ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...

[Hilston]

The wheel analogy ...

The wheel analogy ...

Steve,

I like your analogy. It is a bit rough around the edges, but I think we can improve it and make good use of it. You write:

Like our concept of logic, fundamental laws and absolutes the Wheel is another invention of man. Did the wheel always exist before man invented it.

Here is how we might improve this scenario so that it makes more sense and is analogically consistent:

Like our concepts of logic, fundamental laws and absolutes, the simple wheel-and-axle machine is another invention or discovery of man. Its invention/discovery, however, is based on principles of physics (such as friction, inertia, torque, radial acceleration and angular momentum) and the properties (such as radius, circumference, surface, coefficient static friction) of circular or elliptical shapes that allow them to overcome friction better than objects with fewer sides. Each of these principles, properties and relationships certainly applied in the world before man came along to name them and formulate the equation laws that describe them. Yes, boulders and tree trunks could roll. Things that possessed these circular or elliptical characteristics, given the right impetus, were quasi-wheel-like, long before man existed. What really made the difference was the invention/discovery of the axle. Then, the potential of wheel could be fully harnessed, controlled and put to work.

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. 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. 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. He can assume that law-like constraints can be relied upon, but he has no warrant for it. Without being able to account for it, he cannot justify his reliance upon 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. 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:

So as the wheel always existed and as it cannot be justified… it means God is a big wheel !

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.

Jim

 

[flash]

Re: No tabula rasa ...

Re: No tabula rasa ...

Originally posted by Hilston

Flash writes:You beg the question. The Bible says you already know He exists and that you're accountable to Him. For your view to be true, you've got to justify your assumption of some default tabula rasa, which you can't do. The Bible says your default condition is belief in God, and that you work aggressively to deny, distort and distance yourself from that truth. So now the burden is back on you.

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.

Originally posted by Hilston
Flash writes:Not in this thread. Read the title. But I will be glad to oblige anyway. The proof of the Christian God is the fact that it is not possible for Him not to exist. That is what I've been describing.

I have read the title, and your first post. In them, you are making a claim. Your claim is that God exists. Can you justify this claim? Asserting that atheism cannot account for induction is hardly a proof of a deity.

You are a long way from proving that God exists, and, frankly, I don't think that you are up to the task. My challenge to you is to present a proof of the deity. Only then will you have shown that Atheism is impossible.

 

[Mr. Ben]

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.

Actually, I don't need to borrow from the "christian" worldview to justify reality. My niece attributes every event to Santa Claus. I think her justification works just as well as yours.

Just to check, I asked her if why physics works the way it does (uhh, not in so many words). She said "Santa Claus" did it (paraphrasing). I asked her whether we could rely on it continuing to operate the way it does now in the future.. same answer. So now I no longer have any annoying questions about reality.. it's all been answered. If you do not know the answers to these questions then "you" are relying on my nieces "Santa" worldview.

Does this sufficiently illustrate the preposterous nature of your argument? If it doesn't, I can spell it out for you.

 

[heusdens]

Mind vs matter problem : a computer anology

Mind vs matter problem : a computer anology

Computer (software / hardware) anology to the mind / matter problem

Or knowing what God in fact IS

As far as it goes, let us propose and assume here that we can make the analogy of how a computer works and how our minds versus matter works.
- Software is then the analogy for consciousness (mind);
- Hardware is then the anology for matter

In a computer we can store all kind of information. Although there are other (more sophistocated) storage and retrieval systems, one of the most used is that of a hierarchical directory structure.
A directory structure is defined as follows. A directory is just a name or label for a storage case where files of all possibe types can be stored; any directory can be a sub-directory of it's parent.
But in able to acces the directory structure, we have to assume or state something. In fact the directory structure needs a root, otherwise we could have in principle an infinite directory structure, without there being a entrance directory.
Computer systems are thus built that they have a main entrance, the root directory, to access the fysical storage system.
But we can also access information in the computer using virtual strorage / retrieval structures. For instance in the case we have several disk units (each having their own root) or gave access to a network, we must provide a new upper level for access.

On a windows computer, therefore we have a virtual entrance to all our fysical storage units in the form of a Desktop.
This level is virtual, since it isn't a fysical thing, although it is implemented as a directory on your boot disk (for example: C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP).

For a mind, to have access to and perform the functions in consciousness, we also need a main entrance level. We need to assume something, or base ourselves on something.
This can be understood as that we have constructed axiomatic systems, that all need to take some basic assumptions, and be based on some fundamental axioms.
The axioms themselves are nothing but founding axioms, on which all of the formal system is built. The axiom itself can however not be reasoned about, within that particular belief system.
But as the mathematician Kurt Godel showed, no formal system can be complete and consistent at the same time. It means there are statements within the formal system of which the truth value is unkown.

Another anology between how consciousness works and how software works is that in order for a computer to function, it needs to know certain things. It needs some basic information to start the system, and to perform anything.
In computer jargon this is known as the boot operation. It starts with executing a procedure in the ROM BIOS, that then subsequently starts a boot program on the boot disk in the boot sector of the boot partition.
This performs some basic operations, which enables the computer and software that can run on the computer, to know how and where it can access the peripherals, it loads the necessary (OS dependend) device drivers, etc.

Consciousness needs also to have some basic knowledge, in order for it to know how it can 'trust' it's own awareness. It needs to know how to interpret certain input data.
There needs to be some hardcoded information in the brain, that enable us to verrify the truth of something.

How can we know for instance that we are not living an illusion, that there in fact is an objective reality which we have acces to through our sensory perceptions.
This is a very basic and fundamental philosophical issue, known as The Fundamental Question
How can we know that - in fact - there is an objective reality, and that this is not just an illusion created by our own minds?

The answer is: we can go into a self diagnosis, and verify the truth of all our knowledge and the truth about our sensory perceptions.

Such a self test / self diagnosis, is like making a radical assumption about reality, to verify the truth about reality itself.
We could for example assume that no such reality AT ALL exists, and then see where this assumption would lead to. It would lead to the fact that in last instance we have to acknowledge the fact that at least our mental activity itself exists (since we perceive of them), and that without there being an objective world, no such activity could exist either. This would urge us then to conclude that our initial assumption (reality itself, as everything which is outside and independend of our own mind) can not be true.

Wether we call this hardwired self test/ self diagnose procedure God, a fundamental postulate or just state that the material world itself can not fail to exist, is not much different, and they provide for us the same function: having a basic and fundamental postuale about reality itself.

It's our hardwired basic proposition about reality: we have to assume that reaility itself exists, and need to be able to verify that, and that is not something we can alter, since it is not LEARNT but is hardwired in our circuits.

If we can recognize and acknowledge this fundamental knowledge we have about the world and about our consciousness, most quarels and discussions between for example theism and atheism could be satisfactory solved.
We just have to get rid of the IDEA that this hardwired internal self verification thing, is something OUTSIDE of our own consciousness, but just part of our consciousness, and forms for that the basic layer. It's a basic proposition about reality itself, that enables us to verify and acknowledge the truth about reality.

Human culture through history has developed this into a form of religion, but in current days with current available knowledge we can see this in a different perspective and get rid of the human developed concepts itself, which have been added to this, and adresses the reality of this.

The conclusion of our self test are these:
- Reality itself can never fail to exist, since we can never assume we ourselves (our mental processes) do not exist.
- Our awareness about reality, are a truth knowable to us, which we can verify at the basis of this self test.
- This basic proposition we have about our consciousness and how it relates to the outside world, enables us to verify the truth of our awarenesses about the outer objective reality.

Or stated a bit differently:
- 'God' (the self test / self diagnose hardcoded in our brain) resides in our own mind, as the most basic level (comparable with a ROM BIOS procedure in the computer anology)
- 'God' creates our awareness, in the sense that it enables us to verify the truth of those awarenesses, and acknowledge the fact that an objective reality DOES in fact exist.
- It can however not be concluded that the awareness about reality and it's truth base, which are consolidated entirely within our own minds, have any relevanve to the outside objective world itself.
- 'God' did therefore not 'create' the outside world itself, only our inner perception and trust in the reality of it.

 

[flash]

Originally posted by Mr. Ben
Actually, I don't need to borrow from the "christian" worldview to justify reality. My niece attributes every event to Santa Claus. I think her justification works just as well as yours.

Just to check, I asked her if why physics works the way it does (uhh, not in so many words). She said "Santa Claus" did it (paraphrasing). I asked her whether we could rely on it continuing to operate the way it does now in the future.. same answer. So now I no longer have any annoying questions about reality.. it's all been answered. If you do not know the answers to these questions then "you" are relying on my nieces "Santa" worldview.

Does this sufficiently illustrate the preposterous nature of your argument? If it doesn't, I can spell it out for you.

