those factors and conclusions if you are bound to fate. So, if you know everything before hand, you are kind of bound to this 'fate', because you can't contradict it and remain omniscient.

Let me try again, because that didn't sound right to me-

Let's say you have a person who knows everything. To know everything entails that you know all the factors and outcomes of any given event. You can call the factors 'fate'.

Like this saying-

"Our meeting was 'Fate.'"

When people say that, they're basically saying that the factors before their meeting led up to the conclusion (meeting each other.)

If you know all the factors and conclusions, you are necessarily bound to them, because disobeying the factors would change the conclusion and disobeying the conclusion would contradict the factors invovled. To be omniscient is to be bound to fate in this idea.

I think the second one gets it better. What do you think?

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"So, logic exists before god? And you god contradicts himself. Hmm.... he must not exist then."

No, i said logic is a reflection of Gods character.

"Well, you didn't respond to this part, so I guess you agree that you commit at least five logical fallacies whenever you say that the laws of logic are immaterial."

I did. I repeat:

Since all mental "events" according to the above are "projections" of physical brain events, they must be governed by the laws of physics.

"Is there sometihng wrong with that? I don't particularly see anything wrong with the mind being goverened by the laws of physics."

The thing is, that in order for logical thinking to occur it has to be governed solely by the propositional content of the thoughts. From your description above we can conclude that thoughts are governed solely by the laws of physics.

My argument is thus

1) For logical thinking to occur, the conclusions must solely be determined by the propositional content of the thoughts
2) According to naturalism, chains of thoughts are determined solely by the laws of physics
C) We know from rational inference that conclusions are determined by the propositional content of thoughts, therefore naturalism is false

"It's a set of rules, created in sentient brains, that tells us when an argument works - when an argument actually supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make."

Alright. But what if our brains contradict each other? We must have objective laws to refer to.

"It is also important to avoid conflating or confusing the so called "laws of thought" with set of nomological (Physical) laws for the universe. The universe is not 'logical', it merely IS."

This is the point i've been trying to make, thank you.

"in our dreams, we are able to imagine contradictions, like being both the victim and the attacker, or being both young and old at the same time."

Yes, thinking can be contradictory indeed as stated in your example. Without objective logical laws, who is to say who is right?

"Logic is composed of the rules that govern arguments."

I agree. Not by the rules that govern the universe, as you agreed to above.

"Wow, you sound like an agnostic know. If we didn't know how the universe (all matter and energy within) operated, our species would have died out a long time ago.)"

How so? As long as our behaviour gets our bodies in the right place at the right time, our beliefs don't matter.

"To say that a being existed before change means that said being cannot change or be changed. That means he can't act as a cause"

To say that something did not cause the first "change" is equally problematic.

In our universe, uncaused effects do not occur. Therefore the 1st cause was not of this universe.

GooseHenry said...

Aviaa

Well, seeing as you posted some questions i will comment som more.

"And I’m just explaining why I think your evidence is extremely weak and why, if you were to expect me to accept evidence for your god, you’d have to come up with something better."

and

"I suppose I’m not entirely convinced the historical Jesus even existed, based on the relative dearth of writings about him in the years closely surrounding his lifetime. The only people that wrote about him in any depth were his purported supporters, correct? This would indicate to me that he was either a) fabricated or b) not well known, and therefore the specifics of his ministry could have been fabricated. Once again, I think your evidence is very weak."

I'd recommend FF Bruces work on the NT for a discussion on this.
However, the original question was why i reject your couch-friend, so here are my reasons for that.

"The rules of logic are descriptive Unless you have something new on this one, I’d vote for dropping it."

Well, let's say

1) ants carry straws to certain place
2) A stack is formed
c) What event should this lead to in order for the causal process to be logical?

"What?"

Well, are we objectively unique or just subjectively unique?

Mesoforte said...

1) For logical thinking to occur, the conclusions must solely be determined by the propositional content of the thoughts
2) According to naturalism, chains of thoughts are determined solely by the laws of physics
C) We know from rational inference that conclusions are determined by the propositional content of thoughts, therefore naturalism is false


#2 is incorrect. My view of naturalism holds that the laws of logic are human creations.

The laws of physics-

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Thinking is not an action in the sense mentioned in this law.

An object will stay in motion until another force acts upon it.

