Jump to content

Belief In God


Recommended Posts

How do I know God exist? A good orgasm. I always seem to screem out God when I am having a really good orgasm.
Try "Ohhhhh, Darwin!" a few times and see if it works for you, since the pleasures of sex are far better evidence for evolution than for god. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been many objections to the Bible already, as well as to God. "Where did God come from?" "How can we really trust the Bible as fact or inerrant?" I could go on. The problem is these things don't make sense in your worldview, not mine. Your presuppositions rule out in advance the biblical claim to inspiration. why do you assume the he or any other non-theist ruled anything out in advance? I studied religion with an open mind and concluded that there is no evidence for divine inspiration for the Bible.You formulate arguments that already presuppose the impossibility of what you are arguing against (known as begging the question)! The fact that God is eternal is consistent with my worldview, as is the fact that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. Your worldview will not allow you to accept these things as fact.my worldview will allow me to accept anything as fact if there is direct or indirect evidence. I will not layer an assumption that has no basis on top of questions that do not currently have an answer, that only leads to dead ends in the search for answersMy contention would be that the main "proof" for Christianity is that without the Christian God, the God of the Bible, there is no intelligibility. you say it as if it is true, but present no logical reason why that is trueI see no other worldview that can make sense of reality, morality, logic, order, etc.Yet you do not allow that not seeing another worldview might be your lack of visionFor example:"If the mind of God does not sovereignly determine the relationship of every event to every other event according to His wise plan, then the way things are in the world and what happens there are random and interdeterminate. another statement presented as fact that has no rational basisIn that case, there is no intelligible basis for holding that any experience is like any other experience, there is nothing objectively common to the two of them, and there is no causal connection between any two events--and thus they are meaningless and indescribable."a faulty conclusion based on a faulty thesis...two faults dont make a truthIf all there is is matter and motion, everything in our brain is just the result of chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as everything that happens in the world. Everything is just the result of chance. there is no justification to the conclusion that it is "just the result of chance". nature has rules that limit the outcomes of some reactions/interactions. The fact that "thinking" is based on electrical impulses and chemical reactions does not dictate or limit the results of that thinking nor do they overlay an element of chance.You cannot make sense of reality in a world of chance. You completely destroy knowledge and intelligibility. since it is not a world of chance, any conclusions based on that assumption are irrelevant.These things are not a problem in my worldview. If your worldview cannot explain how we know what we know, how you are able to make moral judgments, how there is such a thing as 'truth', how it is that you are able to maintain laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, which are universal and unchanging, then you definitely are not able to argue about the Christian worldview because you have just destroyed your ability to discuss anything at all. Your reasoning against Christianity could only be intelligible if what you are trying to disprove is true.your worldview makes assumptions that there is a deeper "meaning" to knowing what we know, to morality, to truth etc. My worldview has open questions as to how some things might operate, but I can still think, make judgements about morality and truth etc, just as one can drive a car without knowing the first thing about internal combustion engines, drive shafts etc. I do not need a deeper meaning to driving to get from here to Foxwoods and my life is no less (and probably more) satisfying without that need
Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting thread. I myself am just stuck at the point where I don't care anymore. I never reallly believed in a "god", but it kind of bothered me that this is all there will ever be in life. It bothers me that people like Paul Bernado, Hitler, Simple Plan, have to exist, so to say there is a "master plan" according to some book written by bums 1000 years ago is just ignorant.So I have decided to do whatever the hell I want with my life, I'll be Mr. BAD example, like the song says.I'm Mr. Bad Example, intruder in the dirtI like to have a good time, and I don't care who gets hurtI'm Mr. Bad Example, take a look at meI'll live to be a hundred, and go down in infamy :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
de facto "laws" of morality don't exist. our developing human concept of morality is just what is beneficial for the survival of our species - evolved common sense in other words. likewise there aren't necessarily set "laws" of logic. our sense of logic is just derived from what has worked - axioms that have led to successful testable predictions.
