Constant readers of the comboxes are already familiar with Touchstone (hereafter: T-stone). He's the man who claims to be a Christian yet hasn't found an atheist's argument he doesn't like. I've maintained for some time that not only do I doubt T-stone's Christianity, I doubt he's even a theist (he seems to me to be nothing more than an atheist plant).
Since I recently spent a great deal of time on a post that formulated a positive argument for my own beliefs, found here, and since, to my knowledge, T-stone has never given any argument for why he believes in God, I am hereby issuing my challenge to him.
T-stone, I challenge you to present a positive argument for the existence of the God you claim to believe in. If you've already done so on a different site, feel free to provide a link; otherwise, please comment below.
My reasons are as follows. You've not given any evidence that you actually do believe in God, so doing so will allows us to accept your claim that you do believe in God; if you cannot do so it will demonstrate that you either are an atheist plant or are so shallow theistically that you are functionally no different from an atheist plant.
So here's your chance, T-stone, to provide your apologetic and convince us all that you actually do believe in God and are not simply claiming you do to make atheistic concepts (such as your crusade for evolution) more "palatable" for Christians.
I'm having a hard time choosing who is worse: Exist Dissolve or Touchstone.
ReplyDeleteTouchstone is like the teammate who is always looking to join another team. Naturally, we resent teammates who are on our team but want no part of our team.
What makes it even worse is that athletes are sometimes "trapped" on their teams, while T-stone is free to leave our team whenever he wants. It's frustrating to see him continue to claim a place on the team when he so clearly wants out.
t-stone rules!!!!
ReplyDeleteHe's my favorite Christian.
::YAWN!::
ReplyDelete:::SNIZZZZ!!!:::
ReplyDeleteTouchstone is a Christian and he doesn't need arguments for God's existence. That's using petty human logic. Blind faith trumps all. there is nothing that can defeat his belief in God since if God is illogical, "wulp, oh well, that's according to human logic." If God is argued to be immoral, "wulp, oh well, just is as just does." (Touchstone's a voluntarist, btw). Faith in God is compartmentalized such that it doesn't need reasons for belief to be rational. Rationality is a different compartment. To ask is faith is rational is to make a category mistake.
ReplyDeleteYou'll never catch me, i'm the Gingerbread man.
I detect a maturity disparity between theists and the functional atheists thus far.
ReplyDeleteCalvinDude,
ReplyDeleteHappy to respond.
I believe God exists primarily for two reasons:
1. My subjective experiences strongly suggest that the God of the Bible is real, present and involved in my life and those around me.
2. The story of God's relationship with man as revealed in the Bible represents both a plausible history and a compelling love story; it's something I believe to be true not just because it comports with my view of the world, but because it's something I fundamentally *want* to be true -- the 'hope' that I build surety on through faith.
The metanarrative offered in the Bible is convincing, compelling, in its account for life's most profound questions:
1. How and why did we get here?
2. What are my duties and responsibilities?
3. What happens when we die?
No other framework approaches the depth and quality of the answers to be found in the Bible.
Even so, my arguement for God is not wholly (or even primarily) based on the "superiority" or "coherence" of Bible as a narrative . As I said above, my subjective experience strongly points me toward the reality of Jesus Christ as my savior, and the Holy Spirit as mediating influence toward wisdom, joy, kindness, charity and faith (among other fruits).
There has simply been no escaping, at any point in my life, the profound knowledge of my own sins, and my need for redemption, salvation from them. That's a personal, subjective conviction, but it's compelling, all the same.
That provides the context for following Jesus. The Bible speaks directly to this conviction, and offers a resolution to that conflict in my life; I repent, believe and follow. I can't pay for my own sins, but the Bible tells me Jesus is God's son, and through His sacrifice, will save me, if I will repent and believe on His name.
And I do.
Anyone who knows me, knows I value introspection, verification, and testing. So while I find the Gospel to be intuitively compelling, and resonant with what I instinctively has always known (or felt) about my status as an accountable moral and spritual being, what really solidifies and consolidates my views and convictions as a believer are the things I see and experience around *because* of my faith.
The cases are too few and far between, in my own life and in those believers around me, but nevertheless, I am evidence and witness of the power of God to save, not just my soul for eternity, but my self in the here and now. I simply cannot explain transformations in my life, and in those around me. I've not seen water turned to wine, but I have seen change and growth in my own life and in my brothers and sisters in Christ (some of them anyway) that reflect and fulfill the promises contained in God's word, such that I'm at a loss to explain it but by the power of the Holy Spirit.
I believed, going forward, but my experiences in life as follower of Christ, and my view of those around me I see following Jesus in a real and earnest way, give substance to my faith.
So, my apologetic would summed up like this:
1. Read the Bible. All of it. Twice.
2. Ask yourself if the Bible doesn't present the most coherent and compelling account of the story of man, and answers to Life's Big Questions(TM), viewed against any and all competing accounts.
3. Consider the challenge of the Gospel: You are a sinner, condemned to death for your transgressions. God loves you despite those sins, so much that he sent His own Son to die in your place, a substitutionary atonement for your sins, if only you are willing to repent, believe and follow His Son.
If you repent, believe, and follow, you shall be saved, eternally. Following Christ isn't easy -- it amounts to dying to yourself, day in and day out, for the rest of your life, so that you may serve God fully -- but this sacrifice is key to freedom from the bondage and slavery all men labor in without God's salvation.
4. Look for the evidence of God's power in the lives of His people. Jesus said you will know His followers by their love, and see for yourself how the love of Christ transforms those who serve Him.
This is a tricky but important part of my case for Christ; even the most faithful, devout followers of Christ are and will remain sinners until the day they die. Following Christ doesn't save you from having a sinful nature, but instead saves you from having to suffer its full consequences. Even more difficult than looking past the sins and errors of the faithful, many who profess themselves Christians will not show you or anyone else the love Jesus said would identify His followers. Many will strike you as worshiping themselves in exactly the same way an unbeliever does (if not worse).
Nevertheless, I submit that neither the distraction of Christian who reflect Christ in name only nor the imperfections and sins of those who truly do believe and submit to Christ should dissuade you from the Gospel. These failings are the natural order of this fallen world.
The self-sacrificing love, the joy, the charity, the contentment, the peace, the gentleness, the humility of those who have become bondservants of Christ stands as a witness, a testimony to the power and reality and presence of God. These are not the natural products of this fallen world, but are the living signs of salvation and redemption working out in the lives of men, a glimpse of the Kingdom of God.
I don't have a deductive syllogism to use to box you, the unbeliever into a rational "cell" where you must capitulate to the Christ as an exhaustive modus ponens. God and His word, as an immanent, sovereign reality, aren't disprovable or even discountable in the minds and pursuits of men. Just as some men will try to sell you "proof" that obviates faith in God and simply compels you to accept the Bible as a logical nessity, you will find many men that will try to sell you the idea that God and His word aren't just imaginary, but impossible, even.
Both of these pursuits are folly. Science, philosophy, logic, they're all useful, but ultimately impotent to choose *for* you what God demands you choose for yourself: a verdict on Himself, His Son, His Spirit, and His Word.
