Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Hilston]

If I may jump in ...

If I may jump in ...

There are quite a lot of posts I'd like to respond to, and I prefer to respond in the order in which they were posted. But since aharvey has offered to summarize my argument and has asked for feedback on it, it is fitting that I should make an exception and respond to this first.

As I am a professional biologist, I freely acknowledge that I accept the scientist's view of science more than the fundamentalist theologian's view of science, and therefore may be overlooking or misrepresenting Jim's position.

From much of what has been written here, scientists seem wont to claim that they don't really have a "view of science," i.e., an explanation that justifies their use of scientific methods. They "just do it." That is, they seem to blindly accept induction and the uniformity of nature, because they claim to have no choice. They don't question it. Nor do they allow others to question it. It is sacrosanct. But that's not rational. And it doesn't justify what they're doing. The Biblical Creationist, on the other hand, is able to not only know, but to justify what he knows, to understand that his knowledge, as well as the tools by which he acquires and organizes that knowledge, are rationally grounded.

I wonder if y'all can help me distill the essential points fairly, accurately and concisely?
“Evolution is not science.”

Evolution (capital "E") as a paradigm is not science, for two reasons: (1) Because it makes claims concerning events that are outside the purview of science, and (2) because the knowledge and conclusions held according to that paradigm cannot be justified without begging crucial questions concerning the verity of the tools and methods used.

- “Evolution is not science because it is illogical.”

See above.

-- “Evolution is illogical because it contradicts God, who is the source of all logic."

Evolution uses logic and the tools and methods of science, but without justification and to deliberately exclude God, the Source of logic and the tools and methods of science, from the equation. It's being called "methodological naturalism" by Stratnerd.

--- "We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."

It's not an inference. It is explicitly stated in the Bible, which is God's inerrant and infallible revelation to mankind.

--- “Evolution contradicts God specifically by contradicting God's version of what actually happened."

Since God was the only one who was there to witness (and cause) what actually happened, it follows that His version is the true version, and all other variations are indeed false.

---- "God told us what actually happened through His Word, also known as the Bible."

God told us exactly, albeit not exhaustively, what happened with regard to the creation of the universe. The justification of this claim is that the verity of the Bible is necessary to make sense of the tools and methods of science.

----- "All events that are reported in the Bible happened exactly as originally written, and we have the complete and accurate version of what was originally written." [sorry, I'm missing the justification for the above two claims]

Correct. All Biblical accounts are exact, albeit not exhaustive. As to the accuracy of the Biblical texts, there are many writings of that period, which have much worse credentials than the text of the Bible, yet we don't find people questioning whether or not the texts of Plato are "accurate." There are no scientific reasons to question the overall accuracy of extant Biblical texts. As to its completeness, if God exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then there is no existential reason to question its completeness. The justification of this claim is that the verity of Biblical text is necessary to make sense of the tools and methods of science. If the Bible were not true, then any knowledge acquired or organized according to those unjustified tools and methods cannot be verified or validated. They we would then have to be held, ultimately, by blind faith.

----- "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is."

He both told us and has proven it by various means: Through personal human experience, through the testimony of creation, through rational faculties of man and through the necessity of God's Word to justify the tools and methods of science.

------ "God tells us it is His Word through His Word, also known as the Bible."

See above.

Replacing "evolution" with other scientific theories or discplines seems to support this interpretation. "The Big Bang Theory" is not science, for the reasons given. "Cell Theory," "Germ Theory," "Chemistry," "Ecology," on the other hand, are not disqualified as science.

"Evolution," capital "E", is to science as "The Big Bang Theory" is to science. I do not deny the science of evolution (lower case "e") and cell theory and all the rest, provided they limit their claims to that which is within the actual purview of their particular domains of science. However, I would claim that any proponent of Evolution (capital "E") who presumes to do chemistry by the use of scientific tools and methods does so without justification.

That's pretty close to Jim's argument. I bet your logic senses are screaming "circular logic".

It's not circular when we start with the existence and attributes of God, which are necessary to justify the logical processes that you otherwise accept axiomatically (i.e. as magic).

The way he gets around this is by presupposing 1) God of the Bible, 2) Inerrancy of the Bible.

It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.

So these two are axioms in his worldview, ...

These are not axioms. If they were axioms, wouldn't you accept them as well? The fact that you reject them disqualifies them as axioms.

... need no support, and support everything else. So far so good, as this is all logically VALID!

There is plenty of support, but whether or not you accept it depends on the assumptions about reality that you bring to the discussion.

The next step is where his argument messes up, when he infers that an atheist worldview is irrational, and so is every other worldview. This is wrong because he is judging one logic system, using another logic system.

My logic is no different than yours, m_d. If you think it is, please give me an example.

The trick is that his logic system has an axiom that explains an axiom of the other system.

First, you must have a different definition of axiom. Secondly, if a so-called axiom explains other things that are otherwise inexplicable, those other things are no longer axioms. They become justified and are therefore no longer merely axiomatic.

He tries to obfuscate the fact that his axioms are just as internally unfounded, by defining them as founded.