You believe that the laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, are simply results of our brain and subjective and changing? I don't know if I understand that or not. Can you explain how logic evolved into what it is now? Is logic unchanging and universal in your worldview?Can you explain to me how an impersonal force, such as chance or fate, can bring about universal laws that humans are to follow?Can you explain to me how there is order in the universe?Can you actually prove to me that evolution occurred? Could you explain how you believe the universe came to be?I am asking honest questions to which I would appreciate responses if you don't mind. I want to understand what you actually believe about the universe, man, knowledge, morality, etc. I can only find that out by asking questions...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Copernicuswhy do you assume the he or any other non-theist ruled anything out in advance? I studied religion with an open mind and concluded that there is no evidence for divine inspiration for the Bible.I don't see it to be possible to get rid of presuppositions. Neutrality is a myth. I have presuppositions, and so does everyone else about what can or cannot be true. Everyone has basic assumptions that governs their world and life view. my worldview will allow me to accept anything as fact if there is direct or indirect evidence. I will not layer an assumption that has no basis on top of questions that do not currently have an answer, that only leads to dead ends in the search for answersThe point is that our basic assumptions interpret the facts for us and determines what "evidence" really is. You and I see the "facts" and "evidences" differently. What you believe to be evidence is not going to be the same as what I believe to be evidence. You obviously are going to interpret the "facts" within your worldview, as everyone does. You seem to believe that the "facts" are just there apart from our interpretation of them. The facts don't speak for themselves...you say it as if it is true, but present no logical reason why that is trueYet you do not allow that not seeing another worldview might be your lack of visionCould you explain order, morality, logic, or the universe in your worldview? I am interested to hear your explanation of these things within your worldview. How can there be logic or morality or order or the universe? Where did they come from? How do you make sense of them? another statement presented as fact that has no rational basisIf the events in the world do not happen by chance and are not random, how do they occur within your worldview?a faulty conclusion based on a faulty thesis...two faults dont make a truthHow is it that we have experiences that are like other experiences? How is it that there are universals in the world? Is there a causal connection between events? If not, how do particular events have meaning if they are not related or connected?there is no justification to the conclusion that it is "just the result of chance". nature has rules that limit the outcomes of some reactions/interactions. The fact that "thinking" is based on electrical impulses and chemical reactions does not dictate or limit the results of that thinking nor do they overlay an element of chance.Please explain how things occur if they are not the result of chance. Where did these "rules" that limits nature come from? If my brain tells me God exists, and yours tells you differently, which brain is working correctly? If that is just the result of electribal impulses and chemical reactions, how is that not random? Would it not be these impulses and reactions that made me think that God exists?since it is not a world of chance, any conclusions based on that assumption are irrelevant.If I failed to see it, I apologize, but I never seen you prove that the world is not a result of chance, along with the reactions going on in our brains.your worldview makes assumptions that there is a deeper "meaning" to knowing what we know, to morality, to truth etc. My worldview has open questions as to how some things might operate, but I can still think, make judgements about morality and truth etc, just as one can drive a car without knowing the first thing about internal combustion engines, drive shafts etc. I do not need a deeper meaning to driving to get from here to Foxwoods and my life is no less (and probably more) satisfying without that need.The point is not that you don't think or act or know things or make judgments. What I said was, "If your worldview cannot explain how we know what we know, how you are able to make moral judgments, how there is such a thing as 'truth', how it is that you are able to maintain laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, which are universal and unchanging, then you definitely are not able to argue about the Christian worldview because you have just destroyed your ability to discuss anything at all." The question is how and on what basis do you know anything, make moral judgments (is there some standard or criterion of morality), and maintain laws of logic (are the laws of logic unchanging and universal)?I appreciate your responses; I am no philosopher or scientist, but I do love to discuss these issues, even though I might not be the best one to discuss them. There are many more apt to discuss these sorts of things that I am. I wouldn't base your entire picture of the defense of Christianity of MY defense of it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
