Jim,
Back to me
I've been busy, but eager to return to this discussion. I hope my window of opportunity hasn't shut.
Me too but I found this response eventually. If I sometimes miss one I’ll just happily assume I won and move on…lol
Because we are discussing matters that are ultimate in nature. In a debate between worldviews, we want to ascertain whose worldview is not correct and whose is correct, if either. To do that we must question, not the evidence itself because we will disagree based on our competing worldviews, but rather the underlying presuppositions that govern our assessment of evidence. You have admitted to putting your faith in logic and reason. I want to know if you can justify your reliance upon them, or if you blindly assume them.
You seem to misunderstand my worldview (which is similar I guess to most atheist) so I will try and simplify it for you. Bear with it please its not too long.
My Worldview.
1. The natural universe always was.. admittedly this is very similar to God always was but it cuts out an extra (unnecessary)step of God always was and then created a Universe that “seems” to operate on Natural forces.
2. Conditions in the Universe allowed for the formation of life. Condition were not really conducive but the formation of life was a possibility and given time and millions of chemical reactions and iterations it actually became likely and hence it formed.
3. Simple life could be extinguished as simply as any other material thing so that life that survived its natural creation would be tough (non tough life would have faded).. so evolution would begin happening at once. Failed life forms never took root.
4. Once Evolution took hold life would naturally keep pushing up more adaptable better suited forms. Eventually the best adaptation “Intelligence” was bound to come to the fore in evolution somewhere in the Universe.
5. The most successful form of intelligence would be one that can think abstractly so this again is a likely outcome from natural evolution.
6. As soon as an intelligent creature becomes self aware it has what we call “consciousness”. All this so far has come about Naturally and requires no need to justify itself happening. It happened because it did.
7. All other terms and philosophies like truth, logic, God are man made to explain the world in which he finds himself.
Now I wonder where in that wordview do you find I am failing to account for logic, reason etc and where they NEED to be justified ?
These are human creations of our advanced intelligence. Nothing more nothing less. They need no more justification than the curly tail on the back of a pig ! While they are eminently more important and useful they still came about as a natural accident, although one (as I explained above) that had a good chance of eventually happening.
Christ is eternal. By using logic and reason, one is benefitting from the realities of the Christian (Christ-created) world and its worldview.
But can’t you see that logic and reason evolved from my worldview in yours they are mysterious created. I think mine more logically explains how they came about !
That's the second time you've said this, and I would say that it is you who have the problem with naively (or disingenuously) de-mystifying it. You might get away with these specious claims about how everything has been figured out, but it's simply not true. Cognitive scientists and theorists continual to wrestle with this. Now, I'm not saying they couldn't all suddenly agree tomorrow and then the whole atheist world would be elated. But to suggest that this is a done deal is either dishonest or naive.
Why would I be disingenuous about de-mystifying intelligence. To me it is something just as likely to from naturally as anything else. If anything it sounds like you are being disingenuous to mystify intelligence for the reason of clutching at something (for lack of any real evidence) that would point to a creator being necessary.
How does logic dictate that? Are you a materialist, Aussie? Do you believe in the existence of anything non-material? From what you write below, it seems you are a materialist.
Well if you posted my entire quote I answer the question in it. But I will sate it again.. If the answer to EVERYTHING so far has been a NATURAL one logic would dictate that the answers to everything unknown will also be NATURAL..
That is how our man made logic works. If it is wrong and God has a different set of rules then he sure wired us wrong !
But would you say that logic exists?
According to the way we think yes it does. We have evolved a way of thinking if this happens this is then likely. It is gleaned from experience and what we are taught. If I have a sequence of numbers that go 1,2,3.. it is logical that the next number would be 4. If I was a primitive caveman I would not have a clue what the next number would be but if I was shown how to count I would know.
How do orderly invariant universal laws spring out of chaos?
I could use some of your own rhetoric here and say how do you KNOW they are orderly and universal. But as I think that is a pointless way to argue I will avoid it. The reason we have an orderly Universe is obvious to an atheist. The disorderly ones destroyed themselves or are no conducive to the formation of intelligent life. You get the universe you deserve.. In other words the universe we see is the only one we can see because we are formed from it.. to use it will always seem orderly.. to those in the Bizzarro Universe it would look a mess !