Thinking is not an object in the sense meant here.

Matter can be neither created or destroyed, it can only change.

I've never heard of thinking destroying matter.

How does thinking contradict any of these.

Alright. But what if our brains contradict each other? We must have objective laws to refer to.

Through experimentation in thought and argumentation, we have arrived at the 'Three Laws of Logic.' Seeing as logic is a science, this is a necessity.

This is the point i've been trying to make, thank you.

No, you're point has been that the laws of logic are immaterial. An incoherent statement.

Yes, thinking can be contradictory indeed as stated in your example. Without objective logical laws, who is to say who is right?

The Laws of Logic are objective in the sense that they are a part of science and the result of experimentation and observances in the area of argumentation.

I agree. Not by the rules that govern the universe, as you agreed to above.

I'm pretty sure I said the mind (brain) was governed by it, not thought.

How so? As long as our behaviour gets our bodies in the right place at the right time, our beliefs don't matter.

Again, we couldn't create a spear if we didn't learn how to work matter, a part of the universe. We couldn't communicate if we didn't learn that we could do so, and we are part of the universe.

In our universe, uncaused effects do not occur. Therefore the 1st cause was not of this universe.

The key word there is in our universe, not the universe as a whole. The first axiom of logic, if you would remember correctly is that Existence has always existed. Don't confuse cosmology with logic.

And another little extra tidbit

Or, If you wish to hold that logic is part of god's nature (which is simply circular) then one falls to the fallacy of stealing the concept, as you cannot speak of a 'thing's nature devoid of identity! This argument also suffers from other problems: accepting for the sake of argument that we can assign something beyond nature with a nature, one must then ask: can 'god' "change" 'his' "nature"? If not, then logic is not created by god. If logic is not created by god, then logic is superior to god - prior to god, and whover or whatever is responsible for logic is then "god" - and you're theistic position is refuted. If nothing is responsible, then 'god' no longer serves a purpose.

www.candleinthedark.com/logic

Mesoforte said...

1) For logical thinking to occur, the conclusions must solely be determined by the propositional content of the thoughts
2) According to naturalism, chains of thoughts are determined solely by the laws of physics
C) We know from rational inference that conclusions are determined by the propositional content of thoughts, therefore naturalism is false


Even worse, I think you're confusing the process of thinking with the content of thought. The process of thining (by which synapses occur allowing for thought) is governed by the laws of physics. The content of thought is governed by the human.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
I think the second one gets it better. What do you think?
I think they're both good explanations.
& I think you'd really like Gaiman's The Sandman series.

Mesoforte said...

I'm revising my first statement

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

A synapse is an action, and the opposite reaction is the occurence of thought.

An object will stay in motion until another force acts upon it.

The thought is only possible as long as synapses occur.

Matter can be neither created or destroyed, it can only change.

This process does not destroy matter

Mesoforte said...

I think they're both good explanations.
& I think you'd really like Gaiman's The Sandman series.


Thanks, I sometimes use different definitions than other people for words like 'fate', so they don't always know what I'm talking about. ^_^; Have to remember to define the terms.

Isn't Sandman the predessor to the Lucifer comic?

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"#2 is incorrect. My view of naturalism holds that the laws of logic are human creations."

Mere conventions then? Could they be different if we voted on it?

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Cause and effect in other words. You imply that mental states are physical electrochemical brain states. One brain state causes another. Or are you saying that brain matter does not obey the laws of physics?

"Thinking is not an action in the sense mentioned in this law."

You previously said it is a physical process.

"An object will stay in motion until another force acts upon it.

Thinking is not an object in the sense meant here."

You reduced it to "objects" since they are electrochemical stated that can be reproduced in a test tube, theoretically.

"How does thinking contradict any of these."

Re-read my argument.

"Through experimentation in thought and argumentation, we have arrived at the 'Three Laws of Logic.' Seeing as logic is a science, this is a necessity."

For any argumentation to exist, there has to be thinking that is free from determination from the laws of physics.

"The Laws of Logic are objective in the sense that they are a part of science and the result of experimentation and observances in the area of argumentation."

Science assumes logic. By observing argumentation we could get anything since people contradict each other. Argumentation presupposes logic, it had to be there before argumentation could begin, ergo, we cannot have arrivd at it by observing argumentation.

