ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...

[paleo-Reformed]

Aussie I bet Flash could post another item on this thread.. your God can’t.

Because God chooses not to doesn't mean he can't. And even if he did, how would you verify it?

...the Christian worldview...is terribly inferior to an atheist materialist worldview that allows on eht freedom to abandon myth and superstitious nonsense.

Ha. If anything, materialistic atheism is about myth and superstitions, because in its exclusion of God, something has to fill the void, and it ends up grasping at irrational cosmologies and magic parading around as science.

 

[Hilston]

Wheel axle discussion ...

Wheel axle discussion ...

Hi Aussie,

Thanks for writing back on this.

Jim wrote: But now mankind finds himself in a debate over the nature of existence, human experience and induction. One of the disputants brings into the debate the concept of the newly-discovered wheel-axle machine, and how its discovery speaks to the existence of transcendent laws (universals) that apply repeatedly in their contingent experience (particulars). They then press the question of whether or not certain worldviews can sufficiently account for the consistent usefulness of the wheel. In order to do so, it is challenged that he must be able to adequately and cogently provide for the preconditions of the physics that explain how the wheel-axle machine works, and be able to justify the expectation that the wheel will continue to function in the future as it has in the past.

Aussie writes:

The only logical answer to why the wheel will work again is because it did every other time we tried it and we know the physics behind it.

Did you miss this part?: "They then press the question of whether or not certain worldviews can sufficiently account for the consistent usefulness of the wheel. In order to do so, it is challenged that he must be able to adequately and cogently provide for the preconditions of the physics that explain how the wheel-axle machine works, and be able to justify the expectation that the wheel will continue to function in the future as it has in the past." Without this accounting, you are left to operate by faith that it will work again, that the laws of physics won't change, that the inherent properties of matter won't negate themselves. You have no certainty; only ultimate skepticism on your worldview. Are you familiar with Hume's indictment against induction?


Aussie writes:

But you want to delve into the philosophical WHY !

How about just a basic non-philosophical "why"?

Aussie writes:

I argue that humans do not question your sort of WHY unless they are LOOKING for a purpose.

Your argument is false. When my car begins to leak engine coolant and I ask "Why is this happening?", I'm not looking for "purpose." I'm looking for causality.

Aussie writes:

A purpose immediately implies an intelligent overseer. So in asking your question you are already assuming a God !

This is a false assumption. You already know that I presuppose God's existence, just as you presuppose His non-existence. But to say that I'm imposing "purpose" upon your worldview is exactly false. My question is directed precisely at the lack of purpose in your worldview. The point is, how, in a purposeless universe, do you get universal invariant laws such as logic and mathematics?

Aussie writes:

You have NEVER yet explained why we have to ask this sort of why.

I have. We ask "why" because we want to be inquisitive, thinking, and rational about our existence and our place in the world.

Aussie writes:

These universals are what we perceive.. they are man made concepts to describe and ordered universe. The universe seems to have order and universals to us because we are products of it.

You seem to be unable to state this clearly, because every time you comment on it, I get more confused about what you mean. Are you saying that universals are mere perception; that they're not real?

Jim wrote:Instead, they are blindly assumed, with no way of testing or proving them. He can use it, and hope that future experiences will be like the past.

Aussie writes:

Not blindly assumed, tested, experimented experienced and confirmed.

You tested induction? How? Describe your procedure, and note that you cannot use induction to test induction; that would be invalid.

Aussie writes:

Not hope future experiences will be like the past KNOW they will be.

How do you know they will be? Are you psychic? Have you seen a future that doesn't exist yet?

Aussie writes:

If they weren’t then you might start looking for supernatural explanations.

You have it exactly backwards. Because nature is uniform and orderly and the laws of logic are universal and invariant, you should be embracing the "supernatural" explanation for them.

Jim wrote: He can assume that law-like constraints can be relied upon, but he has no warrant for it.

Aussie writes:

Yes we do.. we made up the explanation for the “laws” we observe and experiment to assure ourselves how we conceive they work. Then we rely on them.

Really? So you must have articulated your first syllogism at quite a young age. How many times did you bump into walls before you formalized your statement of induction?

Jim wrote: Without being able to account for it, he cannot justify his reliance upon it.

Aussie writes:

We can account for it.. we invented it.

I'm listening. What were the preconditions for the laws of logic and our intelligibility of them?

Aussie writes:

... Our reliance follows from our own testing of our invention.

Please give me your theory of how modus ponens was tested and verified.

Aussie writes:

You invented God and now rely on him.. it the same thing its just I avoid inventing something supernatural to explain it.

You have yet to explain it. "It just happened because it happened" is not an explanation. And given an atheistic worldview, it sounds rather silly.