Why would chaos not last? Is order some kind of natural imperative?
Chaos may last but not in an orderly universe that formed orderly creatures like us. So we will never see it last.
You didn't answer the question. By what method have you determined the reliability of logic, reason, likelihood, independent corroboration of scientific study? What meta-method establishes the veracity of these methods?
I did answer the question but maybe I am not eloquent enough for you to understand the answer.
We have to just assume our facilities are functioning properly or we might as well be 2 lunatics in an asylum. Otherwise you can go of in a million Matrix situations (do you get that analogy) and argument becomes pointless.
Jim previously wrote: As I indicated above, the tools I use to assess truth claims come from God Himself. Given God's existence, I have assurance that my faculties are generally reliable and that my assessments actually comport with reality. Where does your assurance come from, given your Godless view, materialist view?
Your tools came from a natural evolution of intelligence. You have created a God to explain the existence of these tools. I KNOW your tools are reliable as I know they are very similar to mine. My assurance to their reliability is again something I can only reiterate stems from assumption that we are not in a Matrix world !
We just accept it? But that's not a justification. And in a discussion between competing worldviews, that's not a sufficient answer.
I think my earlier worldview definition explains my “accepting” it cover this. Because I think the Universe (and our subsequent evolution from it) just happened and you think a God just happened and he then set up a Naturalistic Universe what is the difference in acceptance. None in our world views. There is a lot in our assumptions though.. you are adding in a whole layer of complexity.
You just admitted to not only having faith, but a blind faith, in your own sanity and ability to reason in accordance with actual reality.
Sorry Jim but your point here is getting annoying. If we don’t have faith in our own ability to reason you are just back to the Matrix again. You cannot equate us having faith in our ability to reason and faith in a supernatural deity. One MUST be assumed or we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I having have given you CLEAR explanation for our existence without the assumption of a God.
Do you recognize that you then deliberately preclude even the possibility that there is more than the so-called natural in the universe? For someone who claims to be a freethinker, that seems a bit prejudiced, doesn't it?
I probably wasn’t accurate there. I don’t have faith in a Natural answer.. that would mean I would be shattered if the answer was not a natural one. I wouldn’t be.. I would be very surprised. I am open to there being a God, as when you get to the notion of infinity it probably gets easier to imagine some controlling intelligence.. if their was though he would not be anything like we poor humans have invented. The VERY manlike Gods of the human pantheon are vindictive small minded and frankly if one of them is the real God of the Universe we are in trouble.
Don’t you often think that the “real” god may be very disappointed in your arrogance for thrusting up these pathetic craven images and so so human gods before him ?
By limiting yourself to physical evidence, you are blindly precluding the possibility of any super-natural, or transcending so-called nature. You have committed the very thing you condemn, and that by stipulating a limit which you cannot justify.
No I don’t limit myself to physical evidence. What I do say is current physical evidence = NO God.. current physical evidence = no supernatural occurrences.. extrapolation.. God likely does not exist and supernatural occurrences likely do not happen. I may be wrong.. of course but at least I am coming up with a logical conclusion from available data.
That's exactly what you are doing by limiting what you will accept as evidence and blindly believing that only what is material is real. You believe that materialism is true and this therefore justifies everything else you believe. But you haven't given a cogent justification for why you limit reality to what is material, let alone your blind acceptance of immaterial laws such as logic.
Well if we don’t “blindly” believe what is material to be real we just head back to the Matrix again.. can we leave it out from now on ? I don’t blindly accept logic. I believe it is something humans have devised from their evolved intelligence to explain the world.
Jim previously wrote: Are you then saying that logical laws are contingent and not universal? On your view, was modus ponens true before humans existed to think about it?
Oxygen existed before we called it oxygen too .. natural things don’t have to be mystified.