At the end of the day, my apologetic is nothing more than my actions, the account I give of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, not just in my words posted on the Internet, but in the way and why I say it, and in every thing I do, every day.
What is a Transcendental Arguement for God worth without love? If a man defends his faith, but does not show you love, what faith does he really have, no matter what you make of his syllogisms?
When Paul took the podium at Mars Hill, he had no "defeater" for the various gods rendered in stone all around him. There was no exhaustive law of logic presented that made Zeus, or the "unknown god" a logical impossibility. Paul simply provided a better account for the Big Questions, an answer to who that "unknown God" really was, and why He was the One God, creator, ruler, and savior of the world. He offered a framework that made the philosophers attending uncomfortable -- he accounted for their sin, their idolatry as part of his presentation of the Gospel.
Paul *proved* God to none that day. But yet many believed. Many were convinced, inclined toward God because Paul had simply showed a better way to view the world, a way that accounted for what really is: a God who has created all, rules all, loves all, but by His justice demands atonement for sin.
God wasn't anything like what the philosophers of the Aeropagus supposed a god must be like. Paul related a God who was a radical fundamental departure from the entities Greece had conceived of and made statues of all around where Paul spoke. It wasn't finely honed polemic tricks that made Paul powerful and convincing that day. It was the power of the Holy Spirit in him, and the intrinsically radical nature of the Gospel, as "far out" to the Mars Hills philosophers then as it is to the materialist/consumerist/individualist decadents of modern America and beyond.
So my apologetic, my defense of the faith, rests on the intrinsic power of the Gospel account itself; it's not the only possible or plausible account for the way the world is and the way the world works. I offer it, as Paul did, as simply the best, as a radical and distinctive alternative to the rest of the world's paradigms.
More importantly, my apologetic rests on, or is at least corroborated by my ability to demonstrate Christ as a present reality, a transforming power in my life and the lives of those whom I interact with. If I do not have love, patience, kindness, joy, forebearance and charity, then my apologetic is of little value, I freely grant.
-Touchstone
1. Did it 20 times, I went to seminary, you know.
ReplyDelete2. No better than "Islam" does. And, just because I don't like that we turn into cosmic powder when we die doesn't mean its not true.
3. There are no universal laws of morality by which to judge me. Look at your arguments against universal laws of logic, apply them to morality.
4. Look at the transformed Muslims and AA members.
Touchstone, your "defense" of the faith is more ridiculous that the Triaboogers.
So on the one hand, Triabloguers think they can prove their faith, in so far as they act like anyone who doesn't believe is stupid and ignorant, and on the other hand Touchstone's faith is a kind of fideism, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteTo the Triabloguers I ask that they consider the possibility they might be wrong, since it's quite probable we are all wrong about most things we claim to believe (if you think otherwise I could give you a simple college test on any subject matter before taking a class), while to Touchstone I ask that you believe what the evidence points to. William James, BTW, cannot be satisfactorily defended.
Atheist,
ReplyDelete1. Did it 20 times, I went to seminary, you know.
OK, got it.
2. No better than "Islam" does. And, just because I don't like that we turn into cosmic powder when we die doesn't mean its not true.
No argument on that at all here -- the cosmic powder anyway. If you got the sense that I think it couldn't possibly, logically (or illogically, see the other thread) be otherwise, you're mistaken. The "cosmic powder" scenario is a plausible scenario.
As for Islam, that's a bit of a rabbit hole to chase down, but the more I learn about Islam (and that's been a bit of the last several years), as a narrative, Islam strikes me as pathetically "human" in its ideals. Like something straight from the mind of a charismatic but vicious tribal leader.
The Bible has a radical, subversive current running through it that I find wholly distinct from Islam. My muslim friends just cannot fathom the principle of "love your enemies". It simply short-circuits the Islamic mindset.
And a raft of other mindsets to boot.
3. There are no universal laws of morality by which to judge me. Look at your arguments against universal laws of logic, apply them to morality.
If God doesn't exist, then you are absolutely correct. If God does exist (in the way conceived by Christianity), then your claim would be wrong. Either one is *logically* possible.
I contend that God *actually* exists, however. Not *necessarily*, but actually.
4. Look at the transformed Muslims and AA members.
Sure, and look at all the Christians worshipping themselves...
It's not an easy, obvious thing to discern, but I suggest it is different, although I'll allow that both AA members and devout Muslims (and others) can and do practice a form of piety (even if misplaced) that is itself transformative.
What I'm talking about is something much more radical. I've not seen what you've seen, but I can say that witness of the life of a truly sold-out follower of Jesus is something altogether different than the most devout followers of AA, Islam, Buddhism or any other 'ism' I've run across.
I won't suggest this is immediately available to you by turning on the TBN on your cable box or searching for "Christian" on Technorati. Nevertheless I contendn the witness is out there to be found.
Touchstone, your "defense" of the faith is more ridiculous that the Triaboogers.
Peace to you.
-Touchstone
John,
ReplyDeleteWell, there's "fideism", and then there's "fideism". I have friends tell me that fideism demands that reason and philophy are opaque to "unregenerate reason" -- in the vein of Tertullian, as well as many Calvinists, I note ('fideism' is a problem I identify in Calvinist apologetics, regularly, and particularly in the presup arena).
I don't buy the "total depravity == noetic annihilation for the unregenerate" mojo. Not at all. Reason is reason, a grace God endowed man with, regenerate and unregenerate.
That said, though, I do take a very conservative line as to the powers and authority of philosophy and logic in "border cases", out at the edge (or down ant the bottom, if you prefer) where the ultimate, the fundamental, the transcendent questions reside.
That doesn't pit reason *against* revelation, but rather sees its scope and power as limited, as epistemologically attenuated on many fundamental questions. Revelation and the Gospel don't contravene reason, in my view, but reason and logic will not take you to the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, on its own.
I'm no fan of James, if your mention of him was directed at me, and in some Swedenborgian sense.
As for the evidence, I think I can prove (even just here in my comments on this blog) that I'm not one to dismiss the natural evidences away. As has become well known here, the witness of the earth and the universe is compelling: a YEC view of the Bible just isn't a serious or God-honoring view of Scripture.
But on the other hand, I don't *expect* miraculous signs from heaven, "Yahweh was here" written in the stars, to prove to me that God exists. So the evidence available is fairly inert with respect to the existence of transcendent God; my inability to catch God on videotape in a lab experiment doesn't do *anything* epistemically with respect to the question of God's existence.
-Touchstone
Touchstone, thanks for answering.
ReplyDelete1. So. Now what? Why was that an "argument" for Christianity?
2. I never said that you said anything was logically impossible. I just said that there are no "big questions" like "what happens when you die?" That's it. You die. Science has proven that we are material. No soul floating around. No immaterial thing that smehow "causes" things to happen in the physical world. Look at what science has proven. Be consistent with your arguments for an old earth and evolution. Now, that you're not satisfied with the idea that we turn to cosmic dust, so what? Just because Christianity "gives an answer" doesn't mean squat. Besides, I'd rather have 72 virgins forever rather than worship god forever.