Jim wrote: The wheel-axle is a helpful device. On the Christian theistic worldview, the usefulness and function can be accounted for, and the use of it justified. On the materialist worldview, induction is taken for granted without warrant.

Aussie writes:

No it isn’t you just say it is.

Read David Hume, Steve. He destroys your assertions with unassailable logic and clarity.

Jim wrote: Thus, the materialist actually must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of it, and in order to count on induction to hold in future cases.


Aussie writes:

Jim I used to feel a bit sorry for anyone stuck in a small idea like the “Christian” wordview.

Considering the fact that I am a former atheist who used to debate Christians, would you be interested in knowing what convinced me otherwise?

Aussie writes:

But I can see clever people like you just declare that everything sensible is in the CW wether it is or isn’t. The Christian wordview is a cobbled together view from a 1,000 other theistic ideas. When it doesn’t dabble into mysticism, myth and fantasy it actually mostly holds together. It is way short however of encompassing everything like the atheist materialist worldview does.

More mere assertions, Steve. What you call "cobbled together" is consistent and coherent. You said so yourself. What you call "encompassing everything" is fraught with philosophical incoherency and irrational question-begging. The atheist materialist view is completely inane when it comes to accounting for the three most important areas regarding man and his place in the world: Logic, science, and morality. On every point, crucial questions are begged, assumptions are unwarranted, and standards are stipulated arbitrarily. There is no accounting for how these can make sense in a materialist world, yet atheists still balance their checkbooks and try to live moral lives. How does this make sense?

Aussie writes:

It seems amazingly ironic to me that the fact that man can reason, fantasise and think is the very reason he was able to invent Gods in the first place.

Or maybe God really does exist, is the true Source and Cause behind man's ability to reason, and this witness of God within you is the very thing you rebel against, and is that for which you will be held accountable on the day of judgment.

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (in men), for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (man himself), even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without a defense." Ro 1:19,20

Jim

 

[Mr. Ben]

In fact, everything you do, every sentence that you make, your every act of dependence upon the principle of induction and the uniformity of nature affirms the Christian worldview, again proving that you must tacitly borrow from the Christian theism to make sense of your experience.

Not me Jim. I believe that "Flash" is the ultimate authority. Therefore I tacitly borrow from him to justify my worldview.

In any case, I still can't figure how making up imaginary people helps justify the uniformity of nature or induction.

I can make up imaginary things all day, and the uniformity of nature will remain as it is, as will induction.

 

[Hilston]

Try it!

Try it!

Mr Ben writes:

Not me Jim. I believe that "Flash" is the ultimate authority. Therefore I tacitly borrow from him to justify my worldview.

Then please ask him for an accounting of the preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. Let me know what you find out, because the verity of his authority rests on this.

Mr Ben writes:

In any case, I still can't figure how making up imaginary people helps justify the uniformity of nature or induction.

It doesn't. But if there is a rational and logical God who created the universe, then it follows that the universe He created reflects those attributes. It further follows that His supreme creation, man, would also demonstrate and function according to universal laws that reflect His nature and character. Thus, God's existence sufficiently accounts for the our human experience. Now, you may wish to come up with your own god or blark or whatever and give similar descriptive bases for our experience. But if you do so, and try to maintain coherency and consistency with human experience, then you'll end up describing the same God that I did, except you'll just give him a different name. You will thereby prove my points that (a) the Christian God (regardless of what you call Him) is the true Source and Cause of human intelligibility, and (b) that you already know this God.

Mr Ben writes:

I can make up imaginary things all day, and the uniformity of nature will remain as it is, as will induction.

Sure, but can you make up an imaginary thing that accounts for them without borrowing from the Christian worldview? Go ahead. Give it a shot.

Jim

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

Sigh.. we seem to go round in circles so all I can state is the following

You have yet to address my three basic problems with your argument in any way that makes sense.

1. You have not shown any need for us to have “preconditions” for human logic.
2. Your preconditions includes a God which must be inherently logical and therefore require the same preconditions for its own existence.
3. Your God always was is exactly the same as my matter always was except it is an added unnecessary layer of complexity.

Did you miss this part?: "They then press the question of whether or not certain worldviews can sufficiently account for the consistent usefulness of the wheel. In order to do so, it is challenged that he must be able to adequately and cogently provide for the preconditions of the physics that explain how the wheel-axle machine works, and be able to justify the expectation that the wheel will continue to function in the future as it has in the past." Without this accounting, you are left to operate by faith that it will work again, that the laws of physics won't change, that the inherent properties of matter won't negate themselves. You have no certainty; only ultimate skepticism on your worldview. Are you familiar with Hume's indictment against induction?

Your need for precondition is a nonsense. It is another invention of your mind (like your God is) to justify your God.