You've just violated your own tenets. You believe in the existence of immaterial universal and invariant laws, but you cannot justify your reliance upon them. Then you stipulate that only physical evidence is acceptable and only the material is real, but that somehow doesn't apply to the immaterial laws of logic or to the scientific method? Isn't that hypocritical?
That’s a long winded and confusing paragraph. I believe that some natural laws exist that came about from a natural orderly universe. I can justify my reliance on them as observation and human teaching and experience have shown them to work. Physical evidence is ALL we have.. for what we don’t have evidence for we must use our non-physical abilities to extrapolate. The physical and non physical abilities all came about naturally. No hypocrisy there ???
What determines what is "aberrant behaviour"? The majority?
Generally.. but in a Natural sense it is whatever is not conducive to survival. Man of course with his great intelligence has expanded this into many other areas that are merely considered unsocial.
There goes your blind faith again. You blindly assume this, with no means of proving or justifying it.
No I can only say it again .. if we don’t assume our intelligence is capable of having this discussion why are we bothering.-
Your circuituous argument doesn't stem from opinion?
An opinion that outside of a Matrix world is fact. We either have intelligence or we don’t. To argue that my intelligence allows me to make certain judgment is completely different from saying what is written in this book is right because it says it is.
I'm glad you mentioned this so we can disabuse you of it for future reference. It is pointless to try to argue infinite regresses where God is concerned if indeed the existence of the God of the Bible is true. You might view it as some point of logic, but it is certainly, by no means, a logical imperative.
Neatly trying to remove the most annoying retort of the atheist. No matter how good an argument you give for God the argument will always be “well who made God?” You cannot brush it aside as even your own argument for consciousness having to be created implies that either your God does not have consciousness or he was also created.
On your view, why does it matter? If morality is not absolute, then what justified complaint can you have?
Theists ALWAYS have a problem with atheistic morals. I wonder that they think so poorly of themselves that they feel their morals had to be handed to them. Humans have natural empathy. When we became self aware we also became aware that other feel the same pain we do.. if it is bad for you it is bad for others.. hence natural morals.
For the record, He commands worship, but He doesn't need it. In the Creator-creature relationship, worship is necessary for the well-being of the creature, namely man. It is not merely that God demands (He does, and justifiably so), but it is also what man was created to do, and man is only fulfilled and in proper relation to reality when properly ascribes worth to God.
Then why don’t the Bible texts say.. “You should worship me it will be good for you” ? It seem petty even then to create a creature that only thrives if it worships its creator. I wouldn’t do that !
Aussie, you have yet to cogently justify what you call "real evidence," let alone lobbing a complaint against God on the basis of some willy-nilly blindly assumed criterion that you so conveniently stipulate.
You are right.. I should have said if the Gods created by man are real they seem horrifying to a human. I sure HOPE they aren’t.
More specifically, the Bible calls you a fool for using logic AND blindly assuming that these immaterial universal and invariant logical laws just sprung up out of chaos and the void into existence.
Instead of thinking that a Supernatural being sprang up from chaos and the void into existence.. lets just cut out a layer of complexity.
Do you forget that you admitted to "accepting" them without justification?
Accepting them or refusing to argue about Matrix style worlds.. I said they NEED no justification.. they just happened.. like your God.
He has given you more than enough, yet you still reject it. That is why the Bible calls you a fool. You blindly assume that the material universe disallows the existence of immaterial entities, yet you claim that logical laws (immaterial entities) are you standard for determining what is true and what is false. It's irrational, Aussie.
Sorry Jim but has given me nothing.. you either for that matter. I don’t “blindly” assume anything. I assume that there are no immaterial entities as it is a logical progression from only Natural explanation have EVER been found. “Logical Laws” are not immaterial entities they are evolved processes used by man. That IS rational !
Correction: God is not a creature. He is the eternal Creator.
Maybe I should use the word “entity” although creature does make more sense. By any argument I know (or even ones you have used) if a God exists it si just as likely he needs a creator as anything else.