Here's a question that you don't need to answer; I just want to put it our there: Will you at least acknowledge that the existence and attributes of the God of the Bible, if he existed, would justify the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature? If so, then the claims of the Bible are not merely "obfuscation." And even if you don't grant the coherence of the Biblical thesis, at least I've made an effort to justify the tools and methods of science in a way that doesn't beg the question. If you still want to call that obfuscation, then we're just going to have to disagree. Of course, my disagreement with you is justfied, whereas your disagreement with me is not.

 

[Balder]

The justification of this claim is that the verity of Biblical text is necessary to make sense of the tools and methods of science. If the Bible were not true, then any knowledge acquired or organized according to those unjustified tools and methods cannot be verified or validated. They we would then have to be held, ultimately, by blind faith.

One day I may get over it, but I always trip up over the audacity of this claim! To say that no other paradigm accounts as sufficiently for "the world as we know it," with all its regularities and its apparent order, as the Biblical worldview, is a bold statement. But totally unsubstantiated...and likely indefensible.

And as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Bible makes some patently false statements about the nature of the cosmos. The sky is not a metal dome, there is no celestial ocean, nor any floodgate to mediate it ... though that's what many of the neighbors of the Biblical authors thought, and what the Biblical authors apparently thought as well.

 

[Balder]

That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around."

Too early to use the word "proof"! No proof has been given.

You should amend your statement to: "That's an extraordinary claim..."

Everyone will agree!

 

[Hilston]

One day I may get over it, but I always trip up over the audacity of this claim! To say that no other paradigm accounts as sufficiently for "the world as we know it," with all its regularities and its apparent order, as the Biblical worldview, is a bold statement. But totally unsubstantiated...and likely indefensible.

It is indeed substantiated, if only by the fact that no one has offered a defensible, sustainable, rational alternative. If I recall correctly offered an alternative in the form of mindless, impersonal, amoral, non-volitional universal forces, and despite the irrationality of it, you seem convinced that such forces can somehow give rise to minds, personality, morality and volition.

And as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Bible makes some patently false statements about the nature of the cosmos. The sky is not a metal dome, there is no celestial ocean, nor any floodgate to mediate it ...

These are hermeneutical issues that you've disqualified yourself from cogently assessing. Those whose fundamental perception of reality is opposed to the claims of scripture are self-excluded from justifiably making the assumptions you've made here.

... though that's what many of the neighbors of the Biblical authors thought, and what the Biblical authors apparently thought as well.

The operative term here is "apparently." There is nothing in the Biblical text that requires the thoughtful reader to accept your assumptions about the passages to which you are alluding.

Too early to use the word "proof"! No proof has been given.

It has, Balder. The argument as stated is proof. You can deny it, but in so doing, you sacrifice rationality on the altar of that denial.

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

You're quite bright, and I've enjoyed talking with you in the past, and I certainly appreciate the careful way you craft many of your arguments (even though I disagree with your conclusions), but I think it is intellectually dishonest to call a bald, unsubstantiated claim "proof." That is a misuse of the word.

If I recall correctly offered an alternative in the form of mindless, impersonal, amoral, non-volitional universal forces, and despite the irrationality of it, you seem convinced that such forces can somehow give rise to minds, personality, morality and volition.

No, that is not what I said in our discussion, nor what I believe. But that's a separate discussion -- which I'm happy to take up again elsewhere, if you or any other presuppositionalist would like to try to "prove" what you claim: that all non-Christian, non-Biblical worldviews must necessarily self-implode.

Best wishes,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Bald, Balder ...

Bald, Balder ...

... but I think it is intellectually dishonest to call a bald, unsubstantiated claim "proof." That is a misuse of the word.

I will concede that the statement is bald, as it should be. But what would constitute substantiation in your opinion? What on your view constitutes proof?

 

[Hilston]

Kablooey ...

Kablooey ...

... if you or any other presuppositionalist would like to try to "prove" what you claim: that all non-Christian, non-Biblical worldviews must necessarily self-implode.

You've seen it here over and over again, Balder. They resort to the "axiom-of-the-gaps" argument, and that is self-implosion of the highest order.

I do apologize for not recalling correctly your claims of how you justify the tools & methods of science. I may be confusing you with another Buddhist from my past. I, too, would like to take that up again sometime.

Cheers,
:j

 

[Balder]

If I recall correctly, we went around this idea of what constitutes "adequate proof" of a worldview a number of times. If a presuppositionalist claims that all other worldviews are necessarily flawed and self-contradictory, then the onus is on the presuppositionalist to demonstrate this: to demonstrate the weakness and irrationality of those worldviews. Which entails more than saying, or demonstrating, that their model differs from the Biblical one.

So, for one, I'd like to see a presuppositionalist succeed in backing up this bald/bold claim... Or at least seriously attempt to do so, instead of resorting to the "impossibility of the contrary" refrain. (I concede that you made a fairly concerted effort in our discussion on presuppositionalism.)