Your argument is false. When my car begins to leak engine coolant and I ask "Why is this happening?", I'm not looking for "purpose." I'm looking for causality.

And the only answer that can ever be correct is a physical natural one ! Any other answer which includes the supernatural is fantasy.

But the question you ask is the same as asking what is the purpose of the universe. As it does not have intelligence it has no purpose so any order or laws you perceive are just natural parts of the universe (or your perception of it)

This is a false assumption. You already know that I presuppose God's existence, just as you presuppose His non-existence.

No this is where you are wrong. I do no pre-suppose anything. I say if EVERYTHING ever known has had a natural option it is safe (and sensible) to assume that everything else will to. When unnatural things start happening I will give the idea of a God more thought.

But to say that I'm imposing "purpose" upon your worldview is exactly false. My question is directed precisely at the lack of purpose in your worldview. The point is, how, in a purposeless universe, do you get universal invariant laws such as logic and mathematics?

From a creature that evolved the intelligence to create them.. JUST LIKE THE WHEEL… and the creation you use to make sense of your world .. GOD.

I have. We ask "why" because we want to be inquisitive, thinking, and rational about our existence and our place in the world.

The question WHY is fine as long as it not asked of for a purpose in nature.. which is all you are doing.

You seem to be unable to state this clearly, because every time you comment on it, I get more confused about what you mean. Are you saying that universals are mere perception; that they're not real?

I have tried to say this many time but you don’t seem to understand so maybe it is my fault.. however I will try again. I will put it in simple point form.

1. We evolved from the universe
2. As we are creatures of this universe anything that happens in it seems ordered
3. If the universe was dis-orded you could conclude we were not products of it

For example the Ocean is well suited for Fish.. that is because it produced them. It would be unlikely that the Ocean would produce a Bird (don’t give me penguins they are just an evolutionary reversion)

You tested induction? How? Describe your procedure, and note that you cannot use induction to test induction; that would be invalid.

Perhaps you better qualify your mystical induction.

To me (in this context) it is just using fact and experience to derive general principles.

A completely human invention again.

How do you know they will be? Are you psychic? Have you seen a future that doesn't exist yet?

I don’t know .. but I reason that if given the same set of circumstances the same thing will happen again.. WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS.. when it stops happening I will give your God a thought.

You have it exactly backwards. Because nature is uniform and orderly and the laws of logic are universal and invariant, you should be embracing the "supernatural" explanation for them.

Here Jim is where I worry about your reasoning faculties. I quite accept your need for a God and the fantasy world you create and the twists you go through to justify your God but when you make the above statement I wonder if you really bother thinking about it at all ?

Everything we KNOW has a natural origin..

Logical assumption : Everything we don’t know will too.

Everything happens naturally an in order.

Nothing is Supernatural or disordered.

Logical assumption 2 : If we noticed disorder of supernatural occurrence it would imply the supernatural exists.

Really? So you must have articulated your first syllogism at quite a young age. How many times did you bump into walls before you formalized your statement of induction?

I have the wealth of human experience behind me. Parents, Books (even you Jim) all help formulate my worldview. All help me realise that the only creation EVER has been by Man.

I’m listening. What were the preconditions for the laws of logic and our intelligibility of them?

Not that they are required but they are the same preconditions that produced the stars etc. Matter.

Please give me your theory of how modus ponens was tested and verified.

We evolved enough intelligence to test our own reasoning

You have yet to explain it. "It just happened because it happened" is not an explanation. And given an atheistic worldview, it sounds rather silly.

Less sill than God happened because he happened. We actually have matter we can see so at least when I assume it always was I have a template. You are just inventing something that we have never seen and has no template.

Read David Hume, Steve. He destroys your assertions with unassailable logic and clarity.

Not if he makes a leap of faith into the unknown to assume a supernatural source for our reasoning.

Considering the fact that I am a former atheist who used to debate Christians, would you be interested in knowing what convinced me otherwise?

Well you changed you mind once Jim there is hope for you yet.

More mere assertions, Steve. What you call "cobbled together" is consistent and coherent. You said so yourself.

Yes I said it is to you. Someone with in incoherent worldview would be in a lunatic asylum !

What you call "encompassing everything" is fraught with philosophical incoherency and irrational question-begging.

Just one layer less of question begging though.. like all the added God question you have to go through.

The atheist materialist view is completely inane when it comes to accounting for the three most important areas regarding man and his place in the world: Logic, science, and morality.

It completely accounts for them.

Logic : Concept applied from our evolved intelligence to explain what we see and expect to see.
Science : A tool we use to experiment and verify our assumptions
Morality : Evolved from our ability to reason that others felt the same as we do.. hence if it hurts me it is bad.. so if it hurts others it is bad.

