The Jello Fellow

Before I begin this post in earnest, I must put forth a preliminary rule. Unfortunately, since the person this rule is directed toward does not listen very well at all, I will have to state this rule several times throughout. For normal readers, I apologize for the redundancies. It will be clear, however, why they are needed.

Thus far, just counting the post Steve did called “An offer he can’t refuse” there are 184 comments. Of those 184, by my count 92 are from Jason Streitfeld. As I pointed out in one of my comments on that post:

Well, Jason S. has proven he's nothing more than steamroller: make a bunch of wild assertions and the sheer number of errors will be too much for anyone to respond to. This gives the added bonus that when the steamroller runs away with tail between his legs, he can still say, "They didn't get me on these points!" and think he's actually won something.

Since Jason (and all references to Jason will be to Jason S., and not to our esteemed Jason Engwer) is a steamroller, and since this post is about him, it is necessary for me to implement a restriction on comments to this post. The restriction is for Jason only. That restriction is this: while he is free to respond in the comments, he is restricted from posting more than two (2) comments in a row.

If you wonder if there will be any grace from me at all, the answer is: the second post IS the grace post.

The intention is thus: Jason needs to be able to respond in a coherent manner rather than his typical drive-by “cherry pick a few sentences and make up whatever you want to make up about the meaning” approach. The only way to encourage this is for me to delete anything after his second comment in a row. (To be clear, he can comment again IF someone else responds after his first two (2) comments, at which point he will have an addition two (2) comments he can post; he just cannot exceed two (2) comments in a row ever in the comments on this post.)

If Jason posts more than two (2) comments in a row, every comment after the second one will be deleted unread by me. In short, Jason, this means if you want to have a dialogue you have to be able to focus. Write your response in one lump form, addressing what you consider the most important issues. Put them up front. And if you forgot something in your haste, too bad. Learn to think before you post. Organize and then write.

And note that this restriction is for my post only. Triabloggers have the right to enforce rules on our own posts. Any other poster can enforce whichever rules they see fit on their own posts too.

So with that in mind, let us move on to the meat of the discussion. In reality, I need not say anything more this first response to Jason (in its entirety):

Jason S. said:
---
I never said every mathematical object corresponds to some physical property of the universe. I said mathematical truths are about the formal properties of patterns in the universe.
---

I think it would help, Jason, if you paused for a second and asked yourself a simple question. Why? Why are there "formal properties of patterns in the universe"?

In other words, let's play your game for a bit. Let's say that there are these patterns. Why do the patterns exist as they do?

Note carefully the chain you have to build here. You are justifying logic by pointing to these patterns. Thus, you have patterns -> logic.

But why is it that these patterns behave "logically"? Is there a meta-pattern that keeps patterns in line? If not, why do they behave as they do? If so, is there a meta-meta-pattern? Etc.

Now you haven't convinced me that you're able to follow where arguments lead, so I'll show why it's important that you ponder this. At some point, everyone must stop. That is, it's not "turtles all the way down" because at some point you have to escape the redux. (This is because logic itself does not allow for infinite redux, and logic cannot very well be substantiated by that which is its negation.)

At whatever point you stop your redux, you have to deal with the nature of reality at that point. So we can skip through all that and simply ask:

What must be fundamentally true in order for logic to be justified?

As Steve's pointed out several times, you cannot have contingent logic that transcends that it is contingent upon. Thus, you cannot have logic that is contingent upon human minds before human minds existed.

You try to escape that by pointed to patterns of the universe, but does this mean that there is no logic before those patterns were formed (even if there was no mind to grasp the patterns)? If that is so, why did the patterns form in a way that would be grasped in the form of logic? Was it ad hoc, a mistake, a fluke? Or was there something more fundamental at work?

You can try to keep it surface level and pretend your materialism can account for all this, but at best all you can do with materialism is cut your own throat. At best, all you can say is, "The patterns are the way they are because they just happened to be the way they are." In which case, there is no impulse or imperative to follow the logic derrived from those patterns, in which case it is no great loss to be irrational. Why would it be problematic to violate THOSE rules of logic? And if our arguments violate them, as you claim, so what? It's not like they're meaningful rules of logic.