You have no trouble assuming that the immaterial laws of logic have always existed and presume to use them to ascertain reality. But you refuse to accept God, who is back of those very things you blindly assume and employ, and why? Why do you blindly accept one (the invariance and eternality of logical laws) yet you flatly reject the other (the existence of God)? Is it just because it is one additional step? It's a step that is rational. Without that "additional step" you have an incoherent, inconsistent, and self-refuting worldview. By taking the additional step, everything makes perfect sense.
Logical laws in an ordered universe make sense. I cannot see how you cannot realise this. Perhaps a Universe of chaos exist where illogical laws apply.. we will never see it as we are a product of THIS universe. While I actually agree your worldview is not incoherent and inconsistent I cannot see how you fail to see my is also… go back to my original statement about my worldview and show me where it is either.
Not at all. It is a rational explanation that exclusively unifies my experience with reality. It grounds my assumptions and validates everything I see, sense, think and experience. On your view, you must blindly and irrationally try to make sense of conflicting standards that you cannot justify and makes your worldview irrational.
It is an irrational explanation as I have shown you a world view where the invention of a God is totally unnecessary. Matrix worlds aside I am not a gibbering idiot in spite of the fact that my worldview must drive me mad according to you.
When Jesus was on earth, performing miracles, doing the impossible, did more people believe in Him? No. Because when you put it in people's faces, the way you're demanding, people do not believe -- they resent.
No that is a cop out… YOU KNOW if God appeared to everyone today even skeptic like me would say well yeah.. I thought I was a dream .. but everyone.. same dream.. it must be real. It your excuse to explain why your God does NOTHING to reveal himself today.
Jesus said that even if a man were to rise from the dead, people would still not believe. It's not for a lack of evidence.
Again.. lets put God to the test in a modern world where these “miracles” could be verified. Aren’t just in the least bit curious or sceptical that ALL miracles and supernatural events where in the unverifiable past ?
It's a hatred of God and of His demands upon people's lives. He calls you to account, Aussie, and you're found wanting. He has given sufficient evidence, and while you suppress it and deny it today, you will someday be reminded why you have no excuse, no defense, no alibli before God.
I have no hatred of God. That would be saying I hate the Easter Bunny. I am still not sure wether mans fantasies about Gods have been good or bad. It may be a great survival trick of man to invent gods and maintain some archaic fear that they will face some judgement day.
He ahs not given sufficient evidence to me or you. If he had you could produce it. Doesn’t it EVER surprise you that you cannot produce ONE piece of physical evidence for you God ? You would NEVER accept anything else on so little evidence as you do for god.
Was your last bit the standard Theist threat when argument is getting desperate… oohh .. you will suffer at judgement day.. I thought you were beyond that one.. I would say I will have the last laugh on that one but.. I know I won’t you will be too dead to know you were wrong.
Until you can justify your criteria and cogently define and account for what you call "normal evidence," you should probably stop using the term. Just say instead: "[God provides] no evidence that meet my blindly assumed criteria."
I can only reiterate that we can ONLY accept evidence that our poor little brains can cope with. You can come up with a million esoteric, Immaterial, mystical evidences .. but would YOU accept any of them for ..say… the existence of Aliens in UFO’s ?
If this were a formal debate, Aussie, I would declare you the loser based on your previous paragraph. You've basically admitted that coherence and intelligibility are not important to your worldview, and this is exactly the point I've been trying to make.
Well I would declare you the loser to.. nyah nayh nyah.. oddly enough we don’t get to decide that and strangely enough we would have diametrically opposed scores. I never admitted that coherence and intelligibility are unimportant (where did you get that from). I said the reason they exist does not matter. Why do we need a reason for their existence. Your worldview does need a reason as it need something to justify a God fantasy.. mine doesn’t.
You admit to embracing a worldview in which not everything makes sense and somehow that's OK for you. You are confronted every day with God's existence, and secondarily by this very discussion, and you reject that which would make all of your experience, your logic, your perceptions, and your understanding of reality itself make sense. Again, this is why the Bible calls you a fool. And again, I'm not name-calling. You seem to be a nice guy, and I'm willing to bet we could be good friends given the right circumstances. But this is how the Bible characterizes you.
