tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114136998505749109..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "Free Thinkers" Never Think For ThemselvesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141522144470117642006-03-04T20:29:00.000-05:002006-03-04T20:29:00.000-05:00JustinOther:As I said in my last comment, the argu...JustinOther:<BR/><BR/>As I said in my last comment, the argument is sound <I>within</I> itself. Of course, the premise must be justified, but that is what we are attempting to do or not do in this dialogue, is it not? I mean, of course you do not accept my premise. You aren't a Christian. But that is why we are debating, remember? ;-)<BR/><BR/>The debate isn't fruitless. In fact, all we have really done here so far is define the argument. Now it is time to debate the premise. You ask for the "proof" of my premise, but you are commenting on a post that offers exactly that, one you have yet to respond to.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, why haven't you responded to these statements?<BR/><BR/><I>Concerning Logic, let's say that it was something that we all came to learn through evolution. How did we learn it? How is it possible to learn that A cannot equal non-A? You may say that, after a series of experiences, we found, for instance, that apples cannot be the same thing as not-apples. But how did we find this out, apart from first assuming the laws of logic? You see, we might have come to "learn" that the statement "apples cannot equal non-apples" is "true," but the very word "true" presupposes the laws of logic (there is no “true” or “false” apart from logic). You see, these laws cannot be learned without first being assumed. The notion that "I learned that the laws of logic are true" begs the question, because it assumed the laws of logic in its use of the word "true."</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>But how do you know that it is uniform? That is the question at hand. Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven? It cannot be proven scientifically, because that would assume a uniformity to begin with.</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>Then, if the laws of logic are not universal, they are no longer objective. There is no guarantee that A cannot equal non-A here, and we have no way of knowing that we are speaking the same language. I might as well declare myself the winner of this debate. In fact, we both won at the same time. How's about that? Is there anything that restricts me from making that statement?</I><BR/><BR/>I mean, I can certainly understand how time or schedule would not permit you to respond to these statements or to interact with me concerning the topic in the future. <I>But that does not mean that my statements do not exist</I>. I'm fine with you not responding to what I have to say. I am <I>not</I> fine, however, with you passing over paragraphs I have written in silence and then at the same time claiming I have offered no proof.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>Evan.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141478843588852242006-03-04T08:27:00.000-05:002006-03-04T08:27:00.000-05:00Let’s then assume that we are arguing MY premise. ...<I>Let’s then assume that we are arguing MY premise. Would that then mean that your argument presupposes the negation of MINE? And if that were the case and my premise was correct, yours would be destroyed.</I><BR/><BR/>You can defend your premise, if you want. Though, since this is my post, and since I took the time to defend my premise in quite a lengthy format, it would be kind of you to deal with what I have said. :-)<BR/><BR/><I>How can you have a rational argument when you hold presuppositions.</I><BR/><BR/>How can <I>you</I> have a rational argument when you hold presuppositions? Do you deny that you have presuppositions?<BR/><BR/><I>I am willing to view your argument from the point of assuming the existance of god, and in that case your argument is correct. If you could view my argument from the standpoint of the NON-existance of god, then my argument is correct.</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't used my presuppositions as the <I>basis</I> of proving God's existence. You don't have to share my presuppositions to see the logic behind my arguments. In fact, you may be convinced by my arguments, agree that the Christian God exists, and only <I>then</I> adopt my presuppositions.<BR/><BR/><I>This does not answer the question.<BR/><BR/>1. you said “Furthermore, the Muslim God is capricious, not immutable, eternal, and perfect, so the argument does not apply.”<BR/><BR/>2. I asked “According to Webster’s, this means either unpredictable, whimsical or impulsive. How is that the case?”<BR/><BR/>3. Although I am not a muslim, cannot a muslim use the same argument and, if so, can I not?</I><BR/><BR/>I told you that the Muslim God is not eternal, not immutable, and not perfect. This is simply Muslim doctrine. If you don't believe me, you can look it up, but we have more pressing matters here.