The Bible seems totally tribal and human to me. Yahweh begins as a tribal god, and then evolves, over time, into the being you have today. I think the facts and the evidence support the idea that religion evolves just like everything else.
3. So, telling me that I'm a sinner was based on "question begging?" But didn't you tell "Paul Manata" that that was a "no no?" So, basically, if I don't believe in God why should I "consider the challenge of the gospel" which is predicated on the assumption that I am a "sinner?"
4. You're right, your experience isn't my experience. So, I've seen the same thing I see in Christians in Muslims and AA members. Perhaps your view of Christians is collored by your prior assumption that Christianity is true?
I've seen nothing here. I certainly don't think you should ever bash the triaboogers for their arguments when yours are ten times worse. Your arguments are a bunch of subjective and emotional appeals to people.
The triaboogers at least try to act like they care about rationality. You, on the other hand, are an enigma. You argue for evolution and say you accept the fatcs and findings of science yet you seem totally ignorant of the findings of archeologists, anthropologists, neurologists, et al., who have shown that religion evolves like everything else, and we are simply material beings. And then your "arguments" for why you believe are simply appeals to subjectivity and emotion. Apply the same standard here as you do to the triaboogers arguments for a young (snicker) earth.
Actually, I'd rather have all Christains become like this Touchstone fellow. He gives me absolutely no reason to believe that Christianity is true, his feelings on the matter not withstanding.
Im a Christian and I found that apologetic to be terrible. Logic and historical evidence was missing. Its mostly an appeal to a subjective feeling which gives no reason for others to embrace Christianity whatsoever or believe this feeling has any legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteI might as well say "I have had a deep and personal experience with {insert mythical being/figure of choice} and I hope everyone else experiences it too. If they dont experience this feeling...ummm.... dont know how to solve that one...."
Touchstone cited Acts 17, but he didn't make the sort of objective appeal to evidence, such as fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection, that we see Paul and the other early Christians making in Acts 17 and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding, Touchstone. My purpose in asking for your input was not so I could nit pick and "attack" your point of view.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have to say that when I read what you wrote here and compare it to the arguments you've presented against Steve, Paul, and myself, I find glaring inconsistency. In other words, your arguments against Christian apologists in no way reflect your claim that "the Bible represents both a plausible history and a compelling love story", for instance. Instead, I find you dismissing whatever the Bible says in every instance.
You have presented your "apologetic" as a purely subjective thing; yet if you were truly subjective you could not argue against my (or other T-bloggers') position(s). If something "seems right" to you, that doesn't give you epistemic warrant to claim what "seems right" to me is actually wrong. If we disagree, you have no basis to claim that I am actually wrong.
The fact that you continually disagree and, indeed, try to offer a rational for your disagreement demonstrates that you are not simply evoking a subjective argument in the least.
One last thing. You said:
---
What is a Transcendental Arguement for God worth without love?
---
I would counter: "What is love without truth?" Let me just give you a quick analogy.
A little boy was walking down the sidewalk when he saw a baby bird that had fallen out of the nest. The boy's heart was filled with compassion. He scooped the bird up and promptly took him home. There, he fed the bird his favorite candy and beverages, and he put the bird in his remote control car and raced around the room, and he did all the things that the little boy loved to do. He loved the bird so much he had to share these things with the baby bird.
In the morning, the boy awoke and found the bird dead. The boy was devastated, but his loving actions had been done in ignorance. The baby bird did not need candy, to race around in a car, or even to be picked up off the sidewalk. Had the boy simply "cruely" walked on his way, the baby's mother would have rescued the baby bird.
Instead, the boy ignorantly, but through his love, killed the bird. Because he didn't know what the bird needed, the bird suffered and died.
The moral, Touchstone: Don't mistake someone who points out the truth with someone who is "unloving." When people are spiritually dead, they don't need their ears tickled, even if that makes you feel like you've been loving toward them.
Indeed, I simply ask who is the one who is actually loving: the person who gets warm fuzzy feelings but allows another to believe a deadly lie unchallenged, or the person who demonstrates that a lie is a lie even if it is uncomfortable for the one who needs to let go of the lie?
Nice Pete! Tough love is, well, "tough", but it's "love", none the less.
ReplyDeleteHA!
ReplyDelete"atheist" poster above = Discomfiter
what a corky guy!!!
Its really sad how Paul Manata has to stoop to deception...over and over and over and over....
ReplyDeleteI sense a spirit of deception has him in bondage.
"Spirit of perversion, take your hands off Paul Manata now. GO!"
ATHEIST,
ReplyDeleteTouchstone, thanks for answering.
1. So. Now what? Why was that an "argument" for Christianity?
Yes, reading the Bible is one of, it not *the* best way to have Christianity presented to you. It's an argument for Christianity, as a metanarrative that overarches the whole of human history.
2. I never said that you said anything was logically impossible. I just said that there are no "big questions" like "what happens when you die?" That's it. You die. Science has proven that we are material. No soul floating around. No immaterial thing that smehow "causes" things to happen in the physical world. Look at what science has proven. Be consistent with your arguments for an old earth and evolution. Now, that you're not satisfied with the idea that we turn to cosmic dust, so what? Just because Christianity "gives an answer" doesn't mean squat. Besides, I'd rather have 72 virgins forever rather than worship god forever.
The Bible seems totally tribal and human to me. Yahweh begins as a tribal god, and then evolves, over time, into the being you have today. I think the facts and the evidence support the idea that religion evolves just like everything else.
3. So, telling me that I'm a sinner was based on "question begging?" But didn't you tell "Paul Manata" that that was a "no no?" So, basically, if I don't believe in God why should I "consider the challenge of the gospel" which is predicated on the assumption that I am a "sinner?"
Christianity is presented as a (meta)narrative that provides a moral rationale that purports to make sense of the human condition and human interaction. In the very first verse of the Bible, it makes the assertion that God exists, and that He is creator and ruler of all that exits. It's presented as a naked, brute fact there.
Paul, CalvinDude, and others present this as if this is a logical *necessity*, something that might be proven conclusively if we would just learn to use a little deduction.
The Bible offers no such "transcendental argument", but instead makes the brute claim that God simply *is*, always *was*, and always *will be*. As a matter of logic, it is presented as an actuality, but not a logical necessity.
That's a significant departure from the suggestion put forth here that God is a logically *necessary* conclusion. My objection with Paul, or CalvinDude is with the patent absurdity of asserting that is the only way things *might possibly* be, from a logical perspective. I hold God to be an immanent actuality, but I don't suppose morality, for example, could not/would not have developed if there was no God.
To beg the question is to assume one's conclusion to the matter at hand. The above, I offer as a compelling, actual answer to the question. But I don't beg the question in the sense of assuming my answer is the *only* possible conclusion. It can logically be the case that there is no God, and thus no sin (in the Christian sense), original or other wise.
Maybe the best way to portray this is with an analogy to a scientific theory; I am advancing a "grand unified theory" that explains historical and moral questions that I think has more to recommend it than the alternative theories. When one advances, or endorses a theory, one doesn't beg the question with its hypothesis. It must compete against other available theories and explanations.