If you don't hold to objective logic, why do you care whether we are reasonable or rational people? It's not like that's a real standard or anything.

(For the record, I do hold to objective logic, which is why I do care that you're being irrational in your argument. But this is an internal critique of your position.)

The reason I need not say anything more is that for all his blustering, Jason has left the above unchallenged.

But for more clarity, I also pointed out:

Jason S. said:
---
The patterns--the regularities within the universe--are as they are for whatever reasons. Yes, they just happened to be that way, for all I know. But that does not mean there is no impulse or imperative to use logic (the rules of inference), to use reason and evidence.

On the contrary, the fact that the universe exhibits regularities is exactly why we need to use logic, reason and evidence. If we abandoned all logic, we would abandon our ability to understand the world.
---

In other words, what you are saying is:

1) The universe just happened to be the way it is for no reason whatsoever.

2) That's why we can understand the world.

Is anyone else puzzled by this?

You claim there are regularities in the universe. But absent something requiring them to be the way they are, you have no assurance they will continue to be the way they are now. For all the atheists talk about how if God can change reality on a whim, you're left in the same boat. You don't know why the universe behaves the way it does, yet you assert it will always continue to do so. And then you criticize theists as being naive and irrational. At best you're a pot mocking a kettle. At worst, you're flat out wrong.

And:

BTW,

Jason also needs to account for the fact that the human mind is very adept at finding patterns that aren't actually there.

You know, like seeing faces in clouds, the Virgin Mary in wallpaper stains, and logic in atheistic worldviews.

In which case, you have pattern-recognition that leads to logic based on false patterns that do not actually exist in the universe.

And finally:

Jason said:
---
The point is, the universe does exhibit regularities, and this is why we are able to make accurate predictions and develop scientific theories.
---

No, the point is that the universe exhibits regularities FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. You're on the horns of a dilemma. If the universe has a reason to behave the way it does, then that reason is the ultimate establishment of logic. But you cannot allow for anything more than the universe, so you have to assert that the universe just does this. Why? Because it does. That's all you've got. The universe acts this way for no reason at all. It just does it.

And if something just happens with no reason whatsoever, then you'd have to be a complete idiot to trust in that to form your concepts of logic. The universe isn't logical; it just happens to at this point behave in a way that approximates logic. But there's no logical reason why it should continue to be that way, because it's not that way due to a logical reason.

Jason has since moved away from the “patterns” to calling them “rules.” But my original argument still stands untouched. The reason I’m quoting the original response above is because I am going to reference it from now on to show that Jason has said much but gone nowhere.

Before we get there, some more groundwork must be done. When he switched to using “rules” instead of “patterns” as his basis, Jason used an analogy of a computer. I found this odd, given that Jason is a materialist, and a computer is most definitely designed (which would imply that his correlation to the rules governing the universe would mean he believes the universe is designed too). I pointed this out to Jason at the time too, and ended with:

BTW, you still need to account for why rules exist the way they do. Is there a reason they do? If so, then what is it? If not, then we're left with an ad hoc rule once more.

As you can see, I’ve been consistent throughout here (note: I’m also focusing only on the portion that deals with how rules are established; you can read the original exchange for more background on the computer analogy if you wish). Jason responded with:

You say, "BTW, you still need to account for why rules exist the way they do. Is there a reason they do?"

Let's look at this broadly, okay?

First of all, the only accounting for the rules of mathematics I've seen around here is, "God did it."

That is not an accounting. It's merely an assertion. It does not explain the rules, or how they came about, or anything at all.

If your position does not further our understanding of the nature and functionality of mathematics, then it is not an explanation.

So, "God did it" does not explain anything.

Now, you ask me to account for the rules of mathematics. What if I can't? Does that mean God did it?

By what reason?

The way I see it is, mathematics is one kind of thing. It can involve different axioms, and so it is not limited to one set of rules. However, the rules we associate with mathematics are well-defined, based on what they are meant to accomplish.