<BR/><BR/>For instance, I have several paragraphs that were simply breezed over by you:<BR/><BR/><I>Concerning Logic, let's say that it was something that we all came to learn through evolution. How did we learn it? How is it possible to learn that A cannot equal non-A? You may say that, after a series of experiences, we found, for instance, that apples cannot be the same thing as not-apples. But how did we find this out, apart from first assuming the laws of logic? You see, we might have come to "learn" that the statement "apples cannot equal non-apples" is "true," but the very word "true" presupposes the laws of logic (there is no “true” or “false” apart from logic). You see, these laws cannot be learned without first being assumed. The notion that "I learned that the laws of logic are true" begs the question, because it assumed the laws of logic in its use of the word "true."</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>But how do you know that it is uniform? That is the question at hand. Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven? It cannot be proven scientifically, because that would assume a uniformity to begin with.</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>Then, if the laws of logic are not universal, they are no longer objective. There is no guarantee that A cannot equal non-A here, and we have no way of knowing that we are speaking the same language. I might as well declare myself the winner of this debate. In fact, we both won at the same time. How's about that? Is there anything that restricts me from making that statement?</I><BR/><BR/>Is there a reason why you chose to not respond to these?Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141460541005145402006-03-04T03:22:00.000-05:002006-03-04T03:22:00.000-05:00this is the part of the argument that I am suppose...<I>this is the part of the argument that I am supposed to believe that god exists because logic exists. See, this makes no sense to me. this “presupposes” the existance of god. That in itself negates the entire argument. WHY can logic not exist without god. In my view it does exist without god. You have not proven to me that it can’t.</I><BR/><BR/>Heh, well that is the very proposition that we are debating. :-)<BR/><BR/>The fact that you do not accept the premise does not then destroy the argument as being sound in itself. You said it was circular. But this is not the case. Now, you may disagree with the premise (which is why we are debating, obviously), but that does not make the argument irrational in and of itself. If I can establish the premise, then I can establish the existence of God.<BR/><BR/><I>How is this subjective? How is evolution resulting in logic and morality subjective? Assume for a moment that god does not exist and evolution were the basis for our existance. Would morality and logic as a result of evolution then be objective (as all beings would have it as a result of evolution as opposed to being given it by god)?</I><BR/><BR/>Something cannot be objective apart from being universal. Something cannot be universal apart from the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>My post above spent some time showing the subjectivity of atheistic morality. Of course, I'm not going to restate that here, considering that you haven't taken the time to respond to what I have already written concerning the subject. In my opinion, my above post proves the premise of the transcendental argument. You may disagree, but that is the importance of debating this post.<BR/><BR/>Concerning Logic, let's say that it was something that we all came to learn through evolution. How did we learn it? How is it possible to <I>learn</I> that <I>A</I> cannot equal <I>non-A</I>? You may say that, after a series of experiences, we found, for instance, that apples cannot be the same thing as not-apples. But how did we find this out, apart from first assuming the laws of logic? You see, we might have come to "learn" that the statement "apples cannot equal non-apples" is "true," but the very word "true" presupposes the laws of logic (there is no “true” or “false” apart from logic). You see, these laws cannot be learned without first being assumed. The notion that "I learned that the laws of logic are true" begs the question, because it assumed the laws of logic in its use of the word "true."<BR/><BR/><I>I affirm the uniformity of nature, as natural laws tend toward order and away from dissaray. Why can an atheistic worldview not account for uniformity. Atheism does not assume chaos.</I><BR/><BR/>But how do you <I>know</I> that it is uniform? That is the question at hand. Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven? It cannot be proven <I>scientifically</I>, because that would assume a uniformity to begin with.<BR/><BR/><I>There may well be somewhere in the universe where A equals non-A, however I am not well versed enough in the subject to discuss this with any ccertainty.</I><BR/><BR/>Then, if the laws of logic are not universal, they are no longer objective. There is no guarantee that <I>A cannot equal non-A</I> here, and we have no way of knowing that we are speaking the same language. I might as well declare myself the winner of this debate. In fact, we both won at the same time. How's about that? Is there anything that restricts me from making that statement?<BR/><BR/><I>The reverse would actually be this:<BR/><BR/>1.For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God must not exist.