Concerning more positive presuppositionalist substantiation, do you have any idea how the Biblical God is necessary to understand (and ground) things like ... oh ... instincts, viruses, birth defects, men with nipples, and humans with tail bones?

 

[Hilston]

MNAG: The "Man-Nipple" Proof For God's Existence?

MNAG: The "Man-Nipple" Proof For God's Existence?

If I recall correctly, we went around this idea of what constitutes "adequate proof" of a worldview a number of times. If a presuppositionalist claims that all other worldviews are necessarily flawed and self-contradictory, then the onus is on the presuppositionalist to demonstrate this: to demonstrate the weakness and irrationality of those worldviews. Which entails more than saying, or demonstrating, that their model differs from the Biblical one.

Of course, and any view that wants to compete with the Biblical view must get in line. I'm only one person.

Furthermore, I don't make the claim on my own authority or experience. As a Biblical Creationist, it should come as no surprise that I defer to the claims of Scripture, one of which being that no other worldview can justifiably account for the intelligibility of human experience, the laws of science and logic, human dignity or moral standards and values. For every view that's been presented, the challenge is to expose the inevitable flaws and self-contradictions and to make them evident. But of course, to those who are happy to believe in magic (axioms) and science fiction (cosmogony myths), the flaws and self-contradictions are not bothersome, despite their exposure. This is the classic unthirsty-horse-led-to-water scenario. Just because the one purporting the competing view is unconvinced by the Bible's refutation does not make my demonstration of their flaws and self-contradictions any less cogent or sound (i.e. proof).

So, for one, I'd like to see a presuppositionalist succeed in backing up this bald/bold claim... Or at least seriously attempt to do so, instead of resorting to the "impossibility of the contrary" refrain. (I concede that you made a fairly concerted effort in our discussion on presuppositionalism.)

This surprises me, Balder, because I do remember this much: I never felt I had a knowledgeable enough grasp of your thesis to even begin a presuppositional critique of it. I spent the bulk of our discussion trying to understand what exactly I was up against and I never felt satisfied that I understood it sufficiently. By the way, the "refrain" you mentioned has not been sung once by me in this discussion or the debate. Of course, I've made the claim in various ways, to varying degrees, but that violates the definition of "refrain," doesn't it?

Concerning more positive presuppositionalist substantiation, do you have any idea how the Biblical God is necessary to understand (and ground) things like ... oh ... instincts, viruses, birth defects, men with nipples, and humans with tail bones?

It isn't enough to say, "Hey, can you ground your understanding of this vestigial physiological phenomenon?" An efficient critique of competing worldviews does not spend time addressing about such particulars (not that it couldn't; it's just not efficient). Rather, the critique goes to a more fundamental level, an example of which I hinted at in my previous post to you. Here it is again, in the same form of Socratic Irony that I employed in the aforementioned post: Why did you choose to ask specifically about men with nipples or humans with tail bones?

 

[Highline]

This whole thing seem to be incredibly off subject to me. Hilston, you seem to be debating God and existence, I thought this was about the theory of eveloution verse creationism. Explain and discuss the fossil record- why would a creator set up situation in which 99% of the species ever created are extinct? Aside from the Bible, what is your evidence of the age of the Earth? Why do viruses and bacteria mutate? Why are there so many unique species located on Islands and isolated continents? Why can't humans invent their own morality, in fact, isn't morality one of our evolutionary advantages?

Life is messy and history is life's dead ends. Why is life by far the most compicated thing on Earth, why did the designer not make complicated non-living things?

Oh, and of course people question Plato and build on his ideas.

 

[mighty_duck]

First a definiton. I am using this definition of Axiom (from dictionary.com), as it relates to one logic system (a set of axioms and their deductive conclusions) :

ax·i·om:
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

You can replace the word axiom with presupposition, as they are equivalant in this regard.

It's not circular when we start with the existence and attributes of God, which are necessary to justify the logical processes that you otherwise accept axiomatically (i.e. as magic).

Agreed. It is not circular because you presuppose God, and that ends the circularity.

If you start with Logic as your presupposition, then that is just as rational and non-circular.

It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.

Jim, I am very unimpressed with this assertion. There is no magic or myth. We create a logic system with axioms, and deduce conclusions from them. Axioms are rational within that logic system (you call it a worldview). Asking for proof or rationalization for an axiom is like asking why a circle is round. Its is true by definition.

We have different axioms, and a as result we have different worldviews. Our use of logic is the same though.

Let me give you an example:
Person A holds the following axioms.
All Dogs have hair.
Rex is a dog.

He therefore comes to a conclusion that Rex has hair. He is justified, and rational.

Person B has these axioms:
All Aliens have hair,
All dogs are aliens.
Rex is a dog.

Person B is also justified and rational in proclaiming that Rex has hair. He can claim that his axioms provide a rational explaination to why dogs have hair, and therefore Person A is irrationally holding his axioms. But how did he reach this conclusion? By using his own axioms to judge the axioms of another system.

Person A can likewise claim that Person B is irrational if he claims that Rex is an alien. He is commiting the same fallacy, of judging one rational system using the axioms of another rational system.