LOL! It sounds like your niece has been studying VanTil!

 

[Hilston]

Thanks for the invite ...

Thanks for the invite ...

Hi Steve,

Jim wrote: Aussie Thinker has offered his explanation. I wish everyone could read it, and like me, recognize how fanciful, naive and utterly uncompelling it is.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Others have read my explanation and find it completely coherent and compelling.

I said above, "I wish ..." Obviously that's a tall order, especially given the sloppy thinking that typically passes for debate on this subject. The reason others find it coherent and compelling is that they are failing to recognize the naivete and the irrationality of your story. I still wonder if you do.

Aussie Thinker writes:

It makes perfect sense and stops 1 step short of stepping into fancy like your explanation does.

It's interesting that you use this "step" metaphor to describe this siutation, as if I choose to climb one more ladder rung or tier than you do. You misunderstand that my "extra step" is not really a "step" at all, and the idea really fails to characterize the nature of debate. Rather than being an added "step," it is actually the very bedrock upon with the entire ladder rests. It's not merely a question of adding a layer of complexity, as you've suggested. Rather, it is recognizing the solid foundation that you and I both have when we come to these ultimate metaphysical and epistemological questions. One of us recognizes that foundation; the other blindly assumes that there is no foundation and is content to float in the void, begging crucial questions at every juncture, basically presuming to levitate yourself by your own bootstraps.

Aussie Thinker writes:

You find it incoherent as you are blinded by faith ...

Do you hear yourself? You're the one who said, "It just happened because it happened." That is as blind and as irrational as a thinking mind can get. If any of your readers are proud of you for saying that, what can I say? You can lead a horse to water, but getting him to float on his back is another matter entirely.

Aussie Thinker writes:

... in a mythical inexplicable, illogical and patently ridiculous God.

Are you now recanting your earlier statements about my worldview being coherent and consistent?

Aussie Thinker writes:

Your myopia does not allow you to comprehend a world view that does not include your strange deity !

Actually, rationality, logic, and reason do not allow me to call a worldview such as yours "intelligible." It is a mixed bag of contradictions and fanciful stories. As to the "strangeness" of my Deity, you know very well who He is. You know Him and you call him strange because you've deliberately estranged yourself from Him. I don't say this to be annoying or as proof of anything. I'm simply stating the true facts to oppose your false claims.

Aussie Thinker writes:

The assumptions of our reality are completely warranted.

How so? Show me the error in my reasoning, or expose a false or unjustified assumption. (Don't just say "God's existence." That's too easy, and you can't prove it. Show us something that you can prove).

Aussie Thinker writes:

Your mumbo jumbo about matrix type versions of reality are not SOLVED by adding a God into the mix.

There you go again. Whenever the water gets too warm, you retreat to your Matrix escape hatch. Waiting there to catch you is another boiling pot.

Aussie Thinker writes:

As I have stated 100 times before, you accept your reality as coming from a God (which just happened) I accept our reality as just happening (see the shortened step?)

I accept my reality as coming from God and all human experience, laws of logic, science, mathematics, ethics, knowledge, human dignity, and the comprehensibility of nature cohere and make sense. Your "shortened step" of "accepting reality" (Which reality? Your Matrix reality again, perhaps?) as "just happening" is unproven, untested, blind, faith based, incoherent, incomprehensible, unwarranted, unjustified and utterly irrational. You haven't been able to prove otherwise, and with every protest, you solidify the Bible's case against you.

Jim wrote: Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

Aussie Thinker writes:

It is obvious to an atheist that everything we see and all the laws we perceive are products of a natural universe.

It's an unjustified claim. Let's consider your Matrix escape pod. You blindly assume that your senses are providing accurate data input to your brain. You assume that your brain accurately interprets particular data bits and properly assembles them into intelligible descriptions about the reality you presume to perceive. You have no way of testing your input for proper calibration; you have no way of testing your reasoning faculties for correspondence with the real world. You are thus impaled on the spike of a serious epistemological conundrum. Your use of the word "obvious" begs the very question you presume to answer.

Aussie Thinker writes:

The FACT that everything makes sense implies NATURE.. if things did not make sense then THAT would point to supernatural occurrences and therefore imply a GOD !

The Bible instructs us to recognize the intelligibility and orderliness of nature. The Bible also explains that today, with the advent of the Pauline canon and in this particular period of God's dealing with man, miracles have ceased. This is perfectly consonant with what we experience today. Your arbitrary requirement that God needs to "muck around" with nature is wholly unwarranted, and logically untenable.

Aussie Thinker writes:

That you KNOW everything has a natural origin and yet add some mystical supernatural layer in shows that your need for a God is overcoming your human born rationality.

Did you use the word "rationality"? Do you realize that you have yet to sufficiently demonstrate that you're even qualified to use the word, let alone making assessments about what is or is not rational.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Your assumption that these laws etc. are universal and separate to man is only that.. your assumption.. born of the need to have a Supernatural Deity. The laws etc are mere constructs of man.. like God. If you think about it you have just constructed a God to account for the laws I just say the laws themselves are a construct (see again I save an illogical step)

If it is true that all these laws are only human conventions, as you suggest, and if all these laws are not really law-like in their nature, then they’re just brain states, something that happens inside the brain. But now you still have the same problem because what goes on inside of your brain is not the same thing that goes on inside of mine. Therefore, these conventions are not laws and do not necessarily correspond between different brains. If they are only human constructs of social conventions, then you could just end this right now and say, "My brain state tells me that modus ponens it is in fact an incoherent tautology, so whenever Jim applies this logical convention to his worldview it is in error." But if you were to do that, even your atheist friends would protest and say you're not being logical or rational. So, despite your claim that the laws of logic are merely conventions, you and your atheist friends don't function that way in your daily life. You accept the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature as exhibiting law-like characteristics, contrary your own claims that the universe is undirected and random. It's the same tension between Parmenides and Heraclitus right here in the 21st century.

Aussie Thinker writes:

I know that theists (as they are so into a faith based world) ...

Aussie, have you forgotten that you blindly assume, without sufficient proof, that induction works and will continue to work? It is faith-based. You take it on faith that induction is useful and gives you an accurate assessment of your daily experience. Faith-based. Say it with me: Faith-based.

Aussie Thinker writes:

[theists] think everyone lives by faith but you just have to give up that notion.

Why should I? Give me a good reason. Prove that your worldview is NOT faith-based and I'll stop saying it.

Aussie Thinker writes:

The fact that we see this Universe as ordered is simply because we are a product of it.

Simply? Then prove its simplicity and provide for us the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. The whole atheist world will thank you and then we can all go home.

Aussie Thinker writes:

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a universe to produce a creature that would not find it own universe ordered !

I have a few trees (a product of the ordered universe) on my property that seem fairly unaware of the order in the universe. There is also a pile of earth in my garden (a product of the ordered universe) that seems to be equally unaware. Do you realize what you're saying? And if, on your view, evolution invents by necessity, and if there are plenty of critters in the world that function just fine without reasoning faculties, I'm curious to know, on your view, what was the necessity that evolution was answering?

Aussie Thinker writes:

What astounds me is this is so OBVIOUS yet you have to invent a deity to explain the order ???... when DISORDER is actually what would imply something supernatural !

Aussie Thinker writes:

The simple fact that we see an ordered universe is because we are product of it.

Atheists crack me up. You call something a "simple fact," yet you can't prove it. That kind of undermines its simplicity, doesn't it? Lots of people are reading this, you know. Please be more careful.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Your ridiculous circuitous argument is basically saying..

Did you say "ridiculous circuitous"? Aren't you the one who said, "It just happened because it happened"?

Aussie Thinker writes:

You completely ignore the simple fact that reason developed along with our large brain it was not “given” to us by a supernatural deity.

Did you say "simple fact" again? Maybe "simple" has a different meaning in the atheist mind?

Aussie Thinker writes:

At some stage BOTH of us end up with a “It just happened”.. me with the universe you with God.. difference is I have reduced the level of complexity and confusion.

You keep asserting that, but you fail miserably to demonstrate or to prove it. God did not "happen," and every assertion you make, every predication that comes through your keyboard further points to His eternal existence. No other worldview can account for the many and the one, unity and diversity, contingencies and laws, and your every utterance affirms both, but you cannot account for it. The Triune God, the ultimate Many-and-One, exclusively gives meaning and intelligibility to our experience.

Aussie Thinker writes:

The “laws” you speak of are conceived by MAN.. we invent them as a concept. Do you understand that ?

You admitted yourself that they exist independently of man -- just like the wheel. Why do you equivocate?