Paul and CalvinDude apparently would like to suggest that there *can't* be any other theories.
4. You're right, your experience isn't my experience. So, I've seen the same thing I see in Christians in Muslims and AA members. Perhaps your view of Christians is collored by your prior assumption that Christianity is true?
Yes, for sure as a kid. But raised as a YEC fundamentalist, I jumped ship as a young man into atheism/deep agnosticism at discovering the dishonesty and intellectual poverty of much of that tradition.
So, perhaps that *sticks*, even through such a rejection, but socially, I'd paid the price of "leaving the tribe" and being a "free thinker", so I'm not inclined to think it was simple social gravity that brought me back to the faith.
That said, though, there's no way to reject the idea that prior, early inclinations color our views and trajectories. Nevertheless, with what is laid before me, objective *and* subjective, it's completely irrational to dismiss God.
I've seen nothing here. I certainly don't think you should ever bash the triaboogers for their arguments when yours are ten times worse. Your arguments are a bunch of subjective and emotional appeals to people.
The triaboogers at least try to act like they care about rationality. You, on the other hand, are an enigma. You argue for evolution and say you accept the fatcs and findings of science yet you seem totally ignorant of the findings of archeologists, anthropologists, neurologists, et al., who have shown that religion evolves like everything else, and we are simply material beings. And then your "arguments" for why you believe are simply appeals to subjectivity and emotion. Apply the same standard here as you do to the triaboogers arguments for a young (snicker) earth.
Oh, I'm quite sure that religion *does* evolve like everything else. What I think is an error is the assumption that that categorically nullifies all of it as attached to a (meta)physical reality.
Actually, I'd rather have all Christians become like this Touchstone fellow. He gives me absolutely no reason to believe that Christianity is true, his feelings on the matter not withstanding.
You're right... that Transcendental thingy is a much more solid reason. Who knew it was really just so much propositional calculus???
;-)
Reason and logic play an important, indispensible role in a vigorous, dynamic Christian faith and life. But they are not magic idols, oracles that hold the keys to the transcendent questions. A decision for Christ is not irrational in an sense, but rather super-rational. There's more implicated by the challenge of Christianity than simply the "seen" -- important as that is.
Thanks for the comments.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
ReplyDelete"Paul, CalvinDude, and others present this as if this is a logical *necessity*,"
Can you, especially in light of posts like this,
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-tag-and-certainity_05.html
substantiate the charges you've filed against me here?
Can you actually quote me *anywhere* saying the above?
Touchstone, Peter through out a challenge, here's mine:
Given the last thread where we discussed Zool and internal inconsistencies, you spread plenty of lies about me. Now, you've said another. Are you going to man up to your violation of the 9th commandment, or continue with your lies and mischaracterizations.
Furthermore, since this is the *only* critique you've leveled against my arguments, and if my arguments are not what you say they are, then would it be safe to say that you should also admit you've been wrong in your criticisms?
So, (a) what is your view on the 9th commandment (I'm assuming you're not joking, employing saracsm, acting, writing parody, etc)? And (b) if you can't substantiate your number one accusation against any arguments I've offered, what is your view on misrepresenting the views of others?
Thanks,
~PM
Btw, Touchstone, here is a quote taken directly from my post I linked to in my post directly above here:
ReplyDelete*********
"We don't have epistemic certainty because we cannot, as Dr. Sudduth argues, "preclude all possible reasons for doubting the truth of the proposition or belief in question" (emphasis added)."
**********
And since that *directly* contradicts what you've said about me and my arguments, what do you have to say for yourself?
Hello Touchstone,
ReplyDelete1. I don't see the "argument." Am I to take your "say-so?"
2. You didn't offer an answer here.
3. This "argument" is predicated on the assumption that I'm a sinner. I deny this. But, perhaps you could read the Koran and mediate on the human condition, especially yours, you infidel. None of your arguments couldn't be made by Islam. Didn't you use a made up religion, "Drool" (or soemthing) whereby you said that the same arguments "Paul Manata" gave could be used by another religion, and so his argument was thereby defective. But, you've done the same thing. Anyone can appeal to emotion and tell people to read their book of made up stories.
4. None of what you said here rebutted the claim that I have seen Muslim's and AA members radically change their life due to their adherence to their systems of steps. So, the argument from changed lives isn't really appealing to me. Perhaps there's a better reason why I should believe in the obejctive existence of a deity because of "changed lives." Surely there's a more simple, and naturalistic explanation for all of this. If you were the man of science you say you are, you'd be bound to agree.
And so I had always wnated to see your arguments for the Chritian faith, what, with how much you railed against the triaboogers I was sure you would have something better to put in their place.
But, after all the smoke clears, is appears that you are critiquing them for offering arguments that can be questioned, are can be doubted, or don't lead to Christianity, and yours are certainly no better, in fact, worse IMHO.
I find zero reasons to choose your religion instead of Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, or even systems like Buddhism and the like.
Since Paul Manata is so concerned about the "lying" of T-stone, maybe he should repent of his own deception?
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
I discern a spirit of evil deceptive rage has taken over Paul again. Spirit, I command you to loose him now! LOOSE! LOOSE! GO!!!
Paul, I've got your back.
CalvinDude,
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding, Touchstone. My purpose in asking for your input was not so I could nit pick and "attack" your point of view.
However, I have to say that when I read what you wrote here and compare it to the arguments you've presented against Steve, Paul, and myself, I find glaring inconsistency. In other words, your arguments against Christian apologists in no way reflect your claim that "the Bible represents both a plausible history and a compelling love story", for instance. Instead, I find you dismissing whatever the Bible says in every instance.
It's certainly true that many things get said here that I agree with. I only take time to weigh in when I read things that strike me as patently unsound as an argument from Christians. I assert that the Bible -- including and *especially* Genesis is true, but completely reject the plausibility of a YEC interpretation of Genesis, for example. It simple doesn't square with an overwhelming body of interlocking, interdisciplinary evidence.
In other case, like TAG (or your or other variations), Triabloguers, wittingly or otherwise, are trying to put one over on anyone who will listen. God exists, but not for the reasons put forth.
It's a false argument being waged for a truth.
That's quite a serious matter, in my view, as it ultimately will discredit and obscure the truth. I'm tempted to use TAG as the example, but perhaps that's a little to close to the nerve here, so I'll point at YEC cosmology. With apologists like Ken Ham, Dawkins' work is done for him. Ken Ham loves Jesus, I'm sure, but he's a tool in Dawkins service trying to peddle his foolishness in science under the label of Christian Truth -- necessary, exclusive truth at that!
So yeah, I can't stress enough how damaging and counterproductive these aggressive, non-viable arguments are. Forget the attitude and fashion they are delivered in -- another problem in and of itself.
You have presented your "apologetic" as a purely subjective thing; yet if you were truly subjective you could not argue against my (or other T-bloggers') position(s). If something "seems right" to you, that doesn't give you epistemic warrant to claim what "seems right" to me is actually wrong. If we disagree, you have no basis to claim that I am actually wrong.