On every point, crucial questions are begged, assumptions are unwarranted, and standards are stipulated arbitrarily. There is no accounting for how these can make sense in a materialist world, yet atheists still balance their checkbooks and try to live moral lives. How does this make sense?

Makes more sense that taking my moral compass from bronze age men who invented an archaic God.

Or maybe God really does exist, is the true Source and Cause behind man's ability to reason, and this witness of God within you is the very thing you rebel against, and is that for which you will be held accountable on the day of judgment.

I can never discount the possibility of something beyond our natural world. It is just pointless to assume it without any evidence. I am SURE of one thing though any God that exists would not be anything like the petty Gods invented by man.

I am sure I live my life as well as you and I am sure we will suffer the same fate at the end of it. Rest assured the matter that makes you up will continue on somewhere throughout the universe.

Its always a sad point for the atheist that by the time we get to say “I told you so” you are too dead to hear it !

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Damn double post again !

 

[heusdens]

Supernatural explenations

Supernatural explenations

How to explain the natural?

Imagine a consciouss and intelligent being, residing outside of matter, space and time. It is capable of every form of reasoning.

So we provide this being the question as to why at all a natural universe would exist.

This being however, would not be in the position to answer this question. The nature of the question is namely, why at all anything would be existent, and not nothing. The context of the question is that nothing can be assumed to exist, and then there is neither nothing to answer the question, since nothing does exist in the hypothetical supernatural world.

The question: "Why is it the case that X?" needs an answer in the form: "Because B is the case". However from the nature of the question it is implied that no such B can in fact exist.

This means that in such a hypothetical supernatural world in which hypothetical consciouss and intelligent beings would reside, they would not possibly be able to provide an answer to the question as to why at all a natural world would have to exist.

In the supernatural realms therefore, there are no answers to this question.

So is this question then unanswerable?

No, on the contrary!

We happen to be not hypothetical, but factual intelligent consciouss beings living in a factual natural world.
And as a matter of fact, we can make the same argument and conclusion as our hypothetical intelligent consciouss being, residing outside of matter, time and space (the supernatural) could give. But with ONE important difference:

We KNOW that there is a natural world, in which we live!

This is important information, the supernatural being did not have!

Our arguments then are as follows:

• 
  [1] (from the supernatural)
  
  A non-existent world can not provide any grounds for there being a world at all
  
  [2] (from the natural)
  
  We know a world DOES exists which contains us.
  
  [3] (conclusion)
  
  A world in whatever form, must have ALWAYS existed!
  

(see also my thread: The Fundamental Question)

 

[Mr. Ben]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not me Jim. I believe that "Flash" is the ultimate authority. Therefore I tacitly borrow from him to justify my worldview.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then please ask him for an accounting of the preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. Let me know what you find out, because the verity of his authority rests on this.

He says "Man can not comprehend that which is Flash.. therefore BUZZ OFF".

What does your imaginary explanation for all rationality say about it? Anything substantially different?

In any case, I still can't figure how making up imaginary people helps justify the uniformity of nature or induction.

It doesn't. But if there is a rational and logical God who created the universe, then it follows that the universe He created reflects those attributes.

And if there is a rational and logical pink panda that created the universe.. then what?

It further follows that His supreme creation, man,

Really? First you make up an imaginary being, then you make up the fact that he figures we are his supreme creation? That's a lot of storytelling Jim.

would also demonstrate and function according to universal laws that reflect His nature and character.

Thus, God's existence sufficiently accounts for the our human experience.

But he doesn't exist because he's imaginary. Therefore he accounts for nothing. Now you're back to square one again Jim.

Now, you may wish to come up with your own god or blark or whatever and give similar descriptive bases for our experience. But if you do so, and try to maintain coherency and consistency with human experience, then you'll end up describing the same God that I did, except you'll just give him a different name.

No, flash accounts for all the unanswered questions in existence.. but he's still just plain old flash.

You will thereby prove my points that (a) the Christian God (regardless of what you call Him) is the true Source and Cause of human intelligibility, and (b) that you already know this God.

No, my particular choice would be the One God that explains existence, but did none of the things he was reported to have done in the Bible. He is the green reptilian Green God of Reptelon 7, and he had three different sons (who were all really himself) which died in three different ways to save all reptilian sinners.

Are you a reptile Jim? If not, you will not be saved. Sorry. However, you will inadvertently borrow from the Reptelon's worldview to justify your belief in inference and the coherence of reality.

I can make up imaginary things all day, and the uniformity of nature will remain as it is, as will induction.

Sure, but can you make up an imaginary thing that accounts for them without borrowing from the Christian worldview? Go ahead. Give it a shot.

Hmm.. I just did. The Green God of Reptelon 7 explains all of reality.. and it is imaginary.. .... OR IS IT? ???