Why are they defined as they are? Because of what they are meant to accomplish. The rules required by a system are dependent upon what that system needs to do.

For example, asking "why are the rules of arithmentic the way they are" is like asking, "why are the rules of tying our shoes the way they are?"

If you want to tie your shoes, you have to follow the rules defined by the task at hand--namely, loop one lace this way, another that way, and so on. If you want to do arithmetic, you have to follow the rules of arithmetic. It's that simple.

I responded:

You said:
---
First of all, the only accounting for the rules of mathematics I've seen around here is, "God did it."
---

That's funny. I've not seen anyone say "God did it" until you just did.

Be that as it may, if Christians do fundamentally presuppose that "God did it" is actually true, what is your counter argument? Thus far, all you've said is that "patterns did it."

I've asked twice now for your justification for them. You haven't brought any forth.

You said:
---
That is not an accounting. It's merely an assertion. It does not explain the rules, or how they came about, or anything at all.
---

Except for the fact that it does, everything else you say is right.

And for all your talk about looking at the issue "broadly" and all, you're missing the important step.

Forget what the explanation for the rules are for a moment and focus on this instead: what is it that the rules themselves require in order for the rules to be real.

I maintain that God, as defined by the Christian theist, maintains all the attributes needed to sustain those rules. This is not merely an "assertion"; this is a requirement of those rules themselves. In other words, if we assume that your rules exist, then your rules themselves presuppose the existence of God (specifically, the God as defined by Christian theism).

These rules cannot exist unless there exists something with the proper attributes to create those rules. If the rules are to have any relevance at all, they have to be transcendent; which means that which produces the rules must be transcendent. If they are to have any meaning at all, they must be timeless and unchanging; they must be true for all times and in all possible realities; they must be universal. In short, they must be eternal, omnipresent, and immutable...all attributes of the Christian God, mind you. And that's just for starts.

By the way, you also slip into ID again when you said:
---
Why are they defined as they are? Because of what they are meant to accomplish. The rules required by a system are dependent upon what that system needs to do.
---

Since you're maintaining that these rules are the basis for such things as logic, and that these rules are actually in force in the universe we experience, you are actually stating that the universe as a whole is a system that has a specific GOAL that the universe is INTENDED to achieve.

Why don't you just admit you're a theist? Your argumentation gives you away already.

As you can see, my argument has been the same throughout. But I posted this for another reason. I am going to respond to Jason’s response to me by doing little more than quoting back to him exactly what I’ve already written. In other words, this will demonstrate that Jason has not been responding to my posts at all. I doubt he’s even been reading them (he skims them looking for sentences he can “latch on to” to steamroll, but that’s not reading).

Jason said:

Peter asks,

"what is it that the rules themselves require in order for the rules to be real?"

As I've argued, rules are functional properties of physical systems. So, for a rule to be real, it must functionally occur in a physical system.

However, I already pointed out:

These rules cannot exist unless there exists something with the proper attributes to create those rules.

He has not provided those attributes. Indeed, he yet again slips into teleological language (this time using the idea of “functionally” working rules; which requires a purpose and a goal).

More importantly, Jason said:

Peter syas, "I maintain that God, as defined by the Christian theist, maintains all the attributes needed to sustain those rules."

What attributes would those be? And why should we believe that "God" (as defined by the Christian theist? what definition? which theist?) maintains those attributes?

Let’s play a quick game. Count the attributes I listed in the following paragraph (to make it easy, I’ll put them in bold):

These rules cannot exist unless there exists something with the proper attributes to create those rules. If the rules are to have any relevance at all, they have to be transcendent; which means that which produces the rules must be transcendent. If they are to have any meaning at all, they must be timeless and unchanging; they must be true for all times and in all possible realities; they must be universal. In short, they must be eternal, omnipresent, and immutable...all attributes of the Christian God, mind you. And that's just for starts.

Note that I specifically listed these as “all attributes of the Christian God, mind you.” Jason has chosen to ignore that completely, as if it was never offered.