That's wholly incorrect to say my apologetic is purely subjective. I don't suppose that the myriad manuscripts and codices that make up the Bible are *subjective*. I don't regard the historical attestations and accounts of the lives of Jesus, or any number of less prominent characters in Biblical history to be *subjective*.
The Big Bang -- a solid cosmological theory that has an unmistakable compatibility with a finite beginning of the universe (as opposed to the long-held views in an eternal universe) is not a subjective idea; it's hard science.
The fine tuning of the universe is not a subjective view; the universe is calibrated to support organic life in a most exquisite way. (Though I must add, the conclusions based on this are not objective ones. The configuration of cosmological parameters is perfectly, remarkably consistent with a purposeful, personal act of creation, but it's not the only plausible explanation -- see Susskinds bubbling megaverse, for example).
I can go on - the inventory of the "facts and evidences" in view in support of the Christian argument is large, and objectively meaningful. But it's not exhaustive in its conclusions. All of the natural universe and its evidences, objectively surveyed (or as nearly as man might get to it) is compatible and congruent with the Bible. But it does not stand as overwhelming, objective proof of God or the Bible.
Reason is necessary, but not sufficient.
The fact that you continually disagree and, indeed, try to offer a rational for your disagreement demonstrates that you are not simply evoking a subjective argument in the least.
One last thing. You said:
---
What is a Transcendental Arguement for God worth without love?
---
I would counter: "What is love without truth?" Let me just give you a quick analogy.
A little boy was walking down the sidewalk when he saw a baby bird that had fallen out of the nest. The boy's heart was filled with compassion. He scooped the bird up and promptly took him home. There, he fed the bird his favorite candy and beverages, and he put the bird in his remote control car and raced around the room, and he did all the things that the little boy loved to do. He loved the bird so much he had to share these things with the baby bird.
In the morning, the boy awoke and found the bird dead. The boy was devastated, but his loving actions had been done in ignorance. The baby bird did not need candy, to race around in a car, or even to be picked up off the sidewalk. Had the boy simply "cruely" walked on his way, the baby's mother would have rescued the baby bird.
Instead, the boy ignorantly, but through his love, killed the bird. Because he didn't know what the bird needed, the bird suffered and died.
The moral, Touchstone: Don't mistake someone who points out the truth with someone who is "unloving." When people are spiritually dead, they don't need their ears tickled, even if that makes you feel like you've been loving toward them.
Indeed, I simply ask who is the one who is actually loving: the person who gets warm fuzzy feelings but allows another to believe a deadly lie unchallenged, or the person who demonstrates that a lie is a lie even if it is uncomfortable for the one who needs to let go of the lie?
I realize this is a tempting bit of rationalization to use -- it's a tough love, this vicious engagement with atheists and others. It's tough being the Ezekiel having to mock and slaughter the prophets of Baal sometimes, I suppose.
But let's get real; you guys get off thinking you've got it figured out -- not as a belief, a reasoned faith in an actuality -- but as a logical necessity, and your "truth hurts" mantra leads you all manner of unbecoming behaviors and attitudes inconsistent with the very truths you claim to espouse.
I'm not not to mince words. I don't expect you or anyone here to mince words. But there's a profound difference between speaking forcefully and clearly but with generosity and good will, and living out your inner angers and your brooding Ezekiel-and-the-prophets-of-Baal fantasies. I find logical fault with William Lane Craig on a good number of areas regarding his arguments, but even though he's wrong in my view on the merits on those issues, he still does an admirable job of commending Christ with his "meta-message".
Here, too often, apologetics has been corrupted into a venue for catharsis, a way for angry Christians(!) to vent their spleens, to exercise their hatred of unbelievers, or "incorrect" believers.
Go ahead and soothe yourselves that you really *are* doing that atheist-bird a favor carrying on the way you (plural) do. But don't suppose that the crowd out there is so dumb as to miss the obvious fact that quite often that's just a lame excuse offered for scratching a personal, angry itch.
The example I offered above was Paul at Mars Hill. I don't know if you'd say he "tickled their ears" at the Aeropagus; I wouldn't. He talked straight, but made a positive appeal for the risen Christ, even as he illustrated the heinous depths of idolatry his listeners had sunk to.
He didn't try to bamboozle them with sham "proofs". He didn't try to ridicule them or humiliate them into the body of Christ. He served as the vessel of the Holy Spirit, not a release valve for his own pent-up frustrations and hostilities.
Say what you will about birds and boys; sometimes "unloving" is simply.... "unloving".
Thanks for your comments.
-Touchstone
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou repeatedly referred, in the "Chuck the Bad Arguments" thread, ot the "necessary laws of logic". I can't find any warrant for claiming that LNC, LEM, or whatever else you claim is a "necessary law of logic" in any transcedent way.
Now if you mean "necessary" to mean that it's required for us to discuss it, or to contextualize things as human, no problem. But going back to read the whole thread again, it's clear to me that you are asserting that *logic* -- an entity of undefined scope and content -- is a necessary precondition (or collateral attribute, take your pick) of the universe. Moreover, it's not just a transcendant *artifact*, but some kind of *predicate* for it.
That's wholly unwarranted.
If you *aren't* saying that logic is a necessary existential precondition, that the universe and the God that created it could plausibly be operating under some logical framework that is "paraconsistent" with respect to your "necessary" laws of logic, then a) I can't make even *rough* sense of your posts in the previous thread and b) I would happily withdraw my objection here that you are positing necessities where they are not warranted.
If you want to go back and look at all the cases where you invoked "necessary" and what the "necessary" was being applied to, we can do that.
-Touchstone
ATHEIST,
ReplyDelete1. I don't see the "argument." Am I to take your "say-so?"
Maybe we are talking past each other. Are you expecting a *philosophical* treatise? If so, you've had your expectations set incorrectly; the Bible contains claims and arguments, but its nor formulated as a polemic treatise. It's a story, a history, infused with a moral/spiritual metanarrative.
2. You didn't offer an answer here.
Do you want me to recapitulate/synopsize the Bible's basic assertions to these questions??? I'm assuming you're at least nominally familiar the Bible's message on these topics.
Or maybe the best way to accelerate this is: what is the form you are expecting for your answer? Simply saying "not satisfied" isn't going to move this forward...
3. This "argument" is predicated on the assumption that I'm a sinner. I deny this. But, perhaps you could read the Koran and mediate on the human condition, especially yours, you infidel. None of your arguments couldn't be made by Islam. Didn't you use a made up religion, "Drool" (or soemthing) whereby you said that the same arguments "Paul Manata" gave could be used by another religion, and so his argument was thereby defective. But, you've done the same thing. Anyone can appeal to emotion and tell people to read their book of made up stories.
Sure, there are any number of appeals available. And the argument Manata presents, I contend, would work perfectly well as an apologetic for the made-up Zool; it's a bit of polemic trickery, that's all.
The appeal of Christianity is not only, or even primarily emotional. Unlike Manata's "protect any god in here, real or no" shell, I suggest that Christianity has an *intuitive* appeal that makes it unique.