"Again, we couldn't create a spear if we didn't learn how to work matter, a part of the universe. We couldn't communicate if we didn't learn that we could do so, and we are part of the universe."

Creating spears do not require any credible belief-forming faculties. We could believe that we are playing a tuba and should go and play a song for a wild animal.

As long as behaviour gets our limbs in the right place at the right time, beliefs don't matter.

"The key word there is in our universe, not the universe as a whole. The first axiom of logic, if you would remember correctly is that Existence has always existed. Don't confuse cosmology with logic."

is that the 1st axiom of logic? Existence of what?

And another little extra tidbit

"Or, If you wish to hold that logic is part of god's nature (which is simply circular) then one falls to the fallacy of stealing the concept, as you cannot speak of a 'thing's nature devoid of identity!"

What?

"This argument also suffers from other problems: accepting for the sake of argument that we can assign something beyond nature with a nature, one must then ask: can 'god' "change" 'his' "nature"?"

No

"If not, then logic is not created by god."

True

"If logic is not created by god, then logic is superior to god - prior to god, and whover or whatever is responsible for logic is then "god" - and you're theistic position is refuted."

Reflection of His character

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Even worse, I think you're confusing the process of thinking with the content of thought. The process of thining (by which synapses occur allowing for thought) is governed by the laws of physics. The content of thought is governed by the human."

Ok. So the mind is a separate from the brain then? Make up your mind in this one.

The thoughts thus do not correspond to a neurochemical state in the brain?

Mesoforte said...

Mere conventions then? Could they be different if we voted on it?

Observations are not democratic.

Re-read my argument.

Read the restatement.

For any argumentation to exist, there has to be thinking that is free from determination from the laws of physics.

Read the two comments of revision.

Science assumes logic. By observing argumentation we could get anything since people contradict each other. Argumentation presupposes logic, it had to be there before argumentation could begin, ergo, we cannot have arrivd at it by observing argumentation.

Logic (Greek logos, "word," "speech," "reason") is the science that evaluates valid reasoning within arguments. That's it. Surprised? It's not a set of laws that governs the universe - that's physics. It's not a set of laws that governs human behavior - that's psychology. It's not transcendent or immaterial - that's incoherent. It's a set of rules, created in sentient brains, that tells us when an argument works - when an argument actually supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make.

That is the definition of logic. Deal with it. The laws themselves were discovered in a way. Same way as with the laws of physics.

Creating spears do not require any credible belief-forming faculties. We could believe that we are playing a tuba and should go and play a song for a wild animal.

Well, they didn't understand what a tuba was. You have to learn that you can fashion a stick with a rock on it. You have to learn you can sharpen a rock. You have to learn that the pointy rock can kill animals. You have to learn that animals can be killed. You have to learn that you can throw a spear. You have to learn that you can aim a throw.

As long as behaviour gets our limbs in the right place at the right time, beliefs don't matter.

Beliefs don't govern what is. Knowledge is an observation of what is.

is that the 1st axiom of logic? Existence of what?

That Existence (the totality of the universe) has always existed. Are you completely ignorant of logic?

No

If he can't change his nature, then he is inferior to logic.

True

Then logic is superior to god.

Reflection of His character

Another way to say part of his nature.

"Or, If you wish to hold that logic is part of god's nature (which is simply circular) then one falls to the fallacy of stealing the concept, as you cannot speak of a 'thing's nature devoid of identity!"

Mesoforte said...

Ok. So the mind is a separate from the brain then? Make up your mind in this one.

Did I say they were separate. What is a human governed by? Outside stimuli. Where is information of outside stimuli stored? On the brain. What happens when a synapse occures? You are connected to the information.

The thoughts thus do not correspond to a neurochemical state in the brain?

Neurochemical reactions bring up stored information of stimuli. Kind of like how a TV projects an image using information stored within it.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Read the restatement."

You imply that what we call thinking are only projections directly linked to the physical processes of the brain.

Hence, our thinking is solely determined by the laws of physics.

But then you say the content of thoughts is determined by the human. You contradict yourself at this point.

"Logic (Greek logos, "word," "speech," "reason") is the science that evaluates valid reasoning within arguments. That's it. Surprised? It's not a set of laws that governs the universe - that's physics. It's not a set of laws that governs human behavior - that's psychology. It's not transcendent or immaterial - that's incoherent. It's a set of rules, created in sentient brains, that tells us when an argument works - when an argument actually supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make."