You believe that the laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, are simply results of our brain and subjective and changing? I don't know if I understand that or not. Can you explain how logic evolved into what it is now? Is logic unchanging and universal in your worldview?i think crowtrobot is somewhat off regarding logical laws. they are absolute, and must follow from the premises, but it is a matter of observation whether they apply to the "real world". i think logic is unchanging, but we can still "discover" lesser known axioms, or decide that one type of logic describes part of the world better than a previous type.Can you explain to me how an impersonal force, such as chance or fate, can bring about universal laws that humans are to follow?the laws are not universal, not always anyway. we have not developed morality to the point where it can always be trusted over "common sense".but the impersonal force is simply physics, which gave rise to chemistry, then biology, then emotions evolved. the laws of morality can then be derived using logic about common emotions and sensations.Can you explain to me how there is order in the universe? no, it is an unanswerable question, and no religion can answer it either.Can you actually prove to me that evolution occurred? there are huge amounts of evidence for it. im not going to bother to mention them here. Could you explain how you believe the universe came to be? no, this is the same as the order question. there is not even a theoretical answer. the universe just is.I am asking honest questions to which I would appreciate responses if you don't mind. I want to understand what you actually believe about the universe, man, knowledge, morality, etc. I can only find that out by asking questions...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Silent Snow,i think crowtrobot is somewhat off regarding logical laws. they are absolute, and must follow from the premises, but it is a matter of observation whether they apply to the "real world". i think logic is unchanging, but we can still "discover" lesser known axioms, or decide that one type of logic describes part of the world better than a previous type.What do you mean it is a "matter of observation" if the laws of logic apply to the "real world"? If they are universal, they always apply, othersise how are they universal? A is never not-A at the same time or in the same sense. What do you mean by "lesser known axioms"?the laws are not universal, not always anyway. we have not developed morality to the point where it can always be trusted over "common sense".but the impersonal force is simply physics, which gave rise to chemistry, then biology, then emotions evolved. the laws of morality can then be derived using logic about common emotions and sensations.If we have developed morality, are there "laws" of morality that are unchanging? Was it right at one point in time to murder someone or rape someone just because? You seem to imply that the laws of logic existed prior to any laws of morality, correct? This would mean that the laws of morality are changing and not universal, which is simply subjectivism, correct?Can you explain to me how there is order in the universe? no, it is an unanswerable question, and no religion can answer it either.I believe the Christian worldview does answer how there is order in the universe. Whether or not you accept the answer is the question. I believe there is order in the universe because God directs and guides all things so that they work together according to His wise and good plan. God is not the author of confusion. God does not act illogical because He is truth. God is in control of everything that occurs in the world. Hence, there is order in the universe because God causes there to be order in the universe. You may not like that answer, but to say that my worldview does not give an answer is false. You may simply dismiss my answer as false, but it IS an answer, and I believe THE answer.Can you actually prove to me that evolution occurred? there are huge amounts of evidence for it. im not going to bother to mention them here. Evidence would seem to indicate it is probably true, but that leaves open the fact it may not be true. The question is can evolution be proven? Could you simply explain the process of evolution and what occurred?Could you explain how you believe the universe came to be? no, this is the same as the order question. there is not even a theoretical answer. the universe just is.Once again, the Christian worldview has an answer. God created the world for His own good and sovereign purposes. You may dismiss that answer as folly. You may ask, well where did God come from? I see it as entirely inconsistent to say that the universe just is or that matter just is, but yet deny that God just is (not that you personally will do that or have done that). Was there a time when nothing existed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Silent Snow,i think crowtrobot is somewhat off regarding logical laws. they are absolute, and must follow from the premises, but it is a matter of observation whether they apply to the "real world". i think logic is unchanging, but we can still "discover" lesser known axioms, or decide that one type of logic describes part of the world better than a previous type.