What your argument does, is say that Person B can claim Person A is irrational, but not the other way around. This is wrong logic.

So how can two people both be rational means, and still come to different conclusions? They have different axioms. So the next question, is which axioms are "better". The fact that person B has a rational explanation for person A's axiom, by no means guarantees anything.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Highline ...

Hi Highline ...

This whole thing seem to be incredibly off subject to me. Hilston, you seem to be debating God and existence, I thought this was about the theory of eveloution verse creationism.

The debate is about whether or not Evolution is science or science fiction. In my opening post, I explained that certain aspects of evolution can be regarded as science. I defined science thus:

First, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs.​

However, whenever the Evolutionist presumes to make claims or conclusions based on assumptions that extend beyond the above descriptions, it ceases to be science. The very foundation of methodological naturalism is Godless, the stated exclusion of any notion of the extra-natural. Given that claim, I am warranted in challenging the Evolutionist to justify the tools and methods by which they claim to do science by ignoring the extra-natural. I have a justification for my use of those tools and methods, and that is the existence and attributes of God. I'm not asking my opponent(s) to believe in God; my goal is not to compel my opponent(s) to believe in God. Rather, my goal is to show that the Evolutionist cannot rationally justify the very tools he uses to do science, and to demonstrate that the Creationist can.

Explain and discuss the fossil record- why would a creator set up situation in which 99% of the species ever created are extinct?

Before I answer, I'm curious to know if you personally counted and did the arithmetic to arrive at this statistic.

Aside from the Bible, what is your evidence of the age of the Earth?

My evidence? I'm not a geologist. I don't have or offer any on my own authority. There are dozens of books on the subject if you're interested. Google should be helpful there.

Why do viruses and bacteria mutate?

Since I'm not a microbiologist, I couldn't give you any details on this. My guess is that creatures have been designed by God to adapt to their environments. Which suggests that human beings can have children with a different content of melanin in their skin because of the effects of the environment on them or their ancestors. It does not, however, mean that humans will someday have wings or prehensile tails. Again, as above, there are dozens of books on this subject. All you have to do use a search engine to find them.

Why are there so many unique species located on Islands and isolated continents?

Probably because isolated populations give rise to unusual characteristics. Don't we see this even among humans? Does that mean those humans would eventually become something other than human?

Why can't humans invent their own morality, in fact, isn't morality one of our evolutionary advantages?

What is morality? And by what authority should one human or even a consensus of humans impose that standard on others? Does might (and consensus) make right?

Life is messy and history is life's dead ends. Why is life by far the most compicated thing on Earth, why did the designer not make complicated non-living things?

Is there some kind of axiom I'm unaware of? "For God to exist, non-living things must be as complicated as living things"? Is "complicated" a virtue or a liability in your view? Whence derives this value judgment?

Oh, and of course people question Plato and build on his ideas.

Are you serious about this remark? If so, you could not have missed the point by a wider margin if you had tried.

 

[Hilston]

m_d -- you rawk.

m_d -- you rawk.

First a definiton. I am using this definition of Axiom (from dictionary.com), as it relates to one logic system (a set of axioms and their deductive conclusions) :

ax·i·om:
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

You can replace the word axiom with presupposition, as they are equivalant in this regard.

It's not circular when we start with the existence and attributes of God, which are necessary to justify the logical processes that you otherwise accept axiomatically (i.e. as magic).

Agreed. It is not circular because you presuppose God, and that ends the circularity.

If you start with Logic as your presupposition, then that is just as rational and non-circular.

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic. It is question-begging in the extreme. Logic cannot justify itself. This is why we must get behind what is logic and discuss it in terms of necessity. What is necessary for logic to be universally reliable? What must be the case in order for induction to be trustworthy? What conditions must exist in order for nature to be uniform? On the non-Theistic worldview, there is no cogent answer to these questions, hence the appeal to the Axiom-of-the-Gaps. If there were an answer to these questions, then the acceptance of logic would not be axiomatic. On the Creationist view, the necessary foundation, the existential conditions are the character and attributes of a personal, purposeful, volitional, all-knowing and all-powerful infinite God whose very nature is reflected in the laws of logic.

It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.

Jim, I am very unimpressed with this assertion.

Of course. It wasn't intended to impress or to persuade you, or any non-theist Evolutionist. But it's no mere assertion. It's been proven over and over again in this very thread. The appeal to the "Axiom of the Gaps" is devastating to the methodological naturalist, because those who hold to methodological naturalism are committed in advance to dismissing anything and everything extra-natural in their experience or reasoning. But of course, the Axiom of the Gaps, as well as reasoning and the principles that govern that activity are themselves extra-natural. The non-Theist Evolutionist's thesis collapses under its own weight. And no one wants to face up to, let alone be impressed by, that sort of self-refutation.

There is no magic or myth. We create a logic system with axioms, and deduce conclusions from them.

You created them? Did you create them to be universal? Or are they merely conventions?

