Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Mr Ben:

    In what way do you think the marxist idea of the inevitable collapse of capitalism failed?

    If you look at the history, we see that capitalism has met deep and serious crisis again and again, that lead to the first world war and second world war.

    And also, the socialist october revolution has lead to some drastic changes in the capitalist system in other countries.
    Much of the workers rights and social security were built up, precisely because of that, the socialist october revolution.
    The capitalist countries had to give in and built many social regulations into the system, else they would face a revolution in their own countrie.

    We see now also the other side of this, after the collapse of the Soviet-Union, al these state interference and social security regulations are under attack.

    The world today shows every signs of a world wide crisis. The gap between the most rich countries and population and the most poor countries and people, has never been as big as today.

    Market reforms and capitalist globalisation lead to the current world crisis, and again capitalism has no other alternative then going into war with another nation.

    The world today is exactly as what Lenin described in 'Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism'.

    Former social systems and structures, like antique slaveholders societies and feudalism, which predated capitalism, have lasted several hundreds, sometimes even much more time.
    Capitalism is not old, and it has never been said that it would collapse or transform into socialism within let's say a hundred years or so. Not all changes from capitalism go in the form of revolution, sometimes slow and gradual changes occur.

    Investigate all developed capitalist countries, you will see that many have already been reformed from the inisde, to provide for labour rights, provide basic social security and sociale services, which of course would not have been there without class struggle and social reforms.

    On the outside it still looks like a market like capitalism, but that is not always as what it looks from the inside.

    Of course, nobody knows what the tendency will be for the next hundred years or so, wether capitalism succeeds in overcoming it's own crisis of overproduction, wether the US will be able to keep the position of strongest economic and military force in the world, etc.

    The signs of today are leading in another direction. Past ten years capitalism celebrated their victory over socialism, and capitalist market reforms have since then domonated the world scene.
    But this victory has not lasted long, it in fact lead to a serious economic crisis, and also to the war against Iraq.

    There will be a counter reaction on this, the working class will see that their interests are not safe in a capitalist economy, and will struggle for social reforms of capitalism. This is inevitable.

    History is never going in a straight course, so we never know where this may lead to.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Mr. Ben
      Justified belief in well supported philosophical hypotheses is determined solely by the success of their correspondence to reality.
      Well said.
      Christianity comforms to reality.

      After a time, the clear thinking you have articulated, along with a measure of God-given faith, will lead you to embrace Christ as presented in the Bible.
      That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
      Philippians 2:15

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by LightSon
        Well said.
        Christianity comforms to reality.
        There is nothing in reality though that conforms to Christianity.
        Last edited by heusdens; July 21st, 2003, 08:43 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Shuck n' jive ...

          Combined reply to Flash and Mr. Ben.

          To Flash,

          Flash writes:
          I have a piece of paper in my hand on which I have just written "Hilston knows that Mickey Mouse exists, and is accountable to him. His default condition is to believe in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck." Now the burden is back on you.
          Fine. Can the existence and attributes of Mickey Mouse provide for me the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience? If so, please explain.

          Flash writes:
          Your claim is that God exists. Can you justify this claim?
          Yes. The proof of the Christian God is that without Him you cannot account for the intelligibility of human experience.

          Flash writes:
          Asserting that atheism cannot account for induction is hardly a proof of a deity.
          It's not intended to be. Read the thread title. It's not called "The Proof of a Deity."

          Flash writes:
          You are a long way from proving that God exists, and, frankly, I don't think that you are up to the task.
          How do you know the task hasn't been completed, and that your reasoning faculties are not up to the task of discerning the proof when it's staring you in the face? Really -- how do you know, Flash? It's an epistemological question. How do you know your own stipulated and presumably autonomous standard of reasoning and evidence isn't seriously flawed? How would you go about testing them?

          Flash writes:
          My challenge to you is to present a proof of the deity. Only then will you have shown that Atheism is impossible.
          As I stated, and you already recognize, without the existence of God, the concept of "one" would have no meaning, the concept of "many" would have no meaning, to say nothing of bringing them together in any cohesive way, for both are required for anything to have meaning. Without the existence of God, existence itself makes no sense, let alone anyone having existence that is intelligible. Have you ever considered this: What if (I'm not saying this is the case; I'm trying to make a point here) what if the proof you require of the existence of a transcendent God is not in the purview of your of 5 senses? If He is, as some say, "super"-natural, why should you expect that the proof His existence would be found in the natural realm and perceptible by the 5 senses? I have an answer to this question, but I wonder if you've adequately considered whether or not that which you demond of God (physical proof) is not given because God is not physically omnipresent.