-----What do you mean it is a "matter of observation" if the laws of logic apply to the "real world"? If they are universal, they always apply, othersise how are they universal? A is never not-A at the same time or in the same sense. What do you mean by "lesser known axioms"?example- we always know that in a right triangle a^2 + b^2 = c^2, but we have to scientifically measure the triangle to see if it really is 90 degrees and the logic applies. this doesnt mean that logic isnt universal; its just not always useful in a particular situation. i mean that not every logical statement is immediately obvious. mathematicians spend countless hours discovering more obscure logical truths.the laws are not universal, not always anyway. we have not developed morality to the point where it can always be trusted over "common sense".but the impersonal force is simply physics, which gave rise to chemistry, then biology, then emotions evolved. the laws of morality can then be derived using logic about common emotions and sensations.-----If we have developed morality, are there "laws" of morality that are unchanging? Was it right at one point in time to murder someone or rape someone just because? You seem to imply that the laws of logic existed prior to any laws of morality, correct? This would mean that the laws of morality are changing and not universal, which is simply subjectivism, correct?there is only one law of morality and it is unchanging- take into account every entity that is affected by a decision and weight them accurately(a more common and somewhat less accurate way to say this is "the golden rule"). of course, applying it properly can be devilishly difficult. no, it was never right, but people have always ignored morality to one degree or another. logic tends to be more certain than moral laws, and humans have done a much better job defining it, but one didnt exist before the other. your 4th question doesnt follow from the 3rd, which i didnt say anyway.Can you explain to me how there is order in the universe? no, it is an unanswerable question, and no religion can answer it either.-----I believe the Christian worldview does answer how there is order in the universe. Whether or not you accept the answer is the question. I believe there is order in the universe because God directs and guides all things so that they work together according to His wise and good plan. God is not the author of confusion. God does not act illogical because He is truth. God is in control of everything that occurs in the world. Hence, there is order in the universe because God causes there to be order in the universe. You may not like that answer, but to say that my worldview does not give an answer is false. You may simply dismiss my answer as false, but it IS an answer, and I believe THE answer.your answer is not false, but it doesnt answer it because then we have to ask why God would cause order, and how it is that God exists in the first place to cause this order. instead of explaining the universe and order, we have to explain God and order, which amounts to essentially the same unanswerable question. The universe simply is, or God simply is, take your pick.Can you actually prove to me that evolution occurred? there are huge amounts of evidence for it. im not going to bother to mention them here. -----Evidence would seem to indicate it is probably true, but that leaves open the fact it may not be true. The question is can evolution be proven? Could you simply explain the process of evolution and what occurred?nothing is absolutely certain, but evolution has much better support than many theories that people believe. i can explain it, but not simply. there are lots of books you can read if you want a detailed explanation.Could you explain how you believe the universe came to be? no, this is the same as the order question. there is not even a theoretical answer. the universe just is.-----Once again, the Christian worldview has an answer. God created the world for His own good and sovereign purposes. You may dismiss that answer as folly. You may ask, well where did God come from? I see it as entirely inconsistent to say that the universe just is or that matter just is, but yet deny that God just is (not that you personally will do that or have done that). Was there a time when nothing existed?see above. i dont think there was a time when nothing existed, but logic, common sense, and human thought in general break down when you start talking about infinity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Copernicuswhy do you assume the he or any other non-theist ruled anything out in advance? I studied religion with an open mind and concluded that there is no evidence for divine inspiration for the Bible.I don't see it to be possible to get rid of presuppositions. Neutrality is a myth. I have presuppositions, and so does everyone else about what can or cannot be true. Everyone has basic assumptions that governs their world and life view. presuppostions are formed based on experience. At some point one has had no prior experience to form those opinions. Eg. when I began my religious education at around age 4 or 5 I had no basis to prejudge..I came to it with an open mind/blank slate, however you would like to characterize it.my worldview will allow me to accept anything as fact if there is direct or indirect evidence. I will not layer an assumption that has no basis on top of questions that do not currently have an answer, that only leads to dead ends in the search for answersThe point is that our basic assumptions interpret the facts for us and determines what "evidence" really is. You and I see the "facts" and "evidences" differently. What you believe to be evidence is not going to be the same as what I believe to be evidence. You obviously are going to interpret the "facts" within