You said that the laws of logic were established by observing effective argumentation. Do you now take that back?

"The laws themselves were discovered in a way."

How? Where?

"Well, they didn't understand what a tuba was. You have to learn that you can fashion a stick with a rock on it. You have to learn you can sharpen a rock. You have to learn that the pointy rock can kill animals. You have to learn that animals can be killed. You have to learn that you can throw a spear. You have to learn that you can aim a throw."

Sure. Though your beliefs do not matter.

"Beliefs don't govern what is. Knowledge is an observation of what is."

Or a rational inference of how stuff ought to be.

"That Existence (the totality of the universe) has always existed. Are you completely ignorant of logic?"

Not completely. Never heard of that axiom though.

"Then logic is superior to god."

Reflection of His character

"Another way to say part of his nature."

No. It is part of my human nature to have several different needs. Food, shelter etc.

My messy appartment is a reflection of my character.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Neurochemical reactions bring up stored information of stimuli. Kind of like how a TV projects an image using information stored within it."

You said humans decide the content of thoughts while the physical determined the processes, or smth. similar. Now you contradict yourself.

Mesoforte said...

The thoughts thus do not correspond to a neurochemical state in the brain?

Let's consider this. What happens when you take lets say crack. It effects the chemicals found in the brain. That effects the synapses (both the strength and the wavelength) and can effect the thoughts occuring.

Mesoforte said...

You imply that what we call thinking are only projections directly linked to the physical processes of the brain.

Its linked, indirectly at least. Is there a problem with it being linked? Is your computer not capable of holding information and taking it out at a later date? Does that effect the information? Are images actually stored into a computer, or is there a code that is later decoded that brings up an image?

Hence, our thinking is solely determined by the laws of physics.

No, my thinking is determined by outside stimuli and the current chemical balances within my brain cavity.

But then you say the content of thoughts is determined by the human. You contradict yourself at this point.

The correct question is to ask "What governes the human?" I use 'human' abstractly at this point.

You said that the laws of logic were established by observing effective argumentation.

Correct, arguments don't presuppose logic. Ask any preschooler why he wants something, or why a certain person is wrong. His arguments aren't neccasarily logical.

How? Where?

Through argumentation.

Sure. Though your beliefs do not matter.

If I don't beleive that a hungry bear will eat me if I happen to stand near it and then choose base upon that beleif to stand by a hungry bear without fear of harm, my beleif in the matter will matter very much.

Or a rational inference of how stuff ought to be.

Ontological doesn't work with knowledge. There is no ought in knowledge. Knowledge is a description of what is.

Not completely. Never heard of that axiom though.

That's because you've immersed yourself in cosmology instead of logic.

No. It is part of my human nature to have several different needs. Food, shelter etc.

My messy appartment is a reflection of my character.


If your apartment is messy, it is by the fact that it is in your nature to be messy. You can change that nature, but it is still part of your nature.

You said humans decide the content of thoughts while the physical determined the processes, or smth. similar. Now you contradict yourself.

Humans decide what they percieve, don't you agree. Have you ever watched a scary movie and closed your eyes and shut your ears when the monster came out. That is a choice in what you percieve. The thought process itself rides on physical processes, not the content of the thought.

Mesoforte said...

You imply that what we call thinking are only projections directly linked to the physical processes of the brain.

Thinking is the thought process. The thought process is linked to physical processes of the brain.

Perhaps I should state all of my premises-

1) The thought process is governed by the laws of physics.
2) The thought content is determined by the outside stimuli that a human percieves.
3) Said content is stored on the brain in a type of 'code' (similiar to computers).
4) The thought process entails the connection of multiple synapses across the entirety of the brain that determine the information in thoughts. (The human determines the amount of information that's there)
5) The thought only lasts as long as the synapses are connected.
6) Chemicals found in crack and other drugs can effect the contents of thoughts by changing the amount of synapses across the mind with the variation of chemicals.
7) Similiar informational content (such as similiar words linked to similiar information) have similiar 'codes'.
8) The access of the information is instinctual based upon the similiarity of outside stimuli.

Thank you neurology. ^_^

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"Its linked, indirectly at least. Is there a problem with it being linked?"