Jim

 

[flash]

Re: Flash: The ultimate authority and arbiter ... ?

Re: Flash: The ultimate authority and arbiter ... ?

Originally posted by Flash
For example, for my presupposition, I will choose myself as the ultimate authority and arbiter of all things. Now, try and refute my worldview.

Originally posted by Hilston
It is refuted by the fact that such a view of personal autonomy is internally incoherent and undermines human reason and experience.

How is it internally incoherent? How do you justify granting authority to "human reason and experience"?

Originally posted by Hilston
You cannot, on such a presupposition, make cogent statements about particulars, let alone asserting authoritative generalities that anyone needs to take seriously.

As the ultimate authority and arbiter of all things, I can make cogent statements about anything I choose. I can also make authoritative generalities. What higher authority could anyone appeal to to determine whether to take these statements seriously? There is no higher authority.

 

[Hilston]

"Natural" v. "Supernatural" ...

"Natural" v. "Supernatural" ...

Hi Heusdens,

I would like to address your most recent post, but before I do, I need to know how you would distinguish, definitionally, "natural" from "supernatural."

Thanks,
Jim

 

[heusdens]

Re: "Natural" v. "Supernatural" ...

Re: "Natural" v. "Supernatural" ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Heusdens,

I would like to address your most recent post, but before I do, I need to know how you would distinguish, definitionally, "natural" from "supernatural."

Thanks,
Jim

How can I define something that doesn't exist?

The "supernatural" is a "said" cause for things which don't have (or are believed not to have) a natural explenation.

An actor outside of matter, space and time, would for instance be a "supernatural" cause.

In my previous post, the "supernatural" is the context for a purely hypothetical consciouss being that would supposedly and hypothetically exist outside of matter, time and space.

I hold it however that such (the "supernatural" and the hypothetical consciouss being) is hypothetical, since consciousness can not be defined if there is not a real, objective and material world.

 

[Hilston]

Then just define "natural" ...

Then just define "natural" ...

Heusdens writes:

I hold it however that such (the "supernatural" and the hypothetical consciouss being) is hypothetical, since consciousness can not be defined if there is not a real, objective and material world.

How do you know this?

How do you define "natural"?

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Somebody bring me a bucket ...

Somebody bring me a bucket ...

Mr Ben writes:

He says "Man can not comprehend that which is Flash.. therefore BUZZ OFF".

See what I mean? Such an incomprehensible ultimate authority is self-refuting. Your answer really betrays that you're either not thinking very carefully about this, or else you refuse to take it seriously. Either one disgusts me.

Mr. Ben writes:

What does your imaginary explanation for all rationality say about it? Anything substantially different?

Could you please stop with the pejoratives, Mr. Ben? It's obvious both think each other's explanation is imaginary, so can we get past the schoolyard tactics and behave like rational men? To answer your question, the Triune God can account for the fundamental philosophical problems of unity-diversity, universals-particulars, the many and the one, and mind-body dichotomy. Thus, logical laws, mathematical relationships, and scientific inquiry make sense. Any unitarian monolithic solution that is proposed is inadequate to address these issue. Flash is thereby disqualified.

Jim wrote: But if there is a rational and logical God who created the universe, then it follows that the universe He created reflects those attributes.

Mr Ben writes:

And if there is a rational and logical pink panda that created the universe.. then what?

You further expose a horribly simplistic understanding of this debate. You need to go back and read some of my previous posts, Mr. Ben. Merely inventing a supreme being that is "rational and logical" doesn't cut it.

Jim wrote: It further follows that His supreme creation, man, ...

Mr Ben writes:

Really? First you make up an imaginary being, then you make up the fact that he figures we are his supreme creation? That's a lot of storytelling Jim.

I didn't make it up, Mr. Ben. It comes from the authoritative source that I believe to be the Word of God. If you want to disparage the Bible, that's fine. But don't try to characterize this as some kind of fanciful invention of my own. You're wasting my time.

Jim wrote: ... would also demonstrate and function according to universal laws that reflect His nature and character. ... Thus, God's existence sufficiently accounts for the our human experience.

Mr Ben writes:

But he doesn't exist because he's imaginary. Therefore he accounts for nothing. Now you're back to square one again Jim.

Of all the atheists I've debated, there is a certain kind that inevitably shows himself to be an embarrassment to the rest. These are the kind who just can't get themselves to respect the debate, to deal honorably with others of differing opinions, and continually make bald unsupported assertions without debate. I find it repugnant and yet another example of what atheism has to offer.

Jim wrote: Now, you may wish to come up with your own god or blark or whatever and give similar descriptive bases for our experience. But if you do so, and try to maintain coherency and consistency with human experience, then you'll end up describing the same God that I did, except you'll just give him a different name.