As a quick example, I thew out Jesus' admonition to "love your enemies", above. Is that an objective proof for God's existence? Hardly. Is it a distinctive that separates it morally from Islam? Yes it is.
The distinctives that Christianity provide a unique appeal to reason and human intuition.
Even so, I don't offer that as epistemic *proof* for God. It's a theory, a candidate for the best overall explanation that is distinct, and, I believe, superior to the available alternatives.
4. None of what you said here rebutted the claim that I have seen Muslim's and AA members radically change their life due to their adherence to their systems of steps. So, the argument from changed lives isn't really appealing to me. Perhaps there's a better reason why I should believe in the obejctive existence of a deity because of "changed lives." Surely there's a more simple, and naturalistic explanation for all of this. If you were the man of science you say you are, you'd be bound to agree.
I'm not sure how you mean "man of science". If that means, "only science, and nothing but science", I don't think that label fits me. If you mean "science-compatible", "informed by science", then I'd say it would.
And you're right in saying that from a materialist perspective, there must be, and is a more "natural" [sic] explanation not just for changed lives, but for all religion. But only because that's a definitional boundary; science, by it's nature, confines itself to the physical. It regards "metaphysical" as out of scope.
So, if the rules are limited to *physical/natural* explanations, well, not only are changed lives just and only a physical phenomenon, *everything* is! If you're not constraining the investigation to a materialist plane, then I *do* see phenomena that are more naturally explained in metaphysical terms.
And so I had always wnated to see your arguments for the Chritian faith, what, with how much you railed against the triaboogers I was sure you would have something better to put in their place.
But, after all the smoke clears, is appears that you are critiquing them for offering arguments that can be questioned, are can be doubted, or don't lead to Christianity, and yours are certainly no better, in fact, worse IMHO.
I find zero reasons to choose your religion instead of Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, or even systems like Buddhism and the like.
Well, this gives occasion for CalvinDude to have something useful to post, then!
But you'll have to tell me what you mean by "better" in terms of arguments. If you're looking for ostensibly airtight epistemic claims to ultimate questions, I'm afraid the T-bloggers have that part of the market sewed up; their claims are often *too* strong by half.
If it's a mathematics-quality proof, based on your own axiomata, I can't help you. If that's "better", you're asking the wrong guy. All of these arguments can be doubted, logically, reasonably. That doesn't mean those doubts are correct, ultimately, but if you're hoping to find that "magic bullet" of pure logic that breaks you down and forces you to capitulate, give up now.
These questions rest on reason and logic, but do not *turn* on them. It's not an irrational question, but a super-rational one. Or, if "super-rational" is a term that's problematic for you, it's a question that implicates objective and subjective epistemics.
-Touchstone
Paul,
ReplyDeleteMissed your "follow-up" to your first response.
You said:
And since that *directly* contradicts what you've said about me and my arguments, what do you have to say for yourself?
I don't claim *all* your arguments rest on epistemic certainty, for cryin' out loud. The ones I object to -- or perhaps more precisely, the *parts* of your arguments I fidn fault with -- are the ones where you use words like *necessary*.
I asked above about the "necesary laws of logic", and await your answer on that.
But, I do not, and did not suppose that your arguments were uniformly anchored to claims of necessity. I don't think one could maintain that position if one consciously tried, regardless of the argument itself.
-Touchstone
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteHere's your answer and I hope you can be honest,
You said,
""Paul, CalvinDude, and others present this as if this is a logical *necessity*,"
The context of the above ("this") was this claim,
"God exists, and that He is creator and ruler of all that exits"
So, it is *clear* that you were talking about an argument for the Christian God.
Now above you backpeddle. I most certainly did refer to necessary laws of logic. But that is *different* than what you said above.
That was not in the context of saying the Christian God had been proved with logical necessity.
In fact, my claim that laws of logic are necessary is highly uncontroversial. For example, atheist Michael Martin said,
_________
"Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd." -Martin, TANG.
__________
Or, take a lecture I've been listening to by Colin McGinn. Educated at Oxford, and professor of philosophy at Rutgers university (the number one ranked philosophy department in the U.S.). In his section of logic he claims that "the law of non-contradiction is necessarily the case." He's not a Christian TAGster either.
It's fair to say that the vast majority of thinkers have believed that the laws of logic are necessary.
Moreover, Touchstone, you seem quite ignorant. The laws of logic are *logically* necessary since they *define* what it is to be logically necessary! Any *logical* argument to undermine this *presupposes* the principles in doubt. hence, to doubt or disprove them logically you must assume them. This is about as good a proof as you can get.
Now, maybe you mean they are not *metaphysically* necessary. I don't know, you've very unclear here. If it's the above, what you say is laughably absurd.
Anyway, the point here is that it is undeniable that you were talking about me presenting what I took to be a logically necessary argument for the Christian God. Even if you disagree with me on the status of the laws of logic, surely that's not something to get your feathers in a ruffle. Surely you don't expect us to believe that you have been spending all this time arguing against the necessity of logic. No. Your arguments are that you don't think, as you say, we have shown that God exists. You said,
"God exists, but not for the reasons put forth."
So, it's clear you weren't having some detached and academic dispute about the laws of logic in the abstract. And, since I've not put forth an argument which the conclusion is logically necessitated by the premises which all men accept, then I've not done what you say.
You write,
"I don't claim *all* your arguments rest on epistemic certainty, for cryin' out loud. The ones I object to -- or perhaps more precisely, the *parts* of your arguments I fidn fault with -- are the ones where you use words like *necessary*.
I asked above about the "necesary laws of logic", and await your answer on that. "
First, tell me *one* argument of mine you have not objected to.
Second, the part where I used "necessary" in our discussion simply had to do with laws of logic and their applicability to all statements, even those from Zool. I did not use it as an argument to prove the logical necessity of God.
Third, many times you try to critique me by saying the doubts by atheists to my arguments are warranted because it makes sense how they could doubt it. But, no atheis(or, hardly any) I have ran across here, John Loftus for example, would say that the laws of logic, like the LNC, are not necessary. Indeed, they frequently want *proof* that God exists. Many times that entails a logical argument wherein the premises are sound and the truth is necessitaed by the conclusion. If they didn't believe the laws were necessary, then why would they even ask for this? They could just deny *any* logical argument for God orm against their position! So, you're not even doing here what you want to be known as: "Defender of the atheist, and caller of Triablogue bluffs."
It is painfully obvious that you have shifted the goal posts in a major way. *Everyone* knows that you have been talking about argument *for God.* Now, you may disagree with me and just about everyone else on the planet (or perhaps men like Martin and McGin are stupid and unaware of your cat examples and such?), but the point here is that you hjave *never* said that your beef with me or anyone here is simply about "logic being necessary in the abstract."
Lastly, I do believe that God's existence is *logically necessitated* by arguments. For examples, here's one where the conclusion is necessitated by the premises,
1. if objective morals laws exist, then the Christian God exist.
2. Objective moral laws exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
So, you could say that *in one sense* I believe that my God's existence has logical arguments which necessitate his existence (on pain of denying modus ponens, of course).