Jim wrote: With these admissions, however, should also come the recognition that using logic and inference order to explain or understand things is baldly begging the very question, assuming the verity of a system in advance. Therefore, such a worldview comes down to an arbitrary preference, and not an intellectual necessity, and despite this, the atheist blindly assumes to attach meaning to his experience.

Aussie Thinker writes:

There you go again assuming because YOU need meaning that the atheist does too.

You know better than this, Steve. You need meaning in your experience to even make a sentence.

Aussie Thinker writes:

It is VERY clear to me that these constructs of logic etc that man uses are useful cerebral tools to make sense of the universe..

How is it clear to you? Are you using your cerebral tools to evaluate your cerebral tools? That type of question-begging might fly amongst those who share your worldview, but that's a big no-no here.

Aussie Thinker writes:

... they are just the same as you inventing a God to make sense of your universe. Of course both out “inventions” are “preferences”… mine is just a logical sensible one..

Your invention of logic is logical? Do you not detect a conflict of interest here?

Aussie Thinker writes:

Atheism scares you doesn’t it Jim ?

Not at all. I used to be one. Now I look for atheism anywhere I can find it.

Aussie Thinker writes:

I can see that you are intelligent. It is obvious by the twists, turns and hoops you are putting your mind through to justify your God fantasy.

I thought it was coherent and consistent? Are you reversing your earlier statement?

Aussie Thinker writes:

Your only defence against your own logic is this house of cards justification you have built up.

You and others are fond of making this assertion, but a "house of cards" should be rather easy to knock down, right? So go ahead.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Don’t feel to bad about giving up and coming over to the “dark side”. It’s not really dark.. in fact it is quite illuminated.

What you call illumination is actually empty reasoning and a darkened mind (Ro 1:21). I prefer rationality and intelligibility in my worldview, not to mention the unwavering certitude and assurance of having my sins atoned for, no longer fearing the wrath of God, and being eternally secure in the love of Christ.

Thanks for the invitation nonetheless! I wish I could "invite" you to Christ, but it's really not biblical. The command is to believe and repent. There is no invitation.

Thanks for the dialogue,
Jim

 

[heusdens]

Re: Thanks for the invite ...

Re: Thanks for the invite ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Jim wrote: With these admissions, however, should also come the recognition that using logic and inference order to explain or understand things is baldly begging the very question, assuming the verity of a system in advance. Therefore, such a worldview comes down to an arbitrary preference, and not an intellectual necessity, and despite this, the atheist blindly assumes to attach meaning to his experience.

You keep asserting that, but you fail miserably to demonstrate or to prove it. God did not "happen," and every assertion you make, every predication that comes through your keyboard further points to His eternal existence. No other worldview can account for the many and the one, unity and diversity, contingencies and laws, and your every utterance affirms both, but you cannot account for it. The Triune God, the ultimate Many-and-One, exclusively gives meaning and intelligibility to our experience.

No other worldview? Realy? How many "worldviews" did you study in your life?
Your worldview (theism) does fact not even consider that there in fact is an objective reality. It is not to be argued that we can only know about the world in a subjective way, but this does not contradict the fact that an objective reality has to exist, we can partly and in a relative way know.

Have you ever read anything about dialectical-materialism as a philosophical worldview?

 

[flash]

Re: Thanks for the invite ...

Re: Thanks for the invite ...

Originally posted by Hilston
No other worldview can account for the many and the one, unity and diversity, contingencies and laws, and your every utterance affirms both, but you cannot account for it. The Triune God, the ultimate Many-and-One, exclusively gives meaning and intelligibility to our experience.

Using presupositional tactics similar to those of the Christian Presuppositionalists, it is trivial to construct worldviews. These worldviews are nothing but large scale "god-of-the-gaps" arguments. 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.

For example, for my presupposition, I will choose myslef as the ultimate authority and arbiter of all things. Now, try and refute my worldview. Be careful not to contradict the presupposition!

 

[Hilston]

Calibration problems ...

Calibration problems ...

Hi Heusdens,

Jim wrote: God is conscious, and is non-material. The angels have consciousness, but they are non-material. The souls burning in hell are conscious, and they are non-material.

heusdens writes:

What is rational about that?

It's perfectly rational. If God is the Creator, a conscious non-corporeal Being, and if He chose to create beings that are non-material and conscious, then it is perfectly rational that said beings should exist.

Jim asked: How is it, on your worldview, that there can be both subjectivity and objectivity? Is the universe uniform and objective? Or is it subjective and contingent? How can it be both?

heusdens writes:

Because there is consciousness that reflects on an objective world.

How do know that? How have you tested it?

heusdens writes:

Consciousness is not defined without there being an objective world, since then nothing would exist.

How have you proven this conjecture? If so, how?

Jim asked: When did you last encounter a conscious program? And what sort of tests did you perform to ascertain whether or not the conscious component of the program was hardware-dependent?

heusdens writes:

Answers: -I run one.

Really? Who wrote the program?

heusdens writes:

-Self-test (see below under 'verification')

The link doesn't work.

Jim asked: do you have such "peripherals"? Have you tested them to see if they work? How did you go about testing them?

heusdens writes:

As a matter of fact I have! They are my eyes, ears, touch, smell, hands, feet, etc. (and also my mouth and stomach and penis and anus, for the energy supply and waiste). I test them every day.

How do you test them without question-begging? What criteria have you established to determine whether or not the input devices are receiving their data accurately, and how do you examine that criteria if not with the very senses your are presumably assessing? And have you calibrated your CPU to correspond accurately with the objective world? What do you use to calibrate it, and what do you use to verify that the calibration is successful?

heusdens writes:

I run self-tests every day. I compare resulsts with other programs, ...

Do you use your peripherals to compare the results, heusdans? That's a no-no, you know.

heusdens writes:

... and I extend my peripherals with outside things, and I read knowledge, and compare that with own results.

Then you trust your CPU to accurately process and assess the input data? How have you tested its veracity?

heusdens writes:

I verified that solipsism is incorrect. Wanna hear how I verified this?

I am very interested, but the link doesn't work.

heusdens writes:

And by the way also the mother program which had spawned me told me, and I know that is not a lie!

Perhaps the mother program was lied to? Or perhaps the mother program is a figment of your solipsistic imagination?

Solipsists, unite!

 

[Mr. Ben]

We could for example assume that no such reality AT ALL exists, and

then see where this assumption would lead to. It would lead to the fact that in last instance we have to acknowledge the fact that at least our mental activity itself exists (since we perceive of them), and that without there being an objective world, no such activity could exist either.

Oops.. you've made a mistake here. "This" physical world does not need to be the real one in order for your mind to exist. "This" world could be a fake world.. your mind might be floating in a vat of nutrients somewhere in an alien laboratory.

In any case, it doesn't matter. If your brain is floating in a vat, or you are having a lucid dream, or you are dead and reminiscing reality.. if there is no way for you to tell the difference between any of these things.. they are all meaningless. A difference that makes no difference is really no difference at all. If an empirical postulate is not verifiable, it is meaningless (the formal statement is for you jiggy).

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Hi again Jim,

I thought you had forgotten me.. but I see I am still failing to dissuade your of your strange constructed notion that our human constructs imply a God ?

I said above, "I wish ..." Obviously that's a tall order, especially given the sloppy thinking that typically passes for debate on this subject. The reason others find it coherent and compelling is that they are failing to recognize the naivete and the irrationality of your story. I still wonder if you do.

Clearly it is you who have trouble understanding it otherwise it would seem completely rational.

It's interesting that you use this "step" metaphor to describe this siutation, as if I choose to climb one more ladder rung or tier than you do. You misunderstand that my "extra step" is not really a "step" at all, and the idea really fails to characterize the nature of debate. Rather than being an added "step," it is actually the very bedrock upon with the entire ladder rests. It's not merely a question of adding a layer of complexity, as you've suggested. Rather, it is recognizing the solid foundation that you and I both have when we come to these ultimate metaphysical and epistemological questions. One of us recognizes that foundation; the other blindly assumes that there is no foundation and is content to float in the void, begging crucial questions at every juncture, basically presuming to levitate yourself by your own bootstraps.

Your “solid” foundation has been invented by you. My foundation solidly ends just before the realm of fantasy. You still don’t quite understand the extra step you are taking. I sympathise a bit with you. The concept of infinity is difficult for humans and many hold on to the notion of a God to cope with it. They don’t even see the irony that God was either caused or existed for infinity too !

Do you hear yourself? You're the one who said, "It just happened because it happened." That is as blind and as irrational as a thinking mind can get. If any of your readers are proud of you for saying that, what can I say? You can lead a horse to water, but getting him to float on his back is another matter entirely.