your worldview, as everyone does. You seem to believe that the "facts" are just there apart from our interpretation of them. The facts don't speak for themselves...We definitely disagree here. Facts are truths that are either indisputable or provable to any reasonable/rationale person using rules of logic. They are not open to interpretation or world views, they are constant. Evidence is not necessarily fact, although a preponderance of evidence can be used to establish the factuality of something.you say it as if it is true, but present no logical reason why that is trueYet you do not allow that not seeing another worldview might be your lack of visionCould you explain order, morality, logic, or the universe in your worldview? I am interested to hear your explanation of these things within your worldview. How can there be logic or morality or order or the universe? Where did they come from? How do you make sense of them? Logic is a science. A set of rules, developed initially by the Greeks (generally credited to Parmenides I believe) to model reasoning and which can be used to analyze the truth or falsehood of a proposition. I would counter your question "how can there be logic" with "how can there not be logic, without logic thought would be ultimately chaotic and we would be unable to function." Morality is just a set of rules for social conduct. Different societies develop different moral codes that help them thrive and prosper. Individuals in that society adhere to that societies moral code either because it agrees with their individual philosophy or for fear of punishment of some sort. That different societies do develop different moral standards is one indication that they are of human origin and not divinely inspired. Order can have different meanings. I assume here you are asking how does order arise out of seemingly random and complex interactions? Order arises out of different sets of rules, depending on the "type of order" you are examining. First of all, nature appears to be inherently mathematical. The laws that govern how things interact in the universe are the purview of physics, and physics has its feet firmly planted in both the experimental world and the more ephemeral world of math. For example, Newton developed his laws by observation and experimentation. However, those laws can also be developed from a purely mathematical viewpoint. Biology studies order in the animal and plant kingdoms. Biology exhibits order because it is essentially carbon based chemistry, and chemistry shows order because elements canot combine randomly, reactions are governed by rules as well. Once bounded by rules order arises quite naturally. There is the example of monkeys randomly typing and how long (in the trillions of years I believe) it would take x monkeys to generate the works of shakespeare just typing randomly. Of course the length of time is enormous. However if you overlay a set of rules as to how letters and words can be combined into words and phrases respectively, then the entire works of Shakespeare can be reproduced in a matter of days from random input. All of this of course begs the question "where do the rules come from?In most cases we dont know yet and in many cases we may never know. Not having an answer is not a basis for introducing god, though, since introducing god overlays a different set of questions without providing any rational solution to the initial questions. It is more satisfying to explain order and those deeper questions with the premise that if they werent so, we wouldnt be here to ask the questions, than it is to introduce "god" to settle those issues. another statement presented as fact that has no rational basisIf the events in the world do not happen by chance and are not random, how do they occur within your worldview? events in the world happen because man, exercising free will, causes them to happen within the underlying constraints of the "rules" that govern the realm in quesition."a faulty conclusion based on a faulty thesis...two faults dont make a truthHow is it that we have experiences that are like other experiences? How is it that there are universals in the world? Is there a causal connection between events? If not, how do particular events have meaning if they are not related or connected?Im really not sure what you are asking about here..experiences being alike? causal connection between what events? As far as universals go, again, without a set of universal rules there would just be chaos, and we wouldnt be here to ask the question. How do events have meaning? I am perfectly comfortable with things if events dont have any greater meaning beyond how they affect us personally.there is no justification to the conclusion that it is "just the result of chance". nature has rules that limit the outcomes of some reactions/interactions. The fact that "thinking" is based on electrical impulses and chemical reactions does not dictate or limit the results of that thinking nor do they overlay an element of chance.Please explain how things occur if they are not the result of chance. Where did these "rules" that limits nature come from? If my brain tells me God exists, and yours tells you differently, which brain is working correctly? If that is just the result of electribal impulses and chemical reactions, how is that not random? Would it not be these impulses and reactions that made me think that God exists?I think a lot of this is repetitive. Again we dont have and may never have the answer to where the "rules" came from, but answering the