The problem with the above, though, is that many don't accept the premises, or say that p1 is a non-sequitur because objective morals do exist and do not imply that God does. So, the argument is not *cogent* for all. For example, let's say I showed that all other answers to the argument fell on their faith and that a personal God, who created the universe, who was holy, triune, etc., was required. At this point, drop the triune part. What about a 4-in-1 god that had all the rest? What would it be about 4-in-1 that was problematic where 3-in-1 wasn't? At this point I don't think i can show that.
But, this doesn't mean that *I* do not see the conclusion as logically necessitated by the premises since I accept certain other assumptions. And so apologetically the issue isn't one of logical necessity since the Christian can put down logically valid and, as far as he's concerned, sound arguments for God's existence. There's really no problem with the Christian thinking his God is logically necessary either. Say he has a Anselmian conception of God. Say something like the ontological argument, with something like Plantinga's modal argument, is put forth. The Christian believs only his God exists,a nd so says his God is logicaly necessary.
But, the problem *apologetically* is that the atheists will argue the premises.
Hence what we believe, and what we can *show* is sometimes not the same. So, there's no problem with the Christian, who has many other tacit assuptions that come in to play which make the argument cogent for her, accepting proofs that entail that God's existence is necessitated by the premises. But many of these arguments may not be good ones for her to use in an apologetic encounter. For her it may be good enough that God said he exists, therefore he does. That's probably not too helpful apologetically though. At least for an offensive move.
Anyway, I've taken to much of my time and yours....
My main point here was to point out your shady move above. You were wrong about my arguments, *in the context you used* and are to proud to admit you're wrong.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteHere's something to start with that should help us converge at least on our differences.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), is I grant, completely *valid* as an argument. Now, for the neophyte, that might sound a bit of a triumph for TAG proponents -- it's valid! -- but while I wholly reject a wide array of your arguments, I don't suppose you are a neophyte. Presenting a valid argument is equivalent to being able to simply spell according to the rules -- it's a matter of form, not truth.
If Bob presents this argument:
1. I am a superman.
2. All supermen can fly.
3. Ergo, I can fly.
That's a completely valid argument. But when Bob jumped off the top of a tall building one Saturday morning for a refreshing little Superman aerial tour of the neighborhood, and fell to a horrible death on the pavement below, he bore witness to the poverty of the *valid* argument, and the importance of the *sound* argument.
TAG is like the superman argument, perfectly valid, but wholly unsound. You example (if objective morals exist...) is another example of same.
In these kinds of discussions, the *validity* is almost always a foot-note, a side issue, as it's just a matter of hygiene to bring your arguments in a valid form. *All* of the discussion centers around the *soundness* of the argument, which usually means a critique of the premises.
You've said as much yourself, above, so I won't press on that further, except to allow that in informal discussions like this, I speak more informally, and that may be a problem; If I say, or did say -- "that's invalid", I'm not suggesting you have a problem with the undistributed middle, or some such. I should probably make a point to be more precise that way, and use "unsound", so that it's clear to and others that my objection isn't to *form* but to content.
You say:
But, this doesn't mean that *I* do not see the conclusion as logically necessitated by the premises since I accept certain other assumptions. And so apologetically the issue isn't one of logical necessity since the Christian can put down logically valid and, as far as he's concerned, sound arguments for God's existence. There's really no problem with the Christian thinking his God is logically necessary either. Say he has a Anselmian conception of God. Say something like the ontological argument, with something like Plantinga's modal argument, is put forth. The Christian believs only his God exists,a nd so says his God is logicaly necessary.
Everything in that paragraph hinges on your use of "as far as he's concerned", Paul. I believe God exists, so by extension, based on that belief (assumption is probably a better word here), God *is* logically necessary. But that's completely worthless beyond simply calling that a statement of my assumptions.
You then say:
But, the problem *apologetically* is that the atheists will argue the premises.
And some theists will too. For example, if you should say "objective moral laws exist", I'd immediately say "not so fast, that's a wholly unsupported premise". Debate would then ensue over what the term means, what it means for a "law" to "exist', etc. All of these ultimately boil down to something much more humble what we stared with: naked assumptions.
And that's fine, but Paul, it's better to say "here are my naked assumptions, there aren't any rational/empirical basis for them, but it's how I choose to interpret the world." We then *know* your assumptions, and know them to be just assumptions. But the presentation of so much in Chistian apologetics -- CalvinDude's mutation of TAG, for example -- is an exercise in misdirection: offering an argument as something it is not -- a production (in whatever mix of deductive and inductive elements) that is "portable" from one person to the next. It's not at all portable, because it's all predicated on personal, subjective assumptions.
You said:
Hence what we believe, and what we can *show* is sometimes not the same. So, there's no problem with the Christian, who has many other tacit assuptions that come in to play which make the argument cogent for her, accepting proofs that entail that God's existence is necessitated by the premises. But many of these arguments may not be good ones for her to use in an apologetic encounter. For her it may be good enough that God said he exists, therefore he does. That's probably not too helpful apologetically though. At least for an offensive move.
This is the single most lucid paragraph I've read from you yet. Kudos. And I can't help but note the reaction of some here to my original post on this thread; "lame", or something to that effect, from some quarters. It's *not* effective apologetics, but only if you make the assumption, which I believe you do, that effective apologetics are by definition bound to rational and empirical productions.
That's an ontological mistake regarding apologetics, in my view. As you said, what we can *show* is not the same as what we *believe*. Or, for the Christian, to turn it around, we believe more than we can show, and reject the demands of rational/empirical demonstration as the criterion for what we may believe. That doesn't mean we reject rationalism, but we aren't constrained within its borders.
Which is a good thing, since what can be shown on ultimate questions, transcendent questions, is very nearly nil. An honest Christian will, under scrutiny, freely admit that very little to *none* of the major assumptions of Christianity is justifiable in terms of post-Humean epistemology.
Christians can't *show* jack in that arena. That's the bottom line. That doesn't mean what Christians believe isn't true, it's just not demonstrable or justifiable in a rigorous way. We can lament this as a PR problem or an apologetic deficiency, but this is the reality, the way God configured things. Knowledge of God is not arrived at (solely) on this plane, for is it justified on this plane.
So when you start in about the "necessary laws of logic" as a premise, I object. Necessary for what? If I talk about, say, the "necessary laws of math", it may indeed be "necessary" to have formalisms in place simply to we can agree on terms and communicate, if only roughly. But that doesn't make "2+2=4" some kind of transcendent kind of law which then presupposes a divine author of such a law. It's a practical, pragmatic construct, only necessary for us a way to contextualize and process the input from the world around us.
Even if what you are proposing -- what you believe -- is true, it's not something you can show.
Here's an example from your "Chuck the Bad Arguments" post:
You said:
Anyway, if the system really has P and ~P, then you have the internal inconsistency.
Now, Zool's laughing at my mere mortalness doesn't do anything to change necessary laws of logic.
Furthermore, how would we communicate, at all? If P and ~P are not contradictory, then you can't call the above divine Zoolian *truths.*
The suggestion here being that if we don't have an absolute knowledge, a pristine separation between P and ~P, we can't function or communicate.