Axioms are rational within that logic system (you call it a worldview). Asking for proof or rationalization for an axiom is like asking why a circle is round.

Not at all. Roundness is an attribute of a circle, as it is of ellipses and spheres and cones. Justification (which is what I'm requesting) is not an attribute of a law of logic. Asking for justification of the laws of logic is not the same as asking why a shape has a particular attribute.

Its is true by definition.

If the laws of logic are only analytically true (true by definition), why then do the laws of logic have so much success in our experience (synthetically true)? "True by definition" has no usefulness or value unless it comports with what is found in our experience. If we change the definition, does that then change what we find in our experience? Of course not. Does reality align with the way we stipulate terms? Or are we compelled by the nature of reality to conform our understanding to what we find in our experience, in reality? The answer is obvious.

We have different axioms, and a as result we have different worldviews. Our use of logic is the same though.

Let me give you an example:
Person A holds the following axioms.
All Dogs have hair.
Rex is a dog.

He therefore comes to a conclusion that Rex has hair. He is justified, and rational.

You just stated a meaningless tautology. On whose authority do you define all dogs as having hair? If your own (meaning that you've looked at all dogs), then you didn't have to infer that Rex has hair, because, having investigated all cases of dogs, Rex would have been among them. You're basically saying: All dogs have hair. Period.

The larger question is: If you do not have infinite and exhaustive knowledge about the dogs, how do you justify the general premise? You can't even get started until you've done something that only an infinite and all-knowing God can justify, i.e. exhaustive knowledge concerning hirsute canines. Even by setting up your syllogism, you tacitly affirm the God you're determined to push away from you. Furthermore, how do you know that modus ponens is going to work in this case? Does modus ponens always work? How do you know? If you don't know, then on what basis do you proceed on the assumption that it is going to work this time?

Person B has these axioms:
All Aliens have hair,
All dogs are aliens.
Rex is a dog.

Person B is also justified and rational in proclaiming that Rex has hair. He can claim that his axioms provide a rational explaination to why dogs have hair, and therefore Person A is irrationally holding his axioms. But how did he reach this conclusion? By using his own axioms to judge the axioms of another system.

Again, m_d, you're missing the larger question. How do you get to the "All aliens ..." and "All dogs ..." premises to begin with? Don't you see that in order to justify knowledge, you have to pretend there is such a thing as exhaustive infinite knowledge? Even in your attempts to deny the foundation of all reasoning -- i.e. God -- you affirm His necessity! Not to mention the fact that syllogistic construct itself has not been justified.

Person A can likewise claim that Person B is irrational if he claims that Rex is an alien. He is commiting the same fallacy, of judging one rational system using the axioms of another rational system.

What your argument does, is say that Person B can claim Person A is irrational, but not the other way around. This is wrong logic.

Incorrect. I'm saying both Person A AND Person B, by presuming to state a universal claim that they themselves could not possibly know by personal experience, are pretending to be Creationists, without openly affirming it.

So how can two people both be rational means, and still come to different conclusions? They have different axioms. So the next question, is which axioms are "better". The fact that person B has a rational explanation for person A's axiom, by no means guarantees anything.

Neither Person A nor Person B, apart from having a means to confirm the verity of their universal statements ("All dogs ...", "All aliens ...") has justified knowledge. They both conclude rightly that Rex has hair, and one may have a correct chain of logic to make the inference, but neither can justify any aspect of their knowledge unless they can ground their so-called Axioms (which would no longer be axioms if they grounded them, right?). And the only way to do that is appeal to the Infinite Source that holds exhaustive knowledge, God Himself.

Thanks for that post, m_d. It was exceptional and quite useful to demonstrate some important points in my argument.

Jim

 

[mighty_duck]

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic.

How did you reach this conclusion? You used your own worldview, with your axioms, and judged that in your worldview you have an explanation for logic. Much like person B has an explanation for why dogs have hair.
If you had used my worldview, there is no way you could have reached that conclusion, since logic is an axiom, and therefore is rational by definiton.

You created them? Did you create them to be universal? Or are they merely conventions?

Every person must choose their axioms, and make deductions based on those. Their conclusions are only as good as their axioms.

If the laws of logic are only analytically true (true by definition), why then do the laws of logic have so much success in our experience (synthetically true)? "True by definition" has no usefulness or value unless it comports with what is found in our experience. If we change the definition, does that then change what we find in our experience? Of course not. Does reality align with the way we stipulate terms? Or are we compelled by the nature of reality to conform our understanding to what we find in our experience, in reality? The answer is obvious.

For the Non-Theist, the axioms aren't chosen arbitrarily. They are self evident, and as a result model reality pretty well. But that is immaterial for a rational explanation. Rational explanations only rely on the analytical truth of the axioms.

You just stated a meaningless tautology. On whose authority do you define all dogs as having hair? If your own (meaning that you've looked at all dogs), then you didn't have to infer that Rex has hair, because, having investigated all cases of dogs, Rex would have been among them. You're basically saying: All dogs have hair. Period.