question "we wouldnt be here if those werent the rules" is a more parsimonious answer than adding some external being to the picture, because ultimately you then have to answer where that external being came from or you havent resolved anything, but have added another layer of complexity.since it is not a world of chance, any conclusions based on that assumption are irrelevant.If I failed to see it, I apologize, but I never seen you prove that the world is not a result of chance, along with the reactions going on in our brains.And I havent seen you prove that the world is a result of chance. Again, chance without underlying rules to limit outcomes can only lead to chaos, and we wouldnt be here.your worldview makes assumptions that there is a deeper "meaning" to knowing what we know, to morality, to truth etc. My worldview has open questions as to how some things might operate, but I can still think, make judgements about morality and truth etc, just as one can drive a car without knowing the first thing about internal combustion engines, drive shafts etc. I do not need a deeper meaning to driving to get from here to Foxwoods and my life is no less (and probably more) satisfying without that need.The point is not that you don't think or act or know things or make judgments. What I said was, "If your worldview cannot explain how we know what we know, how you are able to make moral judgments, how there is such a thing as 'truth', how it is that you are able to maintain laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, which are universal and unchanging, then you definitely are not able to argue about the Christian worldview because you have just destroyed your ability to discuss anything at all." The question is how and on what basis do you know anything, make moral judgments (is there some standard or criterion of morality), and maintain laws of logic (are the laws of logic unchanging and universal)?I believe all this was asked and answered alreadyI appreciate your responses; I am no philosopher or scientist, but I do love to discuss these issues, even though I might not be the best one to discuss them. There are many more apt to discuss these sorts of things that I am. I wouldn't base your entire picture of the defense of Christianity of MY defense of it...Your apparently honest and earnest attempts to understand the non-theist view is a far better defense of theism than most of those who post with nothing more substantive than a literal interpretaion of the Bible and refusal to admit that there worldview can only be justified by faith, not by logic.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Copernicus,presuppostions are formed based on experience. At some point one has had no prior experience to form those opinions. Eg. when I began my religious education at around age 4 or 5 I had no basis to prejudge..I came to it with an open mind/blank slate, however you would like to characterize it.If you started with a blank slate, it would be impossible. Without knowledge that comes apart from experience, observation itself can make no sense or communicate that information. One man said (paraphrase), "If your mind is a blank slate, you don't even have mental categories such as, time, space, or causation, nothing you observe will be intelligible, and there is no way to interpret what you observe. In fact, the world would be a whirlwind of sensations with no way to organize them or interpret them." You surely do not believe that you even had the mental capacity at that age to make decisions concerning the existence of God, order, logic, morality, etc. At least I didn't.We definitely disagree here. Facts are truths that are either indisputable or provable to any reasonable/rationale person using rules of logic. They are not open to interpretation or world views, they are constant. Evidence is not necessarily fact, although a preponderance of evidence can be used to establish the factuality of something.Do you believe that it is a fact that God does not exist or that there is no heaven or hell? Also, you are saying that something is able to be proven true by looking at the facts? In other words, do you know something to be true after you have verified it empirically by appealing to the facts?Logic is a science. A set of rules, developed initially by the Greeks (generally credited to Parmenides I believe) to model reasoning and which can be used to analyze the truth or falsehood of a proposition. I would counter your question "how can there be logic" with "how can there not be logic, without logic thought would be ultimately chaotic and we would be unable to function."Did logic exist before the Greeks? Did they not apply logic to develop logic? Has there ever been a time when there was a square circle or when it was the case that A and not-A were the same at the same time? Once again, I am not denying that there IS logic. It is impossible to not use logic. To try to prove that logic is false is self-contradictory, because you need logic to disprove logic. My question would, are the laws of logic material or immaterial? Are they unchanging and universal?Morality is just a set of rules for social conduct. Different societies develop different moral codes that help them thrive and prosper. Individuals in that society adhere to that societies moral code either because it agrees with their individual philosophy or for fear of punishment of some sort. That different societies do develop different moral standards is one indication that they are of human origin and not divinely inspired. Again, has