No not a problem. But then you agree that there is something more than the physical to our mind.

"No, my thinking is determined by outside stimuli and the current chemical balances within my brain cavity."

Still, the electrons transmitted from your eyes in turn causes other electrochemical processes. It is locked in a system of physical causation.

What about when you think without using your senses?

"The correct question is to ask "What governes the human?" I use 'human' abstractly at this point."

Then it cannot determine anything.

"Correct, arguments don't presuppose logic. Ask any preschooler why he wants something, or why a certain person is wrong. His arguments aren't neccasarily logical."

Exactly. Arguments often aren't. So how can we derive laws of logic from it? If we are to derive true laws of logic from argumentation, we have to be able to spot logical argumentation.

This argument is question-begging.

"If I don't beleive that a hungry bear will eat me if I happen to stand near it and then choose base upon that beleif to stand by a hungry bear without fear of harm, my beleif in the matter will matter very much."

No, it does not matter as long as your behaviour&instincts get your limbs to perform.

"Knowledge is a description of what is."

Not necessarily. It is often a description of how things ought to be given the premises. We often draw inferences about the unknown.

"Humans decide what they percieve, don't you agree. Have you ever watched a scary movie and closed your eyes and shut your ears when the monster came out. That is a choice in what you percieve. The thought process itself rides on physical processes, not the content of the thought."

We are talking about thought rationality here, and what is needed for reasoning to be reliable.

GooseHenry said...

Meso

"1) The thought process is governed by the laws of physics."

So you agree to this? Not determined by the propositional contents of thoughts?

"2) The thought content is determined by the outside stimuli that a human percieves."

Well, the question is, what causes a chain of thoughts?

"4) The thought process entails the connection of multiple synapses across the entirety of the brain that determine the information in thoughts. (The human determines the amount of information that's there)"

Determined by the laws of physics.

"6) Chemicals found in crack and other drugs can effect the contents of thoughts by changing the amount of synapses across the mind with the variation of chemicals."

i agree there is a link.

"7) Similiar informational content (such as similiar words linked to similiar information) have similiar 'codes'."

Link between thougth and electrochemical state? I agree to that.

Mesoforte said...

No not a problem. But then you agree that there is something more than the physical to our mind.

Nope.

Still, the electrons transmitted from your eyes in turn causes other electrochemical processes. It is locked in a system of physical causation.

I don't see anything wrong with physical causation.

What about when you think without using your senses?

You think conciously about using your sense? I don't. Its unconcious for me.

Then it cannot determine anything.

Restated my premise after that. Try again. ^_~

Exactly. Arguments often aren't. So how can we derive laws of logic from it? If we are to derive true laws of logic from argumentation, we have to be able to spot logical argumentation.

Experimentation.

This argument is question-begging.

If you think my argument is question-begging, then your argument is question-begging.

No, it does not matter as long as your behaviour&instincts get your limbs to perform.

What is behavior based on? Outside stimuli. What makes instincts possible? Outside stimuli.

Not necessarily. It is often a description of how things ought to be given the premises. We often draw inferences about the unknown.

Nah.

We are talking about thought rationality here, and what is needed for reasoning to be reliable.

What is needed for reasoning to be reliable? That is the question of the science of logic.

Mesoforte said...

So you agree to this? Not determined by the propositional contents of thoughts?

The process by which thought happens. The connection of synapses.

Well, the question is, what causes a chain of thoughts?

A connection of synapses across similiar chemicals.

Determined by the laws of physics.

Determined by the types of 'codes' of information and the amount of synapses running across the brain. More determined by causality than physics. There are a certain amount of factors involved and the sum of all of those factors lead to the information within and the nature of a thought.

Mesoforte said...

Well, the question is, what causes a chain of thoughts?

A connection of synapses across similiar chemicals.

Let me illustrate a way this would work.

Bob's thinking of the color 'red.' As he's thinking of the color 'red', a synapse links to an image of his car because the car is 'red'. From that, a synapse links to racing as his favorite racer drives a 'red' car. After that, he links to the 'red' flag used in racing and from those two terms, he links to the red stripes of the US's flag that is flown at races.

Because of the chemical similiarities of the information stored on his mind from all of those terms, he links the terms together within his thought content.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"Nope."

Ok, then there is not just a link, as you said, there is total correlation.

"I don't see anything wrong with physical causation."