          Jim wrote: 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. 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.

          To Mr. Ben:

          Mr. Ben writes:
          Actually, I don't need to borrow from the "christian" worldview to justify reality.
          Prove it. Anything you say can and will be held against you when you commit epistemological grand larceny.

          Mr. Ben writes:
          My niece attributes every event to Santa Claus. I think her justification works just as well as yours.
          Can Santa Claus account for induction? If so, then he is doing much better than the atheist position, who blindly and irrationally place their faith on induction without justification or proof of its verity.

          Mr. Ben writes:
          If you do not know the answers to these questions then "you" are relying on my nieces "Santa" worldview.
          Prove it. Don't just make asinine assertions, Mr. Ben. Respect the debate, or else pick up your marbles and go home.

          Mr. Ben writes:
          Does this sufficiently illustrate the preposterous nature of your argument? If it doesn't, I can spell it out for you.
          If anything, it demonstrates how utterly puerile a God-hating human can be when he is forced to confront the tough questions and has no answer. Rather than be honest and admit that you don't have an answer, you resort to your "your view is no better than these others" tripe. As a matter of fact, your Santa illustration does more to expose you own inability to directly address the issues and your need to abandon your own arguments out of fear that their inadequacy will be exposed. I see this quite often. When the atheist position is exposed as untenable, the atheist then resorts to invoking other people's beliefs, as if to hide in a quagmire of conflicting views and uncertainty. So far, you've brought up the Islamic religion, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Necronomicon, etc. And every time you have done it when the heat was on your position and you had no adequate answer. I'm embarrassed for you, Mr. Ben.

          Jim

          Comment


          • #95
            A 'proof' that proofs nothing

            Hilston:

            "Without the existence of God, existence itself makes no sense, let alone anyone having existence that is intelligible."

            Your reasoning is a bit as follows:

            p - God exists
            q - Existence makes sense and is intelligble

            So, your reasoning is that:

            p -> q ( p implies q )

            Now, the only thing we can state the truthvalue of is q.

            But your statement only makes sense if:

            ~p therefore ~q ( not p implies not q )

            This of course can not be tested for.

            In any case, without a direct evidence for the truth value of p, all such reasonings do not realy mean anything.

            Since however all 'evidence' that p is true, is only based on other properties that are both known to be true and can not in a possible way be false, it is very much so that that is what God is defined to be.

            If I would state that a Big Onion created the universe, the fact that we know that there is a universe, does not provide us any indication of the truth about the Big Onion. Therefore the statement that the existence of the universe is in any way related to the existence of the Big Onion, can not in any way be verified.

            The non existence of the Big Onion would need us to accept that the universe would not be there. If that implication would not be the case, then our initial statement can be show to have no correspondence with the outcome, and would therefore be false.

            Can a universe in fact 'not be there' ? No, it can't. A universe can not fail to exist. Even when one would conjecture that in pure speculative theory it could be that the universe would not exist, this ain't very meaningfull either, cause then nobody could exist either that could state anything about any truth at all.

            In no possible way this has however anything to do with there being or not being a 'Big Onion'.

            So the statement, in which it is said:

            p -> q

            and in which we know that q must be true always and cannot be false, are therefore nonsense statements, cause it could be used to 'proof' the truth of any p, even those that are known to be false.

            If q can not be false, then there is no way to falsify the negative of the implicated truth ( ~p -> ~q ). So the truthvalue of p can then be anything, but it is unrelated to the truthvalue of q.

            This means the proposition itself is false.

            And since the proof of God is only built up on these kind of propositions, and no other form of objective proof has ever been provided, this leads to the conclusion we better reject the truth of the existence of God also.
            Last edited by heusdens; July 21st, 2003, 09:23 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              "Invention of the Wheel" analogy?

              Hey Aussie Thinker,

              I was hoping you would rejoin my response to your "invention of the wheel" analogy. It may have gotten buried in a flurry of posts. I just thought I'd call your attention to it in case you missed it.

              Cheers,
              Jim

              Comment


              • #97
                Flash: The ultimate authority and arbiter ... ?