<BR/><BR/>2.Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality do exist.<BR/><BR/>3.Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God does not exist.<BR/><BR/>Therefore I have used the same argument in reverse and said that there is no god because there is logic, etc. Why does MY argument not work as well?</I><BR/><BR/>Your argument presupposes the negation of my premise. We are debating my premise. If my premise is correct, your premise is destroyed. You would, of course, have to justify your premise.<BR/><BR/><I>According to Webster’s, this means either unpredictable, whimsical or impulsive. How is that the case?</I><BR/><BR/>There is a score of Muslim apologetics (from a Christian perspective) that deals with this. But last I heard, you weren't a Muslim. You're an atheist, arguing against theism in general. I'm a Christian, in support of Christian theism.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141457233590867432006-03-04T02:27:00.000-05:002006-03-04T02:27:00.000-05:00My basis for morality as an atheist is that it evo...<I>My basis for morality as an atheist is that it evolved within the species as did other attributes (physical and otherwise) because it was advantageous in survival and reproduction. THerefore, those who developed morality reproduced more than those without.</I><BR/><BR/>Hence the subjectivity involved, and the problems posed in my article above.<BR/><BR/><I>I do not know that the future will be uniform, and I don't believe anyone can. It is very possible that I will wake in the morning and blue will be black and up will be down. I believe that there is a mathematical formula of sorts (in a manner of speaking) too complex to be fully understood at this point in the evolution of the human brain which keeps order in the universe. I don't feel the need to have order explained by a deity, as I believe science will one day discover the answer (as we have found that the world is not flat and it revolves around the sun, not vice versa)</I><BR/><BR/>Then do you affirm or disaffirm the uniformity of nature? My argument is that an atheistic worldview cannot account for a uniformity of nature (even though science requires it). Do you agree?<BR/><BR/><I>As for laws of logic, I refer again to the above. Logic, and the ability to make sense of ones surroundings and understand ones environment, would be integral to survival as a species. Again, those who posessed logic survived to reproduce.</I><BR/><BR/>But is logic objective? Is there anywhere in the universe where <I>A</I> can equal <I>non-A</I>? Is it possible that the future will show that <I>A</I> equals <I>non-A</I>?<BR/><BR/><I>As for the syllogistic form you spelled out, you basically state that there is a god because there is a god. This is a circular argument, as I stated before. When I reversed your comment earlier, I basically stated there is no god because there is no god. Neither argument makes logical sense.</I><BR/><BR/>1. The argument is not circular. I hate to say "trust me," but it simply isn't. It follows normal logical language. It is a transcendental argument. Do you mean that it affirms the consequent? Because it doesn't do that either. See <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/no-one-responded-to-my-horrible_19.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A> for further details.<BR/><BR/>2. The argument is not that God exists because he exists. The argument is that God exists because logic, etc, exists. Logic, etc, presupposes the existence of God. Logic exists necessarily (it is a necessary assumption in “rational” discussion). That is a unanimous agreement. If logic did not exist, we would not be having this conversation. And logic, the argument states, cannot exist without an eternal, immutable, and perfect God. But logic <I>does</I> exist. Therefore, God exists.<BR/><BR/>3. Your reversal did not argue that God did not exist because he does not exist. Rather, you argued (in effect), that God does not exist because logic does not exist. In negating it, you abandoned the realm of logic. You wrote: "The notion of the existence of God necessitates his non-existence, for if he exists, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist." In other words, the second proposition would be that logic does <I>not</I>. This would be the negation:<BR/><BR/>1. For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God <I>must</I> exist.<BR/><BR/>2. Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality do <I>not</I> exist.<BR/><BR/>3. Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God does <I>not</I> exist.<BR/><BR/>This argument makes logical sense, in theory, but it affirms that there is no such thing as "logical sense," and self-destructs because it itself is a logical argument. Hence, the reason why this is not equally acceptable.<BR/><BR/><I>However, can a muslim not use the same argument? Can a muslim not claim that logic and order cannot exist if there isn't a god (their god)? Do they not actually USE that argument, the same as you?</I><BR/><BR/>I've never seen a Muslim use this argument. Furthermore, the Muslim God is capricious, not immutable, eternal, and perfect, so the argument does not apply.