No.. you have FAITH that a God just happened because it happened. I have NO faith whatsoever that the Universe just happened because it happened. All things KNOWN have a natural cause.. it is fair to ASSUME that everything unknown will have to. I am not presumptuous enough to say I KNOW what happened it is just logical to ASSUME it was not something supernatural.

THAT IS NOT FAITH !

Are you now recanting your earlier statements about my worldview being coherent and consistent?

Why would an intelligent human hold a view that wasn’t coherent (at least to them). Incoherency is the realm of babbling fools. You view is coherent.. I understand it.. it COHERES. That doesn’t make it sensible to me. The Greeks had a coherent worldview with their pantheon of Gods. Doesn’t mean their God weren’t a ridiculous invention.

Actually, rationality, logic, and reason do not allow me to call a worldview such as yours "intelligible." It is a mixed bag of contradictions and fanciful stories.

I don’t mean to be mean here but that line is just hilarious. The irony of someone who believes the stories of the Bible are true declaring that I believe in fanciful “stories” is amazing.

As to the "strangeness" of my Deity, you know very well who He is. You know Him and you call him strange because you've deliberately estranged yourself from Him. I don't say this to be annoying or as proof of anything. I'm simply stating the true facts to oppose your false claims.

It’s no less annoying than me telling you that you KNOW you are fooling yourself about a God. You know he has never talked to you or revealed himself to you. This I KNOW for a fact because if he had he would have done the same to me.. and he hasn’t.

How so? Show me the error in my reasoning, or expose a false or unjustified assumption. (Don't just say "God's existence." That's too easy, and you can't prove it. Show us something that you can prove).

Nothing ever known has had a supernatural origin. You are therefore unjustified in assuming that the supernatural exists.

There you go again. Whenever the water gets too warm, you retreat to your Matrix escape hatch. Waiting there to catch you is another boiling pot.

You are the one who keeps raising the “how do you KNOW your reasoning works” situations.

Let me try an put this clearly. Every question you raise about justification of our consciousness can be put squarely back to you about justification of your God and his creation of consciousness.

You don’t seem to understand this simple fact.. You think God justifies your reasoning.. but you have just invented God.. so like me you have no justification for your reasoning anyway.

I accept my reality as coming from God and all human experience, laws of logic, science, mathematics, ethics, knowledge, human dignity, and the comprehensibility of nature cohere and make sense. Your "shortened step" of "accepting reality" (Which reality? Your Matrix reality again, perhaps?) as "just happening" is unproven, untested, blind, faith based, incoherent, incomprehensible, unwarranted, unjustified and utterly irrational. You haven't been able to prove otherwise, and with every protest, you solidify the Bible's case against you.

Just claiming a God and his creation of reasoning doesn’t make it so. I explained earlier that you do a worse case of “just happening” than I do.. then claim you don’t.

It's an unjustified claim. Let's consider your Matrix escape pod. You blindly assume that your senses are providing accurate data input to your brain. You assume that your brain accurately interprets particular data bits and properly assembles them into intelligible descriptions about the reality you presume to perceive. You have no way of testing your input for proper calibration; you have no way of testing your reasoning faculties for correspondence with the real world. You are thus impaled on the spike of a serious epistemological conundrum. Your use of the word "obvious" begs the very question you presume to answer.

You do exactly the same things as I do with your brain and reasoning.. but then add the complexity of a God to account for its existence.

The Bible instructs us to recognize the intelligibility and orderliness of nature.

Yet mentions many supernatural thing which we NEVER see any more.

The Bible also explains that today, with the advent of the Pauline canon and in this particular period of God's dealing with man, miracles have ceased. This is perfectly consonant with what we experience today.

Isn’t that lucky.. when “miracles” could be proven to not exist or never happen ot have natural explanation .. they suddenly cease.. C’mon Jim even you have to admit for anyone this points to the fact that they NEVER did.

Your arbitrary requirement that God needs to "muck around" with nature is wholly unwarranted, and logically untenable.

Yet if he parted the Red Sea under the cameras of CNN it would go a long way to proving he exists. We ONLY ever see the natural world.. implying the supernatural does not exist. Yet you take this natural world as some sort of proof that a supernatural deity exist.. boy you really have to bend over backwards to arrive at that one !

Did you use the word "rationality"? Do you realize that you have yet to sufficiently demonstrate that you're even qualified to use the word, let alone making assessments about what is or is not rational.

Here is where we are different. I don’t ever knock your rationality because I understand what your problem is. I clearly see you have intelligence but like many people your need for a God and an afterlife overrides you basic human rationality. In other words you are completely rational except where it comes to God. I on the other remain rational at all times.. I have NO agenda.. I don’t care if there is or isn’t a God.

If it is true that all these laws are only human conventions, as you suggest, and if all these laws are not really law-like in their nature, then they’re just brain states, something that happens inside the brain. But now you still have the same problem because what goes on inside of your brain is not the same thing that goes on inside of mine. Therefore, these conventions are not laws and do not necessarily correspond between different brains. If they are only human constructs of social conventions, then you could just end this right now and say, "My brain state tells me that modus ponens it is in fact an incoherent tautology, so whenever Jim applies this logical convention to his worldview it is in error." But if you were to do that, even your atheist friends would protest and say you're not being logical or rational. So, despite your claim that the laws of logic are merely conventions, you and your atheist friends don't function that way in your daily life. You accept the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature as exhibiting law-like characteristics, contrary your own claims that the universe is undirected and random. It's the same tension between Parmenides and Heraclitus right here in the 21st century.

Boy that was a mouthful to actually convey very little. You still fail to get the “laws” of the universe make sense with the Universe they are in. This is the only possible outcome.

Aussie, have you forgotten that you blindly assume, without sufficient proof, that induction works and will continue to work? It is faith-based. You take it on faith that induction is useful and gives you an accurate assessment of your daily experience. Faith-based. Say it with me: Faith-based.

You have to stop being hung up with Faith.. I know it rules your life but it has very little to do with mine. I explained earlier that I do not have Faith in what happened I just don’t delve into a fantasy of a God to explain it.

Why should I? Give me a good reason. Prove that your worldview is NOT faith-based and I'll stop saying it.

Well I have said it a few times but here goes. I do not have Faith that the Universe just happened. But as everything that has EVER happened has been shown to have natural origins it makes sense that the Universe did to… This is not Faith it is just a logical extrapolation from known information.

Simply? Then prove its simplicity and provide for us the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. The whole atheist world will thank you and then we can all go home.

We are a product of the universe.. Simply was just an expression.. would you feel better if I said we are a product of the universe which culminated from a long line of complex reactions and evolution ? We are just an accident of the universe.. why does this cause you such concern.

I have a few trees (a product of the ordered universe)

Nice to see you are starting to come around

on my property that seem fairly unaware of the order in the universe. There is also a pile of earth in my garden (a product of the ordered universe) that seems to be equally unaware. Do you realize what you're saying? And if, on your view, evolution invents by necessity, and if there are plenty of critters in the world that function just fine without reasoning faculties

Yes but we did develop reasoning capabilities and therefore we reason that the universe is ordered.. to us it is anyway as we are products of it.

I'm curious to know, on your view, what was the necessity that evolution was answering?

Ah ha… finally we get to the crux of your problem. Your world view ALWAYS requires a reason. Therefore natural things (which have no reason) are an anathema to you. You must hate that so many natural things happen without reason. Evolution followed no necessity.. we are just an end product of it.

Atheists crack me up. You call something a "simple fact," yet you can't prove it. That kind of undermines its simplicity, doesn't it? Lots of people are reading this, you know. Please be more careful.

I can prove it to most rational peoples satisfaction just not yours. The universe as we perceive it is ordered and natural. The proof being that everything that has EVER happened has been ordered an Natural. It is logical to therefore assume No supernatural.

Did you say "ridiculous circuitous"? Aren't you the one who said, "It just happened because it happened"?

You keep trying to taint me with YOUR own rationale. Your God just happened because it happened. I do not know the origin of the Universe but I extrapolate (logically) that it had a natural origin.

Did you say "simple fact" again? Maybe "simple" has a different meaning in the atheist mind?

We do actually have intelligence (in spite of your convoluted justification) .. it does exist. Is that a simple fact or not ?

You keep asserting that, but you fail miserably to demonstrate or to prove it. God did not "happen,"

Whichever way you try and sell God existence .. he either popped out of nothing or always was means “Just happened”

and every assertion you make, every predication that comes through your keyboard further points to His eternal existence. No other worldview can account for the many and the one, unity and diversity, contingencies and laws, and your every utterance affirms both, but you cannot account for it. The Triune God, the ultimate Many-and-One, exclusively gives meaning and intelligibility to our experience.