To use an example from Hume, if I recall correctly, an inductive argument about the sun coming up:
1. Over a long period, I've witnessed a consist, regular pattern, of sunsets and sunrises.
2. Tomorrow will be like yesterday, and the day before it, and the day before it...
3. Ergo, the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
According to Hume, (2) is completely unjustified. It is, strictly speaking, "irrational" to expect that tomorrow will be like today, as there is no empirical justification for induction or causality.
So what has just happened? By rule, the world has become "unintelliglible", "irrational". How can we proceed? We have no basis to believe the sun will come up tomorrow!
The error in this protest is related to the error you make concering "necessary laws of logic" ("How can we ever communicate?!"): knowledge is not predicated on absolutes, or pure, exhaustive justifications.
Hume tells me I have *zero* justification epistemologically for relying on the sun rising tomorrow. But that's a demand for an *absolute* justification. I couldn't give a rip about that; empircally, my reliance on the existing pattern and unfounded faith in the continuation of the pattern has served me quite well, thankyouverymuch.
What is technically an "unintelligible", "unjustified" worldview turns out to be highly effective in practice.
So when you start going one about a universe with "necessary laws of logic", necessary only because without them, I wouldn't have a pure, absolute justification for making assertions or developing assessments about the world, or communicating, I say "bah! I just do what works. I don't give a rip about the law of non-contradiction if it's not useful."
If, for example, everything were a matter of probability, then *everything* is P and ~P simultaneously to some degree. Do I exist? Yes, probably (P). But there's chance I don't (~P). All at the same time. (And I don't mean "exist" definitionally, a la DesCartes, where anything that perceives is definitionally said to exist.)
SO where does this leave the LNC? It's fine, it's right there, and highly useful, even in a universe that where *everything* is probabilistic. If the odds are sufficiently high in favor of a proposition, it's practically useful, if theoretically unjustified to say "I exist" (P only). Just like I'm unimpressed with Hume's telling me I have no basis for expect the sun to rise tomorrow, I can't be bothered by the underlying physics that assert that I exist as a probability only.
In both cases, I wantonly disregard the confines of epistemic justification at the lowest levels. I learn through experience and use what works, embracing that which seems to converge on a more accurate model of reality, and jettisoning that which diverges from a performing model of the real world.
So, these "necessary laws of logic" may well just be practical constructs we use to "quantize" the underlying reality in to tidy little "true|false" buckets. That's fine and that's practical; I endorse it as a pedagogical tool.
But to suggest that our ability to formulate and use such logic regimes *necessarily* means that a) such constructs require some transcendent author or creator, or b) that those logical frameworks are *normative* to the constitution of the physical universe is to simply indulge in wild, naked assertions.
Which is your right.
But let's be up front, and say "Here's my wild, naked assertions".
AS for sunrise, I happily plead guilty to living in an "unintelligible" universe, where "unitelligible" is the verdict levied on a universe that has no "bootstrapping" epistemology. I have an empirical basis that is simultaneous unjustified but provable useful in practice.
On the "necessary laws of logic" side, you've got no practical experience to show for your assertions. If I say those assertions can't be exhaustively justified (and that is what I'm saying with regard to your argument), you have no long "history of sunrises" to point to as a *practical* justification for you argument about "necessary laws of logic".
Here's a rule of thumb that might help in understanding my objections, or the basis for them. Philosophy gets increasingly bogus and useless as the topics get more ultimate. Philosophy is a an extremely limited tool, and its limits become severe once you get beyond the bounds of what can be verified and tested empirically.
In conclusion Paul, I do think -- amazingly -- there is common ground here, based on your understanding that what you believe and what you can *show* are entirely seperate sets. You may *believe* logic presupposes a God, or just a transcendant personality, but you cannot *show* it. Or the only way you can *show* it is to bring out a whole basket of other assumptions which can be believed but now *shown*.
If you, and the rest of T-bloggers here had a grip on the limitations of what you could actually *show*, I think we'd get on quite well.
-Touchstone
Okay so you refuse to take back your slanderous remarks. Have it your way. You're a dishonest debater Tocuhstone. And all your pious remarks and exhortations to "understand" our opponant are without any merit in my eyes. There's no point to address the multiply errors and philosophically weak arguments in your post. There is no way to deny my refutation of your claim about me, it proves you were wrong. Since you can't even accept clear and obvious evidence to the contrary, I think it's useless to waste my time with you. Besides, all your talk about logic is rather silly considering I've presented arguments for logics necessity and you've completely avoided answering the arguments, instead opting to merely *assert* that they might not obtain in a necessary way.
ReplyDeletePaul, I still sense a spirit of unrepentence in your heart. Please brother Paul, repent of your deceptions! Liars will not inherit the kingdom, and I want to see you in paradise!
ReplyDelete"Spirit of rebellion, I come against you! Release this boy, Paul, and begone. To the pit with you!"
T-Stone...If you, and the rest of T-bloggers here had a grip on the limitations of what you could actually *show*,
ReplyDeleteI've been away but look at what's transpired since being gone!
I do share Touchstone's views of the limitations of what we can show. Healthy humility in such areas is best.
Here's what I say. I reject Christianity, I think it's false beyond a shadow of doubt. So I argue against it.
But when it comes to arguing for what I believe, I think God doesn't exist at all. He may exist. I just don't think so. My rejection of Christianity is categorical. My rejection of the existence of God is tentative.
All of us here reject the existence of Zeus or Allah, too, so I'm doing nothing strange when I reject the specific Christian God-belief. It's just that when I must state and argue a positive case for what I believe, it can be difficult. Hence in this area I hold what I believe tentatively.
If William Abraham, C. Stephen Evans, Basil Mitchell, Michael Peterson, William Hasker, David Basinger, James F. Sennett, and Bruce Reichenbach have anything to say about the relationship of faith and reason, then even a "soft-fideism" (as William Abraham describes it) isn't something irrational at all--something the rest of Triabloguers could learn from Touchstone and even me.
Just so statement is in context:
ReplyDeleteThe arguments I *can* show (or at least attempt to show) are such that the denial of Christian theism is irrational. Moreover, almost all arguments raised against Christianity presuppose Christianity (despite the logical possibility of presupposing something exactly like Christianity but with a, say, 4-in-1 God). Because there's the ability to raise logically possible doubts, doesn't mean much. Such doubts are such that they are irrational to believe and so don't really enter into the conversation. Such doubts are usually self-referentially incoherent because, like I did with the determine your thoughts argument, the objector, on his own argument, couldn't believe his own argument against me.
So, we're sitting pretty apologetically.
John Loftus,
ReplyDelete"All of us here reject the existence of Zeus or Allah, too, so I'm doing nothing strange when I reject the specific Christian God-belief. It's just that when I must state and argue a positive case for what I believe, it can be difficult. Hence in this area I hold what I believe tentatively. "
Typical. Loftus' problem is that he has no good arguments against Christainity, and no good arguments for his own position. We, on the other hand, have good arguments against Zeus and Islam, and so our cases are not analogous.
Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteWell, T-stone is now calling my argument a "mutation of TAG." I guess that's some progress.