<BR/><BR/>Evan.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141449964010313482006-03-04T00:26:00.000-05:002006-03-04T00:26:00.000-05:00JustinOther:Are you actually saying that there is ...JustinOther:<BR/><BR/><I>Are you actually saying that there is no other basis for morality, logic and the uniformity of nature than god?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that is what I am saying. This post dealt specifically with morality, and I believe I have shown that the notion that an atheist has a basis for morality is absurd. The atheist might appeal to the individual or consensus, but I have shown the problem with these subjective appeals.<BR/><BR/>As far as the uniformity of nature, can you account for the uniformity of nature in an atheistic worldview? I mean, sure, the past seems "uniform" based upon what we have seen of it, but how do you know the future will be like the past? That very notion begs the question, for it assumes a uniformity of nature in trying to prove the uniformity of nature.<BR/><BR/>The same goes for the laws of logic. How can you account for any objective "laws" in an atheistic worldview?<BR/><BR/>It is my belief that you, in fact, <I>borrow</I> from <I>my</I> worldview when you use these things. If you’d like, I’ll write the argument out in syllogistic form:<BR/><BR/>1. For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God <I>must</I> exist.<BR/><BR/>2. Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality <I>do</I> exist.<BR/><BR/>3. Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God exists. <BR/><BR/><I>That in itself seems illogical.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? I mean, if you can give me a basis for the laws of logic, for instance, apart from the existence of an immutable, eternal, and perfect God, then, by all means, do so.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you totally discount the existence of all things, whether abstract or concrete, that did not arise from god?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I do, but that is beside the point, because that is not the argument here. I'm not arguing that logic cannot exist apart from God because of my worldview's doctrine of creation (in fact, in my worldview, God did not "create" logic, anymore than he "created" holiness. Holiness and logic exist because God exists; they are his attributes). <BR/><BR/>Rather, the point here is that the atheistic worldview cannot account for objective laws, in particular, the laws of logic. Again, if you can show me otherwise then I invite you.<BR/><BR/><I>I could just as easily state it as such:<BR/><BR/>The notion of the existence of God necessitates his non-existence, for if he exists, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist.<BR/><BR/>This is not the atheists viewpoint, however.</I><BR/><BR/>You could do so, but then you would embrace an unacceptable and irrational worldview. The debate between whether or not Christianity is "true" necessitates and presupposes the laws of logic (otherwise the word “true” is meaningless). So a worldview that cannot account for the laws of logic is unacceptable, by definition, in this debate.<BR/><BR/><I>If I were an ancient Greek, I would tell you that the notion of the non-existance of Zeus necessitates his existance, for if he did not exist, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist.<BR/><BR/>I’m sure you would discount that statement as readilly as I do. So how, then, can you make that argument about YOUR god?</I><BR/><BR/>Even if the transcendental argument did not account for the Christian God, the argument in itself does not need to. For, you are an atheist, and the first step is to prove the existence of <I>a</I> God. Of course, as a Christian I do not simply argue for theism, but for <I>Christian</I> theism. And, there is a whole history of Christian apologetics that account for the irrationality of all other religions.<BR/><BR/>But, however, the argument, as if fully developed, does not simply argue for <I>theism</I>, but for <I>Christian</I> theism. Zeus is not immutable in Greek mythology. He is not eternal. He is not perfect.<BR/><BR/><I>I appologize for trolling, however, I could not resist the opportunity to discuss this with you. Thank you.</I><BR/><BR/>You aren't trolling. I mean really, the standards at Stardust's blog are simply unfair. You're asking civil questions, which deserve civil answers. I don't know how it all of a sudden became "trolling" to offer a differing opinion.<BR/><BR/>(By the way, I answered your questions over at Stardust's blog. She simply deleted my comment, her explanation being, "To all xians...throw away your medieval beliefs and join the secular world. It is so life-renewing to dump the imaginary sky daddy." Now, really, is that fair?)<BR/><BR/>Evan.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1141410225666556942006-03-03T13:23:00.000-05:002006-03-03T13:23:00.000-05:00Heh, well that's certainly a funny comment in ligh...Heh, well that's certainly a funny comment in light of the post above. I just destroyed whatever basis for morality you thought you had, bud! And this is your response?<BR/><BR/>Nice and scholarly :-)Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.com