There you go again.. the need for meaning. That is your underlying failure to understand my world view. But c’mon Jim.. a triune God.. Father Son and Holy ghost.. this is the set of God that made the universe.. at leats grab a God that is feasible. That Christian one is just so full of ridiculous contradictions that it is laughable.

You admitted yourself that they exist independently of man -- just like the wheel. Why do you equivocate?

We think they exist independent of man.. no equivocation there.. I have explained that to you before. I find it a little disingenuous of you to declare I equivocate AGAIN.

You know better than this, Steve. You need meaning in your experience to even make a sentence.

No I need NO meaning for life to make a sentence. I make sentences and argue has I find it enjoyable.. just like a good meal. I would love to know how we got here but it requires no “meaning” to it.

How is it clear to you? Are you using your cerebral tools to evaluate your cerebral tools? That type of question-begging might fly amongst those who share your worldview, but that's a big no-no here.

Yes I am using my cerebral tools to evaluate my cerebral tools.. why is that a problem ?

Your invention of logic is logical? Do you not detect a conflict of interest here?

Not at all. Do you ?

Not at all. I used to be one. Now I look for atheism anywhere I can find it.

What on Earth induced you to go from atheism to Christianity. The Christian God is a ridiculous contradictory one. I find it hard to accept that anyone could take that guff on board without deluding themselves that our consciousness requires a reason.. oh hang on …

I thought it was coherent and consistent? Are you reversing your earlier statement?

I believe people can have coherent and consistent fantasies. Children firmly believe (coherently and consistently) in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. God is just a childhood fantasy adults find hard to give up.

You and others are fond of making this assertion, but a "house of cards" should be rather easy to knock down, right? So go ahead.

I can’t help it Jim if you stand there with a flattened house all around you declaring look at my wonderful house ! You just don’t recognise it is flat !

What you call illumination is actually empty reasoning and a darkened mind (Ro 1:21). I prefer rationality and intelligibility in my worldview, not to mention the unwavering certitude and assurance of having my sins atoned for, no longer fearing the wrath of God, and being eternally secure in the love of Christ.

Which sins did you commit that needed to be atoned for. And who atoned for them ..Jesus ?.. the son of God who was sacrificed.. well for 3 days anyway (was that a real sacrifice ?). I would like to think Christ loves you but I do believe he died at about 2,000 years ago. I am sure the atoms that made him up still exist somewhere though.

Thanks for the invitation nonetheless! I wish I could "invite" you to Christ, but it's really not biblical. The command is to believe and repent. There is no invitation.

The same sort of command that a 1,000 other religions make. Other religions that seem as ridiculous to you as yours does to me.

Thanks for the dialogue

You to mate

Steve

 

[Mr. Ben]

Jim wrote: God is conscious, and is non-material. The angels have consciousness, but they are non-material. The souls burning in hell are conscious, and they are non-material.

heusdens writes:
What is rational about that?

It's perfectly rational. If God is the Creator, a conscious non-corporeal Being, and if He chose to create beings that are non-material and conscious, then it is perfectly rational that said beings should exist.

It is also rational that fire spirits exist, as the volcano God created them during the dawn of the world.

Sheesh.

Jim asked: When did you last encounter a conscious program? And what sort of tests did you perform to ascertain whether or not the conscious component of the program was hardware-dependent?

heusdens writes:
Answers: -I run one.

Really? Who wrote the program?

What parts of consciousness are you talking about? If you're talking about recall and decision making.. there is software that does this. Task management and resource allocation.. software does this as well. Self reflection.. there is software that does this.

Is there software that duplicates the entire faculties of the human mind at this point.. the answer is no. But there is no reason to believe there won't be this kind of software in the realtively near future. The technical hurdles are not that steep.

How do you test them without question-begging? What criteria have you established to determine whether or not the input devices are receiving their data accurately, and how do you examine that criteria if not with the very senses your are presumably assessing? And have you calibrated your CPU to correspond accurately with the objective world? What do you use to calibrate it, and what do you use to verify that the calibration is successful?

All that is required is for the input you recieve to be coherent. The question of whether our perception of the outside world is "real" or not is meaningless. If you hit your head on a post, it hurts, regardless of whether it's "real" or not. If you duck to avoid it, it won't hurt. What more evidence of the outside world do you need.

As for a transcendental knowledge of "truth" via theism.. well it simplyh doesn't work. How can you be sure your belief in God is justified? If you can't be sure that God exists, then you can't be sure of logic, reason, and cause and effect, and then you're back in the same boat again.

Merely making the "claim" that God exists does not get you out of your connundrum. If you can't prove it, you still have the same metaphysical doubt as the athiest has. The only thing you have accomplished is to construct a facile and self satisfied shell of smugness based on faulty logic.

Then you trust your CPU to accurately process and assess the input data? How have you tested its veracity?

If you keep missing the post when you duck, and keep hurting your head when you don't, you are confirming "an" outside world. This world is sufficiently defined by our consistent and coherent perception of it. It does not require any other justification.

And by the way also the mother program which had spawned me told me, and I know that is not a lie!

Perhaps the mother program was lied to? Or perhaps the mother program is a figment of your solipsistic imagination?

But books like the bible are known to be 100% accurate (never mind the self contradictions contained within).

I think you and heusdens are on the same side of the fence. The only thing we "can" be sure of, and that we really "need" to be sure of is the consistency and temporal coherence of our own experience, and the commensurability of our experience with others. The rest is meaningless.

 

[Hilston]

Pick a realm, any realm ...

Pick a realm, any realm ...

Hi Mr. Ben,

Jim wrote: But what are the bases of this assumption? Are one's contingent and particular experiences sufficient to justify these assumptions? Why is it that we, as humans, draw abstract universals out of concrete particulars? The atheist cannot answer the problems posed by the existence of universal laws and the orderliness (unity) that is communicated to us in our experience, especially given that our experience is particular (non-universal) and changing (diversity).

Mr. Ben writes:

... Why not? Neural networks extract universals from particulars.

Of course they do. That doesn't even begin to address the requirement that your worldview account for the necessary precondition for this ability.

Mr. Ben writes:

That's what they do and how they work. You and I and everybody we know is equipped with a device that generalizes from particular perceptual input. It's called a brain.

That's not an answer to the question, Mr. Ben.

Jim wrote: Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem.

Mr. Ben writes:

Sure they can.

I'm listening.

Jim wrote: Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

Mr. Ben writes:

Nonsense. Metaphysics is not the proper realm to discuss such matters.. as it doesn't take into account what particulars and universals really ARE.

Fine. We'll use whatever realm you prefer. Please state it and give an account for what particulars and universals are in terms of whatever realm you choose.

Mr. Ben writes:

There are concrete descriptions of these things which are based on the fundamentals of information theory and data processing.

Did you mean to say that the fundamentals of information theory are based on the concrete descriptions? No? How do you justify either one?

Mr. Ben writes:

Archaic metaphysical terms only cloud the issue. We can discuss these matters using these old fashioned terms, but what we're really talking about are physical processes that take place in real brains.

Really? Is modus ponens a brain state?

Jim wrote: You beg the question. The Bible says you already know He exists and that you're accountable to Him.

Mr. Ben writes:

Who gives a rats ear what the Bible says.

You do ... enough to be hostile against it. If I were to have quoted Daniel Dennet or Fredrick Engels or Sigmund Freud, I highly doubt you would have responded so defensively.

Jim wrote:For your view to be true, you've got to justify your assumption of some default tabula rasa, which you can't do.

Mr. Ben writes:

For an athiest view to be true, there must be no evidence of any God. There is no solid evidence of any God...

You just moved from a universal requirement to your own contingent experience. How do you know there is no solid evidence for God? Have you looked everywhere? Do you even know what your looking for? Can you justify the standards of evidence that you'll accept as valid?

Mr. Ben writes:

There is no solid evidence of any God beyond the subjective claims of various believers (most of which are contradictory).. therefore the atheist view is true.

Wow. Do you realize the horrible non sequitur you've just committed? Sloppy, Mr. Ben. Way sloppy.

Jim wrote: The Bible says your default condition is belief in God, and that you work aggressively to deny, distort and distance yourself from that truth. So now the burden is back on you.

Mr. Ben writes:

Again.. who gives a rats eye what the Bible says. Richard Dawkins says that the onus is on you, and so does Bertrand Russell.. do you care what these people say?

Yes, I do. I own their books. I find it interesting and useful to consider the views of others, to weigh them against my own, to assess whether there are any insights from their philosophical outlooks that would be of benefit to me. Why the hostility, Mr. Ben?

Mr. Ben writes:

The existence of any entity is proven by positive evidence FOR its existence, not evidence for its NON existence.

Who here is providing evidence for God's NON existence? As to positive evidence, what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Mr. Ben writes:

If we were to assume that everything that might exist actually "did" exist, then practically everything we could think of would have to exist. This would include green unicorns, great space goats, etc. After all you don't know for sure that there are no leprechauns or fairies.