it ever been right to rape or murder someone because that is what you wanted to do? If I decide that it is alright to kill or torture all people who are mentally handicap, is there a standard or criteria that I am obligated to follow that would not allow me to do such things? What would make that wrong, other than other people telling me I shouldn't? However, what gives them the right to tell me what I should or shouldn't do? Is morality objective or subjective? Are there certain laws of morality that are universal? Are these laws or rules immaterial in nature? Are they unchanging?Order can have different meanings. I assume here you are asking how does order arise out of seemingly random and complex interactions? Order arises out of different sets of rules, depending on the "type of order" you are examining. First of all, nature appears to be inherently mathematical. The laws that govern how things interact in the universe are the purview of physics, and physics has its feet firmly planted in both the experimental world and the more ephemeral world of math. For example, Newton developed his laws by observation and experimentation. However, those laws can also be developed from a purely mathematical viewpoint. Biology studies order in the animal and plant kingdoms. Biology exhibits order because it is essentially carbon based chemistry, and chemistry shows order because elements canot combine randomly, reactions are governed by rules as well. Once bounded by rules order arises quite naturally. There is the example of monkeys randomly typing and how long (in the trillions of years I believe) it would take x monkeys to generate the works of shakespeare just typing randomly. Of course the length of time is enormous. However if you overlay a set of rules as to how letters and words can be combined into words and phrases respectively, then the entire works of Shakespeare can be reproduced in a matter of days from random input. All of this of course begs the question "where do the rules come from?In most cases we dont know yet and in many cases we may never know. Not having an answer is not a basis for introducing god, though, since introducing god overlays a different set of questions without providing any rational solution to the initial questions. It is more satisfying to explain order and those deeper questions with the premise that if they werent so, we wouldnt be here to ask the questions, than it is to introduce "god" to settle those issues. All you have done with logic and order is apply a transcendental nature to them in place of God. You say without logic and order, there would be chaos, but there is not chaos. Therefore, logic and order must be the precondition for human intelligibility. The question obviously is, what makes logic and order? What gives them "rules" that they obey? How did these things even come to be? Did they evolve? Was evolution not a random event that happened by chance? How did these things evolve from mere randomness and chance?events in the world happen because man, exercising free will, causes them to happen within the underlying constraints of the "rules" that govern the realm in quesition.So man causes the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in his brain? Are you saying that EVERYTHING that happens is the result of free will?Im really not sure what you are asking about here..experiences being alike? causal connection between what events? As far as universals go, again, without a set of universal rules there would just be chaos, and we wouldnt be here to ask the question. How do events have meaning? I am perfectly comfortable with things if events dont have any greater meaning beyond how they affect us personally.Again, you simply applied a transcendental nature to universals. The question is how these universals came to be? How do these things develop in a world of evolution?I think a lot of this is repetitive. Again we dont have and may never have the answer to where the "rules" came from, but answering the question "we wouldnt be here if those werent the rules" is a more parsimonious answer than adding some external being to the picture, because ultimately you then have to answer where that external being came from or you havent resolved anything, but have added another layer of complexity.You object to God because we cannot explain where He came from, but yet you allow as perfectly rational to assume that order, logic, and universals can have no beginning. You do not add another layer of complexity to the issue; the Christian worldview can explain where logic and morality and order comes from. The Christian worldview can explain that God, because He is God, is self-existent and eternal. How could God be anything but that? If God was a created Being, then He would obviously not be God, for there would be some higher power over Him. You may not be able to make sense of that in YOUR worldview, but mine can. My worldview can also make sense of logic, order, morality, and universals, but I am not seeing that you can. You simply are left to say, "Well, they just are, but I don't have any answer as to why or how they came to be." How is that not simply blind faith in the existence of these things? I would say, without GOD, you have no logic, no order, no universals, no morality. However, these things do exist, and therefore God exists. HE is the precondition of all intelligibility, not logic or order. You just place logic and order and universals in the place of God, but yet you see that as consistent. I find it very arbitrary to say that