That's what axioms are. They need no proof, no authority, no foundation, and they are still rational within that worldview. I didn't have to look at one dog to build my axiom that they are all aliens. Whether it is synthetically true is another matter altogether (how do we choose our axioms?).

The larger question is: If you do not have infinite and exhaustive knowledge about the dogs, how do you justify the general premise? You can't even get started until you've done something that only an infinite and all-knowing God can justify, i.e. exhaustive knowledge concerning hirsute canines. Even by setting up your syllogism, you tacitly affirm the God you're determined to push away from you. Furthermore, how do you know that modus ponens is going to work in this case? Does modus ponens always work? How do you know? If you don't know, then on what basis do you proceed on the assumption that it is going to work this time?

I don't need any knowledge at all to posit an axiom, and build a rational system. Chances are, if I do choose an arbitrary axiom, it will start conflicting with reality- (IE if I do find a hairless dog, I may have a problem. But since I have a sure, unwavering, unshakable belief in my axioms, chances are I will find a way to claim that the hairless dog either has hair, or isn't a dog. Remind you of anyone?). It is best to choose a very obvious axiom, or an unfalsifiable one.

Incorrect. I'm saying both Person A AND Person B, by presuming to state a universal claim that they themselves could not possibly know by personal experience, are pretending to be Creationists, without openly affirming it.

They aren't pretending to be anything. They have axioms, and they make valid deductions from them. They are both making rational decisions.

But you will claim "holding those axioms is itself irrational!". How would you make that deduction, except by using YOUR worldview and YOUR axioms. Had you used their axioms, then you would have deduced they are rational. This is an external critique, instead of an internal one. Internally, all axioms are rational. If external critiques are fair game, then I will happily critique your God and Bible axioms from within MN.

Neither Person A nor Person B, apart from having a means to confirm the verity of their universal statements ("All dogs ...", "All aliens ...") has justified knowledge. They both conclude rightly that Rex has hair, and one may have a correct chain of logic to make the inference, but neither can justify any aspect of their knowledge unless they can ground their so-called Axioms (which would no longer be axioms if they grounded them, right?). And the only way to do that is appeal to the Infinite Source that holds exhaustive knowledge, God Himself.

You moved from claiming they are irrational, to them lacking "absolute" knowledge of the verity of their axioms. If you are willing to make this concession, which I hoped I have demonstrated in the last two posts, then we can move on to this grounding business.

Will you concede that both worldviews are internally rational? This in no way means either is true, just that deductions made are internally justified, when reduced to the systems axioms.

 

[chatmaggot]

Stratnerd,

Maybe this has already been pointed out...maybe not. I didn't feel like reading through all the posts. If, as according to your last post, you have just been recently introduced to TAG then it seems are at somewhat of a disadvantage because you are unfamiliar with your opponent and his line of reasoning.

I say this because you are committing some of the exact same "mistakes" as Dr. Stein did in what is referred to as "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein. As an example since you claim that all claims, observations, or whatever else you called them are tentative then your conclusions are tentative or speculative or even subjective as well. The reason is because you have nothing to base your "laws" of logic on. "How do you xyz is true?" on emight ask. And then the repsonse would be "Well, because it has been that way forever." This exact same line of questioning was addressed in the above mentione debate. If there are "laws" of logic then where did they come from? If they are conventions of men then what happens when two men disagree? How would one go about proving one view is correct...without using the "laws" of logic? If you have no originator of these so called "laws" then they are merely conventions among men. So if you are logical deducing that Evolution is true the question is "How do you know that you are logical deducing correctly?"

You might want to check out the website http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm and listen to the debate if you have time. Go to the site and it is about halfway down the page. Or just to a "find" on the page for "Stein".

If you don't...you might just make the "crackers in the pantry fallacy"...which would just not be good.

 

[Highline]

The debate is about whether or not Evolution is science or science fiction. In my opening post, I explained that certain aspects of evolution can be regarded as science. I defined science thus:

First, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs..

Before I answer, I'm curious to know if you personally counted and did the arithmetic to arrive at this statistic.

My evidence? I'm not a geologist. I don't have or offer any on my own authority. There are dozens of books on the subject if you're interested. Google should be helpful there.

Since I'm not a microbiologist, I couldn't give you any details on this. My guess is that creatures have been designed by God to adapt to their environments. Which suggests that human beings can have children with a different content of melanin in their skin because of the effects of the environment on them or their ancestors. It does not, however, mean that humans will someday have wings or prehensile tails. Again, as above, there are dozens of books on this subject. All you have to do use a search engine to find them.

Probably because isolated populations give rise to unusual characteristics. Don't we see this even among humans? Does that mean those humans would eventually become something other than human?

What is morality? And by what authority should one human or even a consensus of humans impose that standard on others? Does might (and consensus) make right?

Is there some kind of axiom I'm unaware of? "For God to exist, non-living things must be as complicated as living things"? Is "complicated" a virtue or a liability in your view? Whence derives this value judgment?