Are you trying to prove the existence of these? I'm not. So how are they relevant?

Jim wrote: You've got it exactly backward. What you call a "stopgap invention" is the exclusive accounting for induction, and not only does the Christian worldview have predictive power, it alone can account for predictability. Period. That is to say, atheists must in fact borrow from the Christian worldview for even the simplest predication, let alone predictability and induction.

Mr. Ben writes:

I see a post in front of me.. I don't duck.. I bump my head. The next day I see the post again.. I bump my head again. On the third day, I make the inference that the post I see in front of me is associated with the pain in my head. I decide to test this hypothesis by ducking. I no longer hurt my head.

Did you test your vision, too? How about the pain you think you felt-- have you tested that, too? How do you know if your motor neurons are properly excreting the needed acetylcholine to your axon endplates? How about the reasoning faculties that seemed a bit slow on the uptake. Maybe those are not very reliable. How would you go about testing them?

Mr. Ben writes:

So where precisely is the "christian worldview" in this simple description of inference based on experience?

The Christian worldview gives you a foundation for knowing that your actual experience comports with reality, that your senses are generally reliable, that you're reasoning faculties treat accurately of the input, and that you're not dreaming. Otherwise, you are, at best, guessing and hoping that you're not deceived by your senses, duped by your own faulty reasoning processes, or stuck in a dreamstate that you can neither verify nor escape. It bridges the gap between your contingent, changing experiences and the universal invariant laws that describe them (such as induction). Sentences make sense. Morality makes sense. Science makes sense. Mathematics makes sense. On the atheist worldview, nothing makes sense, everything is fraught with question-begging, faith based, blind assumptions.

Mr. Ben writes:

Could it not just as easily have a "muslim" worldview, ...

Not in the least. The Muslim god is posited as a monistic unitarian being. Such a being could not bridge the gap between the contingent and the universal, for all would be one by such a god; there would be no change, no particulars, no comprehensibility in the universe.

Mr. Ben writes:

... or non-theistic worldview. After all the person sees the post, it hits him in the head, and when he ducks it no-longer hits him. It hardly matters what religion he is.

You're not a very careful thinker, Mr. Ben. Of course it doesn't matter in the event itself. We're discussing not how people react based on their various worldviews, but which worldview can cogently make sense of the shared experiences. Please don't force me to type "duh."

Mr. Ben writes:

The truth is that brains evolved to recognize these sorts of causal patterns, ...

When did you witness this "truth"?

Mr. Ben writes:

... and mechanisms that detect them and direct the organism to respond in such a way as to survive more effectively are the results.

I'm curious: why is it, on your view, that countless creatures survive just fine without the sophisticated logical faculties that humans possess?

Mr. Ben writes:

... Logic and reason are names for mechanical systems in the brain which take raw information in,

Have you witnessed these mechanical systems? Can you read a PET scan and distinguish between modus ponens and a syllogism?

Mr. Ben writes:

... and turn it into activities that increase the probability that the organism will reproduce and pass on the same behaviors.

Too bad all the other creatures in the world died off because they didn't evolve these "mechanical systems." Wait a second ... they didn't die off? Hmm. How are they surviving without this necessary ability?

Are you a hard determinist, Mr. Ben?

Solipsists, unite!

Jim

 

[Mr. Ben]

and every assertion you make, every predication that comes through your keyboard further points to His eternal existence. No other worldview can account for the many and the one, unity and diversity, contingencies and laws, and your every utterance affirms both, but you cannot account for it. The Triune God, the ultimate Many-and-One, exclusively gives meaning and intelligibility to our experience.

No you're mistaken.. it's not the triune God. Actually it's the three headed green god of Reptelon 7 that gives meaning to all existence and justifies logic and reason.

The fact is that he has created this universe to serve as a source of food. After a perioud of several biillion years, he will harvest all intelligent life in the universe and have it for brunch with tea and scones.

Sorry to burst your bubble.. but at least you can now safely use logic and reason without having to wonder where it came from.

 

[Mr. Ben]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Why not? Neural networks extract universals from particulars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course they do. That doesn't even begin to address the requirement that your worldview account for the necessary precondition for this ability.

What? Organic chemistry? Electrochemical reactions?

What about these things need to be justified. They exist. They are there for everybody to see for themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what they do and how they work. You and I and everybody we know is equipped with a device that generalizes from particular perceptual input. It's called a brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not an answer to the question, Mr. Ben.

Jim wrote: Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem.

Mr. Ben writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure they can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm listening.

Generalizations of and ideals are products of how neural networks function. They reduce specific patterns to symbolic representations through information convolution. This is a physical mechanical process. That's about all there is it say about it.

Jim wrote: Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

Mr. Ben writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. Metaphysics is not the proper realm to discuss such matters.. as it doesn't take into account what particulars and universals really ARE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine. We'll use whatever realm you prefer. Please state it and give an account for what particulars and universals are in terms of whatever realm you choose.

Particulars are the specific perceptual signals your eyes, ears and other sensory equipment generate.. presumably from the outside world. The general is the end result of the convolution process where these perceptual signals are convolved into useful symbolic models by the brain's neural processing.

There is nothing about this process that is metaphysical, or magical. It is a physical process which is well understood, a product of how large scale neural networks like the brain function.

Did you mean to say that the fundamentals of information theory are based on the concrete descriptions? No? How do you justify either one?

They exist according to my perception, and they work because I percieve that they do.

Are you saying that you believe they work because God exists, and that you believe he exists because you made him up? I don't think making up imaginary people to explain things is very reasonable.

Keep to what you see, experience, and know directly. Do not invent explanations for things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archaic metaphysical terms only cloud the issue. We can discuss these matters using these old fashioned terms, but what we're really talking about are physical processes that take place in real brains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Is modus ponens a brain state?

Modus ponens and brain states which model it are both products of temporal causality in this universe. Were temporal causality not to be consistent, or predictable, neither would exist.

We can concieve of universes with radically different temporal and causal relationships. In these universes, the logic of modus ponens works differently. For example, univeres where causes lead to probable effects instead of definite effects do not have modus ponens in its standard form. I would expect any "brain" in such a universe would work differently as a result. Universes which have non-linear time, looping time, network time, or cellular time also result in different forms of logic.

So modus ponens and the brain stem from the same source, the physical rules of the universe. Logic is not meaningfull except in its relationship to the universe it exists in.

Who gives a rats ear what the Bible says.

You do ... enough to be hostile against it. If I were to have quoted Daniel Dennet or Fredrick Engels or Sigmund Freud, I highly doubt you would have responded so defensively.

Who gives a rats ear what Engels, Frued, or Dennet say. This is a matter of reason and argument. No source is allowed to define the answer by fiat.

You just moved from a universal requirement to your own contingent experience. How do you know there is no solid evidence for God? Have you looked everywhere? Do you even know what your looking for? Can you justify the standards of evidence that you'll accept as valid?

All of us must make a descision as to when the evidence, or lack of it, is sufficient to justify a conclusion.

I do not believe in unicorns, I do not believe in fairies, and I do not believe in God. All of these entities I classify in the same category.. things which people have claimed to have existed, but for which there is no evidence.

Could they really exist? I suppose there is an off chance that fairies are real and I am mistaken. However, until somebody presents me with evidence which confirms their existence, I will continue to believe that they do not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no solid evidence of any God beyond the subjective claims of various believers (most of which are contradictory).. therefore the atheist view is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Do you realize the horrible non sequitur you've just committed? Sloppy, Mr. Ben. Way sloppy.

Yes.. the athiest view is "solidly justified". We don't know for sure if it's true or not. But it has the advantage of not being based on the type of subjective storymaking and fantasy that typically are the source of so much nonsense.

Again.. who gives a rats eye what the Bible says. Richard Dawkins says that the onus is on you, and so does Bertrand Russell.. do you care what these people say?

Yes, I do. I own their books. I find it interesting and useful to consider the views of others, to weigh them against my own, to assess whether there are any insights from their philosophical outlooks that would be of benefit to me. Why the hostility, Mr. Ben?

I don't cotton to complete nonsense. When someone tells me "The Bible says God is true.. therefore it is up to you to prove the Bible false." I respond "Who cares what the Bible says???"

If I told you the "Necrinomicon" states that the many tentacled God Yog Sogoth exists and will devour the world soon.. and it's up to you to prove this is not the case.. how would you respond? Do you really take anything written by a Mad Arab (or pulp horror writer of the 30's) seriously?

The existence of any entity is proven by positive evidence FOR its existence, not evidence for its NON existence.