                Hi Flash:

                You write:
                ... it is trivial to construct worldviews.
                Who is constructing worldviews?

                Flash writes:
                These worldviews are nothing but large scale "god-of-the-gaps" arguments.
                How so?

                Flash writes:
                They begin with an assertion granting ultimate authority to something or other (this is the presupposition). To remain in that worldview, you only need to stay away from that ulimate assertion. ...
                Who begins that way? What worldview? What are you talking about?

                Flash writes:
                For example, for my presupposition, I will choose myslef as the ultimate authority and arbiter of all things. Now, try and refute my worldview.
                It is refuted by the fact that such a view of personal autonomy is internally incoherent and undermines human reason and experience. In other words, you can claim this to be true, but you don't live this way. You can't. You cannot, on such a presupposition, make cogent statements about particulars, let alone asserting authoritative generalities that anyone needs to take seriously. 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.

                Jim

                Comment


                • #98
                  Jim,

                  In response to your response the “wheel analogy”.

                  [quote}In I like your analogy. It is a bit rough around the edges[/quote]

                  I would have said SMOOTH .. hence a “wheel”

                  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.
                  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.

                  But you want to delve into the philosophical WHY ! I argue that humans do not question your sort of WHY unless they are LOOKING for a purpose. A purpose immediately implies an intelligent overseer. So in asking your question you are already assuming a God !

                  You have NEVER yet explained why we have to ask this sort of why. The sort I use completely answers the question.

                  One claims to have a view that is able to coherently describe existence and induction in terms of their use and application of wheel. He asks, Why should we expect the wheel to work next time as it did the last time? How is it that these universal invariant laws repeatedly apply to our particular changing experiences? The materialist tries to answer, but on the materialist worldview, the universals cannot be accounted for.
                  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.

                  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.
                  Not blindly assumed, tested, experimented experienced and confirmed. Not hope future experiences will be like the past KNOW they will be. If they weren’t then you might start looking for supernatural explanations.


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

                  Without being able to account for it, he cannot justify his reliance upon it.
                  We can account for it.. we invented it. Our reliance follows from our own testing of our invention. You invented God and now rely on him.. it the same thing its just I avoid inventing something supernatural to explain it.

                  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.
                  No it isn’t you just say it is. The wheel is just as much and invention as any of our concepts.. before it was first made it was an idea in our heads.. just like every other man made concept .. including God.

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

                  Steve, it really makes you look utterly silly to make such statements, as it certainly does not represent the view of anyone so far who is debating the existence of God or the impossibility of atheism on this thread. God is no more a "big wheel" than He is the "laws of logic." These universal laws reflect His nature and character. God did not create them. God's existence is the reason for them.
                  The “big wheel” was a joke (albeit not a terribly good one) merely stating that you make your God whatever you want him to be.

                  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. You know turn this around and say this ability was passed on to us from a fantasy which stemmed from it.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Jim,

                    While you keep saying this I will have to keep posting a dispute of it.

                    In regard to Flash declaring he is the Ultimate authority

                    It is refuted by the fact that such a view of personal autonomy is internally incoherent and undermines human reason and experience.
                    You state this over and over but saying it doesn’t make it so. It is entirely coherent (why would a reasoning person hold to something that isn’t)

                    In other words, you can claim this to be true, but you don't live this way. You can't. You cannot, on such a presupposition, make cogent statements about particulars, let alone asserting authoritative generalities that anyone needs to take seriously.
                    Yet you make EXACTLY the same assertions about your God. Flash actually wields far more authority than your God and that is easily proven. I bet Flash could post another item on this thread.. your God can’t. However small Flash’ influence on this world is it is fare greater than a fantasy.

                    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.
                    Jim in your fantasy world EVERYTHING affirms the Christian worldview. In the real world the Christian worldview covers enough issues to live out a reasonable existence. It is terribly inferior to an atheist materialist worldview that allows on eht freedom to abandon myth and superstitious nonsense.

                    Comment


                    • Oops.. removed post from the wrong topic...

                      Too many at once..

                      Have a nice day !
                      Last edited by Aussie Thinker; July 21st, 2003, 08:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • 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.
                        "...I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a Negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it." Abraham Lincoln (the Great Emancipator?) June 26, 1857

                        Comment


                        • 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

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              Comment


                              • 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 !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X