Are you serious about this remark? If so, you could not have missed the point by a wider margin if you had tried.​

No, I have not counted all the extinct species, but I believe what I have read and others have summarized about history, and that is in the 1700 and 1800 people started digging up bones of all sorts of creatures that did not exist in the present. They did not have an agenda, and were surprised about what they found. Present scientists, who might have an agenda or at least are strongly influenced the evolutionary theory, keep find confirming evidence in the form of new species. It is a good question as to how many they have actually found to get that number (99% of species that existed are extinct) and how many they have deducted their must be.

The age of the earth? I am sure there are dozens of books, I know what the prevailing theory is to make the earth 5 billion years old are what it is. Summarize the other theories, or summarize the problems with the prevailing theory. This is a debate, that is the point.

What is morality? I'm not sure. But it is possible that groups of humans who did not come up with laws and codes are the ones who were left in the dust. In other words, some tribe or civilization that did not come up with "Don't committ adultry", disintegrated into chaos and did not prepare for droughts or other environmental threats (human attackers), thus we, and our morality, are the ones who are left.

As for the absence of complicated non-living things, I did not say this disproves God; I just said it does support evolution in that evolution is a mechanism for living matter to become increasingly diverse and complicated. Non-living matter has no such mechanism. This isn't about the absence of God, I beleive in God and evolution, I just don't take the Bible literally.

The variety of animals on isolated islands is much more signifcant that the pigment of humans from different continents. The animals are similar in significant ways, but different in significant ways. For example, the differences in the beaks of finches involves DNA changes that are much more substancial that those of different humans. Although the finches are still quite similar to each other, they don't mate in the wild (can't remember if they do in captivity).

I don't mean to be rude, I appreciate your effort in all this. I have to go, my kids want me, and my evolutionary duty is to pay attention to them.​

 

[Hilston]

Apology ...

On the hope that Stratnerd will have look here, and in the interest of those following the debate, I must offer an apology for missing a good chunk of questions at the end of Stratnerd's Round-IV post. As time was running out for me, I saw that line of asterisks preceding the section of his responses to my questions and falsely assumed that the remainder of his post were only his answers to my questions, which, in the interest of time, I would reserve for comment in a later round. I began to recall questions from my initial reading of his post that he had asked, which I had not answered, and upon further scrolling, I realized my oversight.

I'll also send Stratnerd a private message in case he doesn't see this.

I'll be more careful next time.

Jim

 

[Metalking]

Opinions are just that.

Opinions are just that.

Simpler? In what possible way is god simpler than an emergent universe? A few basic laws of behaviour vs. a being of infinite power and wisdom?
Darwin himself,in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species,pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproduvtive powers.This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account.It seems that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for new and enormously powerfull argument to favor Intelligent Design.


So what? I used to be Christian, now I'm an atheist - does that mean every Christian should become an atheist? Just because I did? People have differing views, what matters is understanding why they hold those views.
Of course,that is why we discuss.


Again, so what?

Never hurts to share information.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

A few thoughts and questions...

Balder wrote: And as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Bible makes some patently false statements about the nature of the cosmos. The sky is not a metal dome, there is no celestial ocean, nor any floodgate to mediate it ...

Hilston replied: These are hermeneutical issues that you've disqualified yourself from cogently assessing. Those whose fundamental perception of reality is opposed to the claims of scripture are self-excluded from justifiably making the assumptions you've made here.

Can you explain what you mean here? Are you suggesting that, because I do not believe the Bible is divine and infallible, I am incapable of assessing its claims or interpreting its ideas? Is unwavering, unshakeable belief in something a prerequisite for being able to properly evaluate it?

As a Biblical Creationist, it should come as no surprise that I defer to the claims of Scripture, one of which being that no other worldview can justifiably account for the intelligibility of human experience, the laws of science and logic, human dignity or moral standards and values. For every view that's been presented, the challenge is to expose the inevitable flaws and self-contradictions and to make them evident. But of course, to those who are happy to believe in magic (axioms) and science fiction (cosmogony myths), the flaws and self-contradictions are not bothersome, despite their exposure. This is the classic unthirsty-horse-led-to-water scenario.

Knowing your taste for irony, I imagine you with a wicked grin and little horns sprouting out as you say something like this…

Because surely you’re well aware that this criticism has been directed more than once at fundamentalist believers: “You can’t reason with them. Evidence and rationality count for nothing if they contradict something fundamentalists already believe.”

Having fun turning the tables?

Balder wrote: So, for one, I'd like to see a presuppositionalist succeed in backing up this bald/bold claim... Or at least seriously attempt to do so, instead of resorting to the "impossibility of the contrary" refrain. (I concede that you made a fairly concerted effort in our discussion on presuppositionalism.)

Hilston responded: This surprises me, Balder, because I do remember this much: I never felt I had a knowledgeable enough grasp of your thesis to even begin a presuppositional critique of it. I spent the bulk of our discussion trying to understand what exactly I was up against and I never felt satisfied that I understood it sufficiently. By the way, the "refrain" you mentioned has not been sung once by me in this discussion or the debate. Of course, I've made the claim in various ways, to varying degrees, but that violates the definition of "refrain," doesn't it?