Who here is providing evidence for God's NON existence? As to positive evidence, what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Well, a being who could move a mountain, raise people from the dead, move planets, create the odd galaxy or two.. etc. Can you produce such a being and have him demonstrate his abilties for us?

If we were to assume that everything that might exist actually "did" exist, then practically everything we could think of would have to exist. This would include green unicorns, great space goats, etc. After all you don't know for sure that there are no leprechauns or fairies.

Are you trying to prove the existence of these? I'm not. So how are they relevant?

Because they illustrate the pointlessness of assuming that things which are not in evidence must necessarily exist. God has no evidence for his existence, fairies have no evidence for their existence, leprechauns have no evidence for their existence. Then why must God be proven "not" to exist when these other fantastic things are merely assumed not to?

Again.. if we fairly use the same rules of evidence you suggest for god and apply them to every entity for which there is no evidence, we must therefor assume that "everything" that

 

[Mr. Ben]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Why not? Neural networks extract universals from particulars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course they do. That doesn't even begin to address the requirement that your worldview account for the necessary precondition for this ability.

What? Organic chemistry? Electrochemical reactions?

What about these things need to be justified. They exist. They are there for everybody to see for themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what they do and how they work. You and I and everybody we know is equipped with a device that generalizes from particular perceptual input. It's called a brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not an answer to the question, Mr. Ben.

Jim wrote: Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem.

Mr. Ben writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure they can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm listening.

Generalizations of and ideals are products of how neural networks function. They reduce specific patterns to symbolic representations through information convolution. This is a physical mechanical process. That's about all there is it say about it.

Jim wrote: Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).

Mr. Ben writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. Metaphysics is not the proper realm to discuss such matters.. as it doesn't take into account what particulars and universals really ARE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine. We'll use whatever realm you prefer. Please state it and give an account for what particulars and universals are in terms of whatever realm you choose.

Particulars are the specific perceptual signals your eyes, ears and other sensory equipment generate.. presumably from the outside world. The general is the end result of the convolution process where these perceptual signals are convolved into useful symbolic models by the brain's neural processing.

There is nothing about this process that is metaphysical, or magical. It is a physical process which is well understood, a product of how large scale neural networks like the brain function.

Did you mean to say that the fundamentals of information theory are based on the concrete descriptions? No? How do you justify either one?

They exist according to my perception, and they work because I percieve that they do.

Are you saying that you believe they work because God exists, and that you believe he exists because you made him up? I don't think making up imaginary people to explain things is very reasonable.

Keep to what you see, experience, and know directly. Do not invent explanations for things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archaic metaphysical terms only cloud the issue. We can discuss these matters using these old fashioned terms, but what we're really talking about are physical processes that take place in real brains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Is modus ponens a brain state?

Modus ponens and brain states which model it are both products of temporal causality in this universe. Were temporal causality not to be consistent, or predictable, neither would exist.

We can concieve of universes with radically different temporal and causal relationships. In these universes, the logic of modus ponens works differently. For example, univeres where causes lead to probable effects instead of definite effects do not have modus ponens in its standard form. I would expect any "brain" in such a universe would work differently as a result. Universes which have non-linear time, looping time, network time, or cellular time also result in different forms of logic.

So modus ponens and the brain stem from the same source, the physical rules of the universe. Logic is not meaningfull except in its relationship to the universe it exists in.

Who gives a rats ear what the Bible says.

You do ... enough to be hostile against it. If I were to have quoted Daniel Dennet or Fredrick Engels or Sigmund Freud, I highly doubt you would have responded so defensively.

Who gives a rats ear what Engels, Frued, or Dennet say. This is a matter of reason and argument. No source is allowed to define the answer by fiat.

You just moved from a universal requirement to your own contingent experience. How do you know there is no solid evidence for God? Have you looked everywhere? Do you even know what your looking for? Can you justify the standards of evidence that you'll accept as valid?

All of us must make a descision as to when the evidence, or lack of it, is sufficient to justify a conclusion.

I do not believe in unicorns, I do not believe in fairies, and I do not believe in God. All of these entities I classify in the same category.. things which people have claimed to have existed, but for which there is no evidence.

Could they really exist? I suppose there is an off chance that fairies are real and I am mistaken. However, until somebody presents me with evidence which confirms their existence, I will continue to believe that they do not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no solid evidence of any God beyond the subjective claims of various believers (most of which are contradictory).. therefore the atheist view is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Do you realize the horrible non sequitur you've just committed? Sloppy, Mr. Ben. Way sloppy.

Yes.. the athiest view is "solidly justified". We don't know for sure if it's true or not. But it has the advantage of not being based on the type of subjective storymaking and fantasy that typically are the source of so much nonsense.

Again.. who gives a rats eye what the Bible says. Richard Dawkins says that the onus is on you, and so does Bertrand Russell.. do you care what these people say?

Yes, I do. I own their books. I find it interesting and useful to consider the views of others, to weigh them against my own, to assess whether there are any insights from their philosophical outlooks that would be of benefit to me. Why the hostility, Mr. Ben?

I don't cotton to complete nonsense. When someone tells me "The Bible says God is true.. therefore it is up to you to prove the Bible false." I respond "Who cares what the Bible says???"

If I told you the "Necrinomicon" states that the many tentacled God Yog Sogoth exists and will devour the world soon.. and it's up to you to prove this is not the case.. how would you respond? Do you really take anything written by a Mad Arab (or pulp horror writer of the 30's) seriously?

The existence of any entity is proven by positive evidence FOR its existence, not evidence for its NON existence.

Who here is providing evidence for God's NON existence? As to positive evidence, what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Well, a being who could move a mountain, raise people from the dead, move planets, create the odd galaxy or two.. etc. Can you produce such a being and have him demonstrate his abilties for us?

If we were to assume that everything that might exist actually "did" exist, then practically everything we could think of would have to exist. This would include green unicorns, great space goats, etc. After all you don't know for sure that there are no leprechauns or fairies.

Are you trying to prove the existence of these? I'm not. So how are they relevant?

Because they illustrate the pointlessness of assuming that things which are not in evidence must necessarily exist. God has no evidence for his existence, fairies have no evidence for their existence, leprechauns have no evidence for their existence. Then why must God be proven "not" to exist when these other fantastic things are merely assumed not to?

Again.. if we fairly use the same rules of evidence you suggest for god and apply them to every entity for which there is no evidence, we must therefor assume that "everything" that offers no evidence must necessarily exist... fairies, leprechauns, etc. This is unreasonable.

Unless evidence for God can be offered, it is reasonable to assume that he is as real as a fairy or a leprechaun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a post in front of me.. I don't duck.. I bump my head. The next day I see the post again.. I bump my head again. On the third day, I make the inference that the post I see in front of me is associated with the pain in my head. I decide to test this hypothesis by ducking. I no longer hurt my head.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you test your vision, too? How about the pain you think you felt-- have you tested that, too?

Yes, I feel the pain. Direct perception is a-priori real.

How do you know if your motor neurons are properly excreting the needed acetylcholine to your axon endplates?

It doesn't matter. The perception is there regardless of what produces it. Direct perception is a-priori.

And ifit is not my neurons, it is something else. I only assume that it is produced by neurons because I also perceive the existence of brains, neurons, the physical laws, and the nature and properties of neural networks.

How about the reasoning faculties that seemed a bit slow on the uptake. Maybe those are not very reliable. How would you go about testing them?

If my models of reality are inconsistent with reality, I would expect to be consistently suprised by constant contradiction from reality.

So where precisely is the "christian worldview" in this simple description of inference based on experience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian worldview gives you a foundation for knowing that your actual experience comports with reality, that your senses are generally reliable, that you're reasoning faculties treat accurately of the input, and that you're not dreaming.

But I am dreaming.. the christian worldview.. OOOPS! Your argument is demolished. Sorry.

The fact is it really doesn't matter if you're dreaming. If you were dreaming a dream of a world that was in all ways indistinguishable from the real world.. it makes no difference. The "difference" is precisely and absolutely meaningless from an empirical standpoint. In other words, there is no difference.

Otherwise, you are, at best, guessing and hoping that you're not deceived by your senses, duped by your own faulty reasoning processes, or stuck in a dreamstate that you can neither verify nor escape.

Decieved by my senses. Since reality IS my senses.. that is not logically possible. You can't be deceived by what defines reality in the first place.

It bridges the gap between your contingent, changing experiences and the universal invariant laws that describe them (such as induction). Sentences make sense. Morality makes sense. Science makes sense. Mathematics makes sense.

Actually, these all make sense only because Santa Claus exists and made them so. You're notion of a Christian God only makes sense because you are borrowing from my Santa Claus viewpoint. If you were not, how could you know for sure that your believe in a Christian God was justified?