Mr Ben writes:

No, flash accounts for all the unanswered questions in existence..

You can't just make the assertion, Mr Ben. You have to explain and show why it would be reasonable to think your assertion has any merit. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Jim wrote: You will thereby prove my points that (a) the Christian God (regardless of what you call Him) is the true Source and Cause of human intelligibility, and (b) that you already know this God.

Mr Ben writes:

No, my particular choice would be the One God that explains existence, but did none of the things he was reported to have done in the Bible. He is the green reptilian Green God of Reptelon 7, and he had three different sons (who were all really himself) which died in three different ways to save all reptilian sinners. Are you a reptile Jim? If not, you will not be saved. Sorry. However, you will inadvertently borrow from the Reptelon's worldview to justify your belief in inference and the coherence of reality.

And there you have it folks. Yet another example of an irrational atheist who cannot bear to have his worldview challenged. So instead of standing his ground and defending the view he truly holds, he retreats, scattering caltrops in the road, a flurry of alternate beliefs that he doesn't actually hold, in a childishly lame attempt to smokescreen his own indefensible and incoherent belief system. It's sickening. I'm embarrassed for the atheists who have to make apologies for fools like Mr. Ben.

Sincerely,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Test of ultimate authority ...

Test of ultimate authority ...

Hi Flash,

You previously wrote:

For example, for my presupposition, I will choose myself as the ultimate authority and arbiter of all things. Now, try and refute my worldview.

Hilston replied: It is refuted by the fact that such a view of personal autonomy is internally incoherent and undermines human reason and experience.

Flash writes:

How is it internally incoherent?

To declare yourself as the ultimate authority, you must be able to justify your claim by showing that you can provide the precondition for the intelligibility of man's experience. You've shown in past posts that you cannot do this. For example, you are unable to prove the laws of logic without begging the question. Thereby you demonstrate an internal incoherence.

Flash writes:

How do you justify granting authority to "human reason and experience"?

I grant a very limited authority to human reason and experience, because humans are notoriously fallible. But generally speaking, our reason and experience can be trusted to comport with reality insofar as we ground our worldview upon the absolute authority of God. If God's ultimate authority is somehow removed from the picture (which cannot be done whilst maintaining rationality), then, if one is consistent, everything is reduced to question-begging or radical skepticism.

Jim wrote: You cannot, on such a presupposition, make cogent statements about particulars, let alone asserting authoritative generalities that anyone needs to take seriously.

Flash writes:

As the ultimate authority and arbiter of all things, I can make cogent statements about anything I choose.

Actually, you can't, unless you can give a rational accounting of how you bridge the abyss between universals and particulars. Predication requires both distinctions and unity. No other worldview can rationally account for them. All efforts to coherently conceptualize some precondition for this phenomenon ends up describing the attributes of God Himself. We see a bit of this in Mr. Ben's inanities above, although he doesn't come close to doing the exercise any kind of justice.

Flash writes:

I can also make authoritative generalities.

See the above paragraph.

Flash writes:

What higher authority could anyone appeal to to determine whether to take these statements seriously? There is no higher authority.

There is at least one higher authority that most in this debate have assumed, namely, the authority of logic. We all use it as if it is authoritative. We all appeal to it whenever we want to make an argument or criticize someone else's argument. Your claim, as the ultimate authority, intimates that we all derive and apply those universals by your governing. So now, as the ultimate authority, you must somehow explain how you define those universals on the basis of your own authority, and then account for their application and how they obtain in the realm of contingent experience.

Jim

 

[Mr. Ben]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He says "Man can not comprehend that which is Flash.. therefore BUZZ OFF".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See what I mean? Such an incomprehensible ultimate authority is self-refuting. Your answer really betrays that you're either not thinking very carefully about this, or else you refuse to take it seriously. Either one disgusts me.

Well, since your God gives you the same answers when you ask him these questions, what's the difference? You can make up imaginary beings and claim they answer all questions, but if they can't actually "answer" the questions, what good are they?

What does your imaginary explanation for all rationality say about it? Anything substantially different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please stop with the pejoratives, Mr. Ben? It's obvious both think each other's explanation is imaginary, so can we get past the schoolyard tactics and behave like rational men?

Why? You use the same tactics in your posts. Can't you handle having your position described using the terms I feel are appropriate. I'm not going to describe your position as real if I feel it obviously is not.

To answer your question, the Triune God can account for the fundamental philosophical problems of unity-diversity, universals-particulars, the many and the one, and mind-body dichotomy.
Thus, logical laws, mathematical relationships, and scientific inquiry make sense. Any unitarian monolithic solution that is proposed is inadequate to address these issue. Flash is thereby disqualified.