Searching this thread, I only found one instance of you saying this, but the IOTC argument was a topic of discussion for at least several pages of this thread (starting on page 5). I do recall you using it with me in the past; but if you’ve dropped it (as a “big gun” in your arsenal), I applaud you.

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic. It is question-begging in the extreme. Logic cannot justify itself. This is why we must get behind what is logic and discuss it in terms of necessity. What is necessary for logic to be universally reliable? What must be the case in order for induction to be trustworthy? What conditions must exist in order for nature to be uniform? On the non-Theistic worldview, there is no cogent answer to these questions, hence the appeal to the Axiom-of-the-Gaps. If there were an answer to these questions, then the acceptance of logic would not be axiomatic. On the Creationist view, the necessary foundation, the existential conditions are the character and attributes of a personal, purposeful, volitional, all-knowing and all-powerful infinite God whose very nature is reflected in the laws of logic.

What do you mean by “laws of logic”? Can you articulate them? I take it you are familiar with various human systems of thought and modes of cognition, the higher forms of which do not exist a priori, but which are developmentally emergent. Are you talking about something other than this? What specific Biblical passages are you drawing on to support your claim that God is supremely logical? (He seems rather hot-headed and unpredictable in many OT descriptions of him.)

It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.

What fun! Dismissing the scientific worldview as a myth while defending an account replete with talking snakes and magic fruit!

I do understand and appreciate your desire to challenge base materialism, however, and agree that it is rather “thin” as a paradigm.

It isn't enough to say, "Hey, can you ground your understanding of this vestigial physiological phenomenon?" An efficient critique of competing worldviews does not spend time addressing about such particulars (not that it couldn't; it's just not efficient). Rather, the critique goes to a more fundamental level, an example of which I hinted at in my previous post to you. Here it is again, in the same form of Socratic Irony that I employed in the aforementioned post: Why did you choose to ask specifically about men with nipples or humans with tail bones?

Have you ever read Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? A naturalist’s poetic reflections on the natural order? In it, Dillard discusses the often horrific and violent “order” of the natural world; her encounters with these “facts of nature” challenge her understanding and faith in God. She points to the excesses of reproduction, for instance, with many insect and aquatic species producing huge numbers of offspring, most of which perish in a few days in order for the few strong and lucky ones to survive.

I wasn’t thinking of this book, really, when I posed my question, but I was thinking of those features of the natural world which seem unnecessary, inefficient, almost incidental (I think engineers call them kludges.) In many ways, the order of the world is majestic and breathtaking, but there are aspects of it which, at least from a design perspective, don’t make a lot of sense – especially if a Perfect Designer is supposed to have made things this way on purpose. And if God is also loving, just, and compassionate, one wonders why the whole natural world – and not just fallen man – lives largely by “tooth and claw,” tormented by diseases and parasites, regularly threatened by the elements.

Is our universe the way God designed it, or do you believe that diseases began to spread, animals to eat each other, and stars to die, only after Mankind disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit?

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[mighty_duck]

whachu talking about, Willis?

whachu talking about, Willis?

Notes from Hilston's 4th post.

Jim's latest post addresses my concern that he is way off topic on several grounds. It also happily tries to justify it and continues staying off topic. I am afraid we are heading for a stalemate, as the debaters are not debating the same thing, and will likely talk past each other for most of what's left. As long as stratnerd stays on topic though, I will consider it a victory, if a hollow one. I'm sure Jim;s supporters will disagree.

1. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Sure it preceded it, but so did the formation of earth, the solar system and the big bang. They are all off topic. Continuing to bring this up is a bit of a desperation move from Jim.

2. The question before us is not about justified knowledge, as Jim would like us to believe. It is about whether evolution is science. If Jim wants to claim that science can't achieve justified knowledge without god, that is another debate. Not clarifying at all, this is a shift in to another debate.

3. Stratnerd's alleged justification. Stratnerd already answered this point in his 4th post. The methods are part of his definition of science, and therefore don't require further justification. Again, the validity of science is another debate.

4. Jim would like science to deal with the super natural. It doesn't. If this is the real crux of his argument, then he has lost. Even if we were to grant that creationism is true, Evolution is still science.

5. Even if science does not deal with the mechanics of the alleged supernatural, It should at least see it's effects. We should be getting a concensus on the age of the earth, global flood etc.. even when only using MN. Claiming this is all because of interpretation is too broad a stroke.

6. In Stratnerd's last post, Jim was asked to justify his premises. And how does he do it in this post? by using another unjustified assertion:

Here's the justification and the support: the rejection of the God of the Bible reduces all reasoning and science to absurdity.

That itself is unsupported. And that still doesn't mean his premises are justified. This is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma, because even if it is true, it does not guarantee that accepting the bible doesn't reduce all reasoning to absurdity - he must show that his premises are justified,

7.

All axioms are magical

I wonder if this can apply to Jim's axioms as well? If it does, then according to Jim's own argument, we are all irrational. Thus the word is rendered meaningless.