Is it a definition? What is a definition if not a list of attributes of a thing? You ask, “What is an apple?” I give you a list of attributes. Jason asks, “What definition [of God]?” and I’ve already provided a (partial) list of attributes.

Jason said:

I interpret this as follows: for a physical system to exhibit the functional characteristics we call a rule, that rule must be able to be implemented at any time and at any place in the universe, and that the rule must exist at every place and time in all possible universes. Is that right?

And, can you explain why that is the case for us?

In my original response, I already explained this:

You can try to keep it surface level and pretend your materialism can account for all this, but at best all you can do with materialism is cut your own throat. At best, all you can say is, "The patterns are the way they are because they just happened to be the way they are." In which case, there is no impulse or imperative to follow the logic derrived from those patterns, in which case it is no great loss to be irrational. Why would it be problematic to violate THOSE rules of logic? And if our arguments violate them, as you claim, so what? It's not like they're meaningful rules of logic.

If you don't hold to objective logic, why do you care whether we are reasonable or rational people? It's not like that's a real standard or anything.

And:

You claim there are regularities in the universe. But absent something requiring them to be the way they are, you have no assurance they will continue to be the way they are now. For all the atheists talk about how if God can change reality on a whim, you're left in the same boat. You don't know why the universe behaves the way it does, yet you assert it will always continue to do so. And then you criticize theists as being naive and irrational. At best you're a pot mocking a kettle. At worst, you're flat out wrong.

Jason said:

Peter says I am slipping ID into the discussion when I wrote, "Why are they defined as they are? Because of what they are meant to accomplish. The rules required by a system are dependent upon what that system needs to do."

That's silly. I did not say that the rules were defined by some supernatural creator. Rather, the rules are defined by systems capable of defining the rules. In our case, that means human beings, though other organisms are theoretically capable of defining the same rules.

In other words, as I originally stated:

As Steve's pointed out several times, you cannot have contingent logic that transcends that it is contingent upon. Thus, you cannot have logic that is contingent upon human minds before human minds existed.

And:

You try to escape that by pointed to patterns of the universe, but does this mean that there is no logic before those patterns were formed (even if there was no mind to grasp the patterns)? If that is so, why did the patterns form in a way that would be grasped in the form of logic? Was it ad hoc, a mistake, a fluke? Or was there something more fundamental at work?

Clearly, Jason believes that logic is an ad hoc fluke created by human minds, in which case I yet again ask: “Why would it be problematic to violate THOSE rules of logic?” More importantly:

…[I]f something just happens with no reason whatsoever, then you'd have to be a complete idiot to trust in that to form your concepts of logic. The universe isn't logical; it just happens to at this point behave in a way that approximates logic. But there's no logical reason why it should continue to be that way, because it's not that way due to a logical reason.

Jason wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants us to take his rules of logic seriously, but he cuts off all grounds for logic to be meaningful.

Jason also said:

Peter asks, "if Christians do fundamentally presuppose that 'God did it' is actually true, what is your counter argument?"

My counter argument is that the term "God" is not well-defined, and that the arguments in favor of "God did it" do not make sense, and do not further our understanding of life, the universe, or anything.

Which, aside from being absurd, falls prey to the fact that I DID define the term “God” with a partial list of attributes (already referenced above) and it DOES further our understanding of quite a lot.

Jason said:

Peter has asked me to justify the patterns that exist in nature. Why does anybody have to justify nature? Nature is what is. That's life.

Which is exactly what I’ve maintained Jason's position boils down to:

But you cannot allow for anything more than the universe, so you have to assert that the universe just does this. Why? Because it does. That's all you've got. The universe acts this way for no reason at all. It just does it.

Now, as I said, Jason is free to comment to this post as long as he does not do more than two (2) comments in a row. What he also needs to do is actually provide a justification for why anyone should care about his rules of logic, since they are based on ad hoc random patterns and/or rules of the universe. Furthermore, he must establish why we should care about his rules of logic given that they are just formed by human minds which A) we know err often and B) are capable of seeing patterns that do not exist (e.g. faces in clouds).

As it is, so far all we've seen is that Jason knows how to avoid the thrust of an argument by pretending it never happened.