No, triune entities are not capable of explaining these things. Especially mathematical relationships, because they are monotonic in spaciotemporal continuity, not any terciary manifold derivative. Only monolithic solutions with unitarian finite causality can explain them. Therefore flash is obviously a better choice.

Any student of temporal topology should know this.

In other words.. you're claims that a "unitarian monolithic" solution are just made up to make your point sound more authoritative Jim. Why do you feel you need to do that?

Jim wrote: But if there is a rational and logical God who created the universe, then it follows that the universe He created reflects those attributes.

But there is no reason to believe this.. so therefore nothing follows at all.

And if there is a rational and logical pink panda that created the universe.. then what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You further expose a horribly simplistic understanding of this debate. You need to go back and read some of my previous posts, Mr. Ben. Merely inventing a supreme being that is "rational and logical" doesn't cut it.

The debate is both simple, and horrible. Merely inventing a supreme being and assigning him any old attribute you need at any given point cuts it.

Jim wrote: It further follows that His supreme creation, man, ...

Mr Ben writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? First you make up an imaginary being, then you make up the fact that he figures we are his supreme creation? That's a lot of storytelling Jim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't make it up, Mr. Ben. It comes from the authoritative source that I believe to be the Word of God.

A book that you read. Books are always true.

If you want to disparage the Bible, that's fine. But don't try to characterize this as some kind of fanciful invention of my own. You're wasting my time.

It doesn't really matter whether you invented it, or you bought into someone elses invention.

Jim wrote: ... would also demonstrate and function according to universal laws that reflect His nature and character. ... Thus, God's existence sufficiently accounts for the our human experience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But he doesn't exist because he's imaginary. Therefore he accounts for nothing. Now you're back to square one again Jim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of all the atheists I've debated, there is a certain kind that inevitably shows himself to be an embarrassment to the rest. These are the kind who just can't get themselves to respect the debate, to deal honorably with others of differing opinions, and continually make bald unsupported assertions without debate. I find it repugnant and yet another example of what atheism has to offer.

You find it repugnant that people do not automatically accept as a pre-condition that your God exists? You base all of your assumptions about causality, rationality, science, logic, and the rest on this pre-condition. Your argument simply collapses if this assumption is not true.

Since there is no evidence that God exists, we must necessarily conclude that this implies there is also no evidence that he/it/she can be the explanation for any unanswered philosphical questions which we want to have answered. Therefore, the questions "remain" unanswered.

Simply because we "want" to answer these questions or "need" to answer them to feel nice and warm about our place in the world doesn't mean that this can justify the existence of an entity for which there is no other tangible physical evidence. Emotional or intellectual need does not necessitate existence.

Jim wrote: Now, you may wish to come up with your own god or blark or whatever and give similar descriptive bases for our experience. But if you do so, and try to maintain coherency and consistency with human experience, then you'll end up describing the same God that I did, except you'll just give him a different name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, flash accounts for all the unanswered questions in existence..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can't just make the assertion, Mr Ben. You have to explain and show why it would be reasonable to think your assertion has any merit. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Oh.. I have to explain why? But it seems you don't. Why is that Jim. You can claim that God (somehow) explains the coherence of our perception and causality and logic, but when I claim that flash does this as well (with his magical powers that he alone posesses), you become agitated.

My claim is just as good as yours, and equally provable. I have oner advantage in the sense that Flash actually exists.. so I am one step ahead of you in proving that he could answer all unanswered philosophical questions.

Jim wrote: You will thereby prove my points that (a) the Christian God (regardless of what you call Him) is the true Source and Cause of human intelligibility, and (b) that you already know this God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, my particular choice would be the One God that explains existence, but did none of the things he was reported to have done in the Bible. He is the green reptilian Green God of Reptelon 7, and he had three different sons (who were all really himself) which died in three different ways to save all reptilian sinners. Are you a reptile Jim? If not, you will not be saved. Sorry. However, you will inadvertently borrow from the Reptelon's worldview to justify your belief in inference and the coherence of reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there you have it folks. Yet another example of an irrational atheist who cannot bear to have his worldview challenged.

Your position simiply doesn't sound as reasonable when you phrase it this way Jim. I can't help but lampoon it in this fashion, as it is the easiest way to demonstrate how absurd it really is.

You assume your God exists, assume that only he answers all these questions, then assume that no other imaginary being that we could concieve of could do the same.

You then ask me to imagine another being that could do likewise and not be the Christian God. I accept your challenge, and produce one, and then you turn around and complain that I am not taking you seriously.

So, to summarize, your problems Jim are the following:

1. Your whole argument is based on the a-priori assumption that your God exists. If he doesn't, he cannot be the source of any certainty. There is no evidence that he does exist.
2. Your God does not "answer" these questions, but simply allows you to say they are answered "somehow".
3. You deny without offering any argument or evidence that other old imaginary or real being could arbitrarily be used to claim the same answers to the same questions. A being which answers these questions does not have to be your God, or even A god at all.