Ok. Then you agree that thoughts cannot cause other thoughts simply in virtue of their propositional content?

"You think conciously about using your sense? I don't. Its unconcious for me."

Sorry, bad formulation. I mean not thinking about what you see.

"Experimentation."

I asked how we can spot logic in argumentation if logic is not presupposed?

To say that we can derive logic from observing which arguments are logical or not, presupposes a knowledge of logic. Which is why it is question begging.

"What is behavior based on? Outside stimuli. What makes instincts possible? Outside stimuli."

Yes. Cause and effect. No need for true beliefs.

"Nah."

i do anyway. Many scientific theories you hold dear are about the unknown and assume that the laws of logic are true.

"What is needed for reasoning to be reliable? That is the question of the science of logic."

Needed, among other things:

1) Laws of logic exist
2) That these can be instanced in and affect human minds
3) That thoughts can cause other thoughts in virtue of propositional content only
4) Human minds have the capacity to be "about" things.

Mesoforte said...

Ok, then there is not just a link, as you said, there is total correlation.

You're forgetting that I consider energy physical.

Ok. Then you agree that thoughts cannot cause other thoughts simply in virtue of their propositional content?

Up above, I illustrate how a thought can be linked.

Sorry, bad formulation. I mean not thinking about what you see.

Do you think about what you see? I merely see. Then my brain works with the information stored on it.

I asked how we can spot logic in argumentation if logic is not presupposed?

You don't spot it. Humans create it out of a necessity to have sound reasoning with one another. The process to determine that reasoning is the long road of experimentation. The Three Laws of Logic are the culmination of many humans working together arguing with each other. It's a set of rules, created in sentient brains, that tells us when an argument works - when an argument actually supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make. Basically, they were made because people were tired of not being able to win arguments. ^_~

To say that we can derive logic from observing which arguments are logical or not, presupposes a knowledge of logic. Which is why it is question begging.

Logic isn't a derivitive, its a creation. I know I'm being vague, but I'm still working in this area. I've only done five years worth of research so far.

Yes. Cause and effect. No need for true beliefs.

Yes there is, because humans want to win.

i do anyway. Many scientific theories you hold dear are about the unknown and assume that the laws of logic are true.

Many of the scientific theories that you claim I hold dear also made computers, television, books, the internet, and other cool things possible.

Needed, among other things:

1) Laws of logic exist
2) That these can be instanced in and affect human minds
3) That thoughts can cause other thoughts in virtue of propositional content only
4) Human minds have the capacity to be "about" things.


The Laws of Logic do exist, as chemical information etched onto our minds created by our experimentiaton in arguments and our insatiable appetite for being able to win.

Well, the wind doesn't exist perse, but it effects physical things. (The wind is just the movement of air molecules. The wind isn't something, it just a description of movement.)

Is the human mind "about" anything? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a cosmological statement. Like I said, I'm still doing research.

Mesoforte said...

You really need to research the history of logic- ie its foundations-

Aristotlian Logic
What is now known as classical or traditional logic was first formulated by Aristotle, who developed rules for correct deductive syllogistic reasoning. If you don't know what "deductive syllogist ic reasoning" is, fear not - since deductive syllogisms are still the best way to structure an argument, I go into this in much more depth in later sections. We will cover both Categorical Syllogistic logic and other forms of Syllogistic logic.

Modern Logic
In the 19th century, the British mathematicians George Boole and Morgan opened a new field of logic, now known as symbolic or modern logic, which was further developed by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in Principia Mathematica (1913). Boole realized that Aristotle's classical approach to logic contained many unjustified presuppositions that led to clear errors. He gave us the Modern Square of Opposition as a correction. Russell and Whitehead realized that Aristotle's original forms did not allow for expression of all types of possible arguments, so the logical system of Russell and Whitehead covers a far greater range of possible arguments than those that can be cast into syllogistic form. It introduces symbols for complete sentences and for the conjunctions that connect them, such as "or," "and," and "If . . . then. . . ." It has different symbols for the logical subject and the logical predicate of a sentence; and it has symbols for classes, for members of classes, and for the relationships of class membership and class inclusion. It also differs from classical logic in its assumptions about the existence of the things referred to in universal statements. Modern logic, unlike classical logic, does not assume that an entity in a premise actually exists, so the statement "All A's are B's" in classical logic is rendered in modern logic to mean, "If anything is an A, then it is a B." We will cover Symbolic or Propositional logic on this site as well. We'll also cover Frege's Quantification theory and Predicate Logic which allows us to restore much of the Traditional Square of Opposition.

Both classical logic and modern logic are systems of deductive logic - which is defined further in a later section. The most notable contribution to inductive logic is that of the British philosopher John Stuart Mill, who in his System of Logic (1843) formulated the methods of proof that he believed to characterize empirical science. This inquiry has developed in the 20th century into the field known as philosophy of science. Closely related is the branch of mathematics known as probability theory


www.candleinthedark.com/logic

Inductive arguments are not like mathematical equations at all, they are akin to predictions - i.e. they are probable claims. They don't work with abstract entities like categories or definitions, they work with empirical claims from the physical world outside of our imaginations. The "real world" outside of our imaginations does not give us a set of abstract categories, it gives us a set of imprecise entities that exist along an imprecise continuum. For this reason, inductive arguments do not posses the certainty of deductive arguments. All inductive arguments are uncertain and open to questioning.

It was the great thinker Galileo who recognized the limitations of Aristotle's categorical paradigm - we can create abstract categories like squares, and set up deductive arguments that speak about equivalenceis between such categories, but categories have no real world correlate - we live in a changing world of impreciseness, where everything falls somewhere along a continuum. This is not to say that deduction has no use, after all, geometry also deals with categories like circles and squares, and is quite useful. It is only to say that while deductive arguments give us 'certain' conclusions, we cannot apply these certain conclusions to the real world without error.

I work mainly with inductive logic myself as it the only one that really gets anything done, but deductive arguments are good for showing contradicitons in premises and definitions.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

Up above, I illustrate how a thought can be linked.

Meso, all the causation still happens on the physical level however you want to express it (according to your worldview). On this level the laws of physics must apply. If not, then please explain how. On this view, the contents of the thoughts (which are projections of the physical causation) do not determine anything.

"Do you think about what you see? I merely see. Then my brain works with the information stored on it."

Sometimes, sometimes not.

"You don't spot it. Humans create it out of a necessity to have sound reasoning with one another."

Now you contradict yourself. Earlier you said they were discovered, like physical laws.

"The process to determine that reasoning is the long road of experimentation. The Three Laws of Logic are the culmination of many humans working together arguing with each other. It's a set of rules, created in sentient brains, that tells us when an argument works - when an argument actually supports the conclusion the arguer wants to make. Basically, they were made because people were tired of not being able to win arguments."

Now you really go off the deep end. Laws of logic were created to determine when somebody is the winner of an argument?

"Logic isn't a derivitive, its a creation. I know I'm being vague, but I'm still working in this area."

Well, you are honest. Respect.

"I've only done five years worth of research so far."

Only five years? That is a lot.

"Many of the scientific theories that you claim I hold dear also made computers, television, books, the internet, and other cool things possible."

True. Science certaninly has its benefits.

Listen Meso, i think i will let you have the last word here.

Thanks, see you

Mesoforte said...

Meso, all the causation still happens on the physical level however you want to express it (according to your worldview). On this level the laws of physics must apply. If not, then please explain how. On this view, the contents of the thoughts (which are projections of the physical causation) do not determine anything.

There are a certain amount of factors involved and the sum of all of those factors lead to the information within and the nature of a thought.

I don't see what's wrong with it being linked physically. It not like I posit 'free-will' or anything.

Sometimes, sometimes not.

You work unconsciously to integrate the information in your mind. You then work with the information stored on your mind. Your eyes don't store anything, they just recieve.

Now you contradict yourself. Earlier you said they were discovered, like physical laws.

My argument evolved, as it does a lot. I never hold any of my claims to be certain. Especially since I argue inductively most of the time.

Now you really go off the deep end. Laws of logic were created to determine when somebody is the winner of an argument?

Well, if you want to say it rudely. Aristotle was the first person to develop the rules of deductive logic. Its not something inherent in people, it took a lot of time to come up with.

Only five years? That is a lot.

That's just a drop in the well. I've pretty much dedicated my life to researching everything I can.

Thanks, see you

Yeah, yeah. Just don't keep me up until 5 am anymore. Texas and Finland are in far different time zones