Santa Claus is the source of all logic. All epistemological and ontological questions are answered by fiat because Santa Claus exists. If you have a question about ontology, it is answered by Santa Claus. All you have to do is simply first believe in Santa Claus for it to all make sense.

On the atheist worldview, nothing makes sense, everything is fraught with question-begging, faith based, blind assumptions.

Yes, but not so with Santa Claus. That goodness he exists.. or we would never be able to think.

Not in the least. The Muslim god is posited as a monistic unitarian being. Such a being could not bridge the gap between the contingent and the universal, for all would be one by such a god; there would be no change, no particulars, no comprehensibility in the universe.

No, not that conception of the muslim God.. the one in which he answers all epistemological questions.

But you are forgetting the great three headed green god of Reptelon 7 as well. He not only bridges the gap between contingent and universal.. but also makes julian fries and comes with a 30 day money back guarantee. It is obvious that this is the real God, since by deciding he exists arbitrarily, we get to declare even more epistemological and ontological questions closed by fiat. In fact, the green God of reptelon 7 has declared that he knows the answer to the NP hard problem as well, and the largest prime number. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that there is an imaginary being that can be the source of such imaginary certainty and imaginary knowledge as my ravenous great green God.

You're not a very careful thinker, Mr. Ben. Of course it doesn't matter in the event itself. We're discussing not how people react based on their various worldviews, but which worldview can cogently make sense of the shared experiences. Please don't force me to type "duh."

Any of them can make sense of it. It's very simple. Duck when you see the post or you'll get a nasty bump.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth is that brains evolved to recognize these sorts of causal patterns, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did you witness this "truth"?

Alright.. the physical evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that... is that better?

... and mechanisms that detect them and direct the organism to respond in such a way as to survive more effectively are the results.

I'm curious: why is it, on your view, that countless creatures survive just fine without the sophisticated logical faculties that humans possess?

They are not large bipedal omnivores who must scavenge the sahvannahs for food. Some of them do just fine growing on rocks in the sun.

It's called ecological niches. The solutions to the problems of surivival are all different depending on where a species finds itself, and what it has to work with.

... Logic and reason are names for mechanical systems in the brain which take raw information in,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you witnessed these mechanical systems? Can you read a PET scan and distinguish between modus ponens and a syllogism?

Yes, actually we can do that in simulation. We can actually trace the inferences of the visual system down through multiple layers. Edge detection, gradient detection, motion tracking, etc. We also have the evidence from accident studies which disable very specific parts of cognitive function. Oddly enough, some people with epilepsy seem to be prone to extreme spiritual experiences. What does this say about belief in God?

... and turn it into activities that increase the probability that the organism will reproduce and pass on the same behaviors.

Too bad all the other creatures in the world died off because they didn't evolve these "mechanical systems." Wait a second ... they didn't die off? Hmm. How are they surviving without this necessary ability?

Brains seem to be quite useful. A large number of organisms on the planet have them.

Wait.. not all of them have them. That must mean they aren't useful at all!

Are you a hard determinist, Mr. Ben?

I am not sure that physical reality is deteministic, but it makes little difference if it is. What we see as free will remains basically unchanged.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim writes

The Christian worldview gives you a foundation for knowing that your actual experience comports with reality, that your senses are generally reliable, that you're reasoning faculties treat accurately of the input, and that you're not dreaming.

How does it do this any better than our world view ? You keep stating it does but provide NOTHING that we see as any more concrete a reason than we have.

Otherwise, you are, at best, guessing and hoping that you're not deceived by your senses, duped by your own faulty reasoning processes, or stuck in a dreamstate that you can neither verify nor escape.

So are you. You fail to provide why your creation of a God fantasy solves this problem.

It bridges the gap between your contingent, changing experiences and the universal invariant laws that describe them (such as induction). Sentences make sense. Morality makes sense. Science makes sense. Mathematics makes sense.

You seem to think your God fantasy makes sense of these things when it just begs more questions. Like where did god come from etc.

On the atheist worldview, nothing makes sense, everything is fraught with question-begging, faith based, blind assumptions.

It makes perfect sense that everything we know comports with the natural ordered universe we perceive. Sure we have plenty of question but we are never going to get answers to them by saying “God did it”.. (even if a God did do it, it is a pointless assumption to make when examining the universe).

No faith just logical extrapolation from known data

 

[heusdens]

Jim wrote:

<<The Christian worldview gives you a foundation for knowing that your actual experience comports with reality, that your senses are generally reliable, that you're reasoning faculties treat accurately of the input, and that you're not dreaming.>>

But the Christian worldview has realy an upside down worldview, and makes nonsense assumptions.

It's first axioma is that God exists. Since all other things are based on that, this first axioma can never be tested for within that system of thought.

Christianity might state that our sensory perceptions are 'real' but it makes wrong assumptions about reality. For instance, something that is not directly witnessed is attributed to the unknown and unseen entity 'God'.

For a more accurate descpription of the world, we need to know, what the primary thing is in the world. If we believe Christianity, the first thing was God, that is: a consciousness being or consciousness. Matter is then denoted as a secondary thing of the world, as it was supposed to be created by God.

This kind of philosophical outlook, in which thinking (consciousness or spirit) is primary, and being (matter) is secondary is called: Philosophical Idealism.
Opposite to it is the new outlook on the world: Philosophical Materialism. It replaces the notion of God with the notion of matter. Matter is (in contradiction with God, which denotes a subjective entity) an objective entity. Matter is both indestructable and uncreatable. Matter denotes the philosophical category of things that exist outside, apart from and independend of the mind.

The basic feature of the material world is that it develops, and in which more simple forms of matter, have aquired due their changes / transitions and transformations, new properties.
The best way we can describe this by looking on the material processes that went on at large time scales, when preexisting material forms in the universe, like clouds of hydrogen, could form a more complex material form of a star, which formed due to the material changes going on within the star, new materials (the heavier elements) which returned back to the universe after the star exploded, and which materials formed the basic ingredients for planetary formations, like the planet earth, in which the heavier elements (formed in the interiors of stars) were present, that could transform into even more complex chemical material forms due to earths geological processes and the influence of the atmosphere and the sun, and which provided the basic layers for later developments in the organic material world, which lead ultimately to the formation of simple life forms, which have developed in the past 3 billion years into staggering complex life forms.

It is quite logical that on the basis of the foundation of Christianity, we could have never discovered evolution theory, and never would have done much of science. Unknown phenomena were attributed to God, which was based on the mytholigical book the Bible. Critical research and investigation of the material and natural world, was limited.
The explenation 'God dit it' fits perfectly on everything which ws unknown, and for almost 2000 years, Christianity has put a brake on scientific discoveries. It's only due to the social changes that went on since the last 200 years or so, that we could develop science. The role of the church institutions and religion, has therefore significanlty reduced, at the benefit of science and education.

The fundament for this new world look is materialism which is well founded and a base for all forms of science. In practice allmost all scientists are materialist in their work, even despite the fact that some of them have kept their religious notions about reality.

Same as Christianity, materialism forms a basement for our understanding of the world. We have developed through science trustworthy methods to verify and investigate the material world, through the use of much preciser instruments, and can verify our models of reality through accurate and reliable observations, and have developed good standards to judge our methods of science.

We have extended both our senses and our brains.

Christianity was the world outlook of the Dark Ages. Materialism is the world outlook of the modern scientific society, which is ready for the world of tomorrow!

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Hear hear Huesdens !

You state quite clearly WHY we atheists continually want to put a brake on religious mythology.

It IS detrimental to scientific discovery.

ALL science must start with NO assumption of cause or the experiment is immediately flawed.. science looks at what is and asks why.. religion starts with the answer and works backwards..

Assuming a God thwarted science for years.

 

[jjjg]

No the first cause argument says that God is not self-evident and must be made evident through the material world we perceive.

Matter is secondary because it is contingent and potential and not self existing. Kelvin proved it.

Being denotes the forms not the matter.

Yes, matter takes on forms in fact the forms determine the matter to be what it is.

No God denotes an objective entity based on abstractions from our senses of the material world.

Objectivity just means things that can stand on their own independant of the mind which includes some concepts and abstractions.

Where did all this hydrogen and gases come from? They cannot be infinite or necessary.

Modern science says that science is theory that exists in the mind only and has no other objective reality. It has done away with objectivity. Its all relative now. This theory includes what we can say about matter and matter as a concept.

Earliest Christian thinkers like St. Augustine had evolution notions. Possibly fundamentalists would have tried to hold it back but thats not all Christians. We wouldn't have discovered evolution without thought either, they are two sides to the same coin.

Christianity were the scientists. Who do you think Descartes, Copernicus, Mendel were? The church had huge institutions of learning.