So instead of standing his ground and defending the view he truly holds, he retreats, scattering caltrops in the road, a flurry of alternate beliefs that he doesn't actually hold, in a childishly lame attempt to smokescreen his own indefensible and incoherent belief system. It's sickening. I'm embarrassed for the atheists who have to make apologies for fools like Mr. Ben.

Heh.. so I take it you're not a follower of the Great Green God of Reptelon 7. It really doesn't matter. Though he answers all questions about the coherence of reality (that you must borrow implicitly to construct your worldview), he is not concerned with primate redemption.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

Why is it Ben annoyed you so much.. you normally seem pretty unflappable ?

I think his second post clearly outlines his position.

He merely finds it amazing that you so boldly declare your God as the answer to everything while anyone else’s (which should be just as valid as yours) is declared defunct by you ?

Don’t you see the irony.

Don’t you see the very reason ALL other Gods are defunct for you is EXACTLY the same reason yours is defunct to us ?

 

[Hilston]

Indulge me ...

Indulge me ...

Hi Aussie,

You write:

Why is it Ben annoyed you so much.. you normally seem pretty unflappable ?

I have no qualms with debating any counter position that comes down the pike, provided the disputant is willing to think and to carefully consider opposing arguments. I never take opposing views lightly or in obscurantist fashion. I give serious consideration to whatever view another person may hold. I'm even willing to explain my case against other views not held by the disputant. But when someone begins to demonstrate intellectual laziness, sloppiness, or disingenuity, I get annoyed. One reason is that these responses take time. I try to carefully go over them and make sure I'm being clear. Another reason is that there are people reading these posts. It's annoying to see someone come along and derail the discussion by throwing logs in the road that are not helpful to the dialogue.

Aussie writes:

I think his second post clearly outlines his position.

I agree, and I'm more than willing to answer those points. It's too bad that I had to wade through the muck & mire of his previous post to get to this point.

Aussie writes:

He merely finds it amazing that you so boldly declare your God as the answer to everything while anyone else’s (which should be just as valid as yours) is declared defunct by you ?

In case you didn't catch it, I give explanations, I provide descriptions, definitions, and reasons. I do not hold back, Steve. If you have a question, ask it. There's a big difference between that and what Mr. Ben has done.

Aussie writes:

Don’t you see the irony.

There's no comparison. Conceptually, you and Mr. Ben might not see a difference, and I completely understand that, but from a consistency and coherency standpoint, they are as different as night and day.

Aussie writes:

Don’t you see the very reason ALL other Gods are defunct for you is EXACTLY the same reason yours is defunct to us ?

What a very curious question. Now you've got my attention. I'm eager to answer this question, but please, first indulge this question of clarification: What do you perceive as my reason why ALL other Gods are defunct for me?

Always good to hear from you, Steve.

Jim

 

[Mr. Ben]

Some questions for God:

1. How do you have the ability to justify answering questions usually regarded as philisophically unanswerable.
2. God, how is it that you know effect and cause must be related?
3. God, how can you know for sure that the generalizations we hold true about reality will remain valid?
4. God, how did you create logic?
5. How did you create the laws of the universe?
6. Why is there something other than nothing?

Answers from Flash:

1. Because I have power beyond your comprehension.
2. Because I said so.
3. Because I said so.
4. With powers beyond your comprehension.
5. With powers beyond your comprehension.
6. Because I made it so.

Let's compare answers Jim.

 

[attention]

Re: Then just define "natural" ...

Re: Then just define "natural" ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Heusdens writes: How do you know this?

How do you define "natural"?

Jim

"hypothetical conscious being"

Consciousness is just hypothetical when there is no objective reality. There is nothing of which you can be consciouss, and there is nothing that can constitute your consciousness.
Consciousness does not exist without material processes, constituting your means to have thoughts, etc.
Any form of consciousness would require energy.

'natural"

The natural world exists in the form of matter and motion/change; the natural world is in causal connection with itself, the only way we can know about the world, is because we can observe these causal connections.


-- heusdens --

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim

What a very curious question. Now you've got my attention. I'm eager to answer this question, but please, first indulge this question of clarification: What do you perceive as my reason why ALL other Gods are defunct for me?

That is a good question of clarification too.

Generally you state that they do not fit within your Christian worldview as formulated (stemming from?) the Bible. And it is only your Christian worldview that provides “coherent” reasons for the non-natural things in life.

So I guess you haven’t been specific in the past.

But when it is suggested that another unknown God could cover your own (self created I might add) dilemma with pre conditions for consciousness you reject it out of hand.