I reject adding another illogical layer to a worldview that already makes sense of all the above. The Bible calls this foolish as the author of it know that many will one day question it. They know this as they made up the stuff in it. Insulting those that are thinking for themselves is a clear way to keep fools in the flock.. it also shows that they are losing the argument.
Since you mentioned several times your opinion that Christianity derives from pagan religions, I should point out to you that (a) if the Bible is true, then (b) true religion has been around longer than pagan religion, and (c) mankind would have perverted and distorted true religious practices and beliefs and thereby developed what became pagan religions and practices. Thus, logically, (d) any similarities between pagan religions and true religion should be expected, and (e) it is therefore merely your erroneous assumption based on your unjustified worldview that pagan religion predates true religion.
That is true and a very good point. It could be easily argued the other way round to though. Maybe the pagans had it right and you Christians have it wrong.
Au contraire, as demonstrated above. On your view, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense. Of course, you know that just doesn't satisfy and flies in the face of everything we experience in reality.
Once and for all let us stop saying I don’t think laws make sense and I don’t care of they make sense. That is totally different to no caring why they exist.
Sure you could. I've said this very thing myself in debates with people like yourself. How would you know otherwise? How would you go about testing it? Could you? How?
This shows that you CLEARLY miss my point about matrix situations. If the above situation are REAL it is pointless to argue about anything. For the sake of a coherent argument we have to assume that the above and other matrix style worlds are not real.
And there's the bottom line on your view. It's ok to blindly accept logic and science as being valid methods of inquiry, even though you can neither test them nor validate them. Yet, when presented with God and His existence and attributes, you reject Him because you claim you can neither test Him nor validate Him. It's irrational to accept former and reject the Latter, especially when the existence and attributes of the Latter solves the problem of the former.
Irrational to you as you are a theist. You have some NEED to add in a layer of complexity.
For future discussion can we accept that it is not a Matrix World ? na dargue as though we really exist ?
Why bother? Because we're created to have knowledge. To investigate and learn about our environments and our world. We're designed to be creative, to solve problems, to better our lives and that of those around us. This is how God is worshipped when He is acknowledged as the Creator of all this. I know many scientists who are Christians. When they do their work in the field, in their laboratories, in the libraries, they are worshipping God.
If God existed further examination of anything is pointless. Its one of the fundamental reasons that I reject the idea of a God. The pointlessness of creating a creature and feel worshipped by its scrabble to understand your nature is so ironic.
Jim previously wrote: You didn't answer my request, Aussie. Please, if you can, prove to me that you haven't, in head-in-sand fashion, blindly accepted the uniformity of the laws of logic, the requirments and reliability of the scientific method, and the veracity of your senses and reason.
I don’t think I can prove it to you.. although you do accept the existence of a supernatural creature with no proof.. but I can tell you. I don’t blindly accept anything. I observe, I see I am taught and I can study the experience and knowledge of humans for centuries. These have all developed my own sense of logic and understanding.. which (sigh.. do I have to say this each time .. Matrix worlds aside) can be assumed to function.
That's not the case. It's not a level field because you come to the table using tools which you cannot justify, espousing a worldview does not cohere and does not align with reality. I use the tools justifiably, because my Creator is back of them, and my worldview coheres and aligns with reality.
You cannot get your mind around the fact that our tools evolved. In much the same fashion as a Tigers claws did. The tools need the same justification as the tigers claws. My worldview is eminently coherent.. otherwise why would I keep it. I understand the coherence of your.. I can imagine a world with a creator.. it is a bit myopic of your to not be able to imagine a coherent world without one.
Without God, logic and science could not exist.
Logic and science are inventions of man just like God.
On my worldview, the differences between Black and White make sense. On yours, you must merely blindly accept the tools by which you evaluate those differences, and so, as you said above, why must it make sense at all? Why not say black is white? On your worldview, as you admit above, it really doesn't have to make sense. It's irrational, Aussie.
Like you blindly accept a God.. you are just going one extra layer… don’t you get that yet ? My world of Natural order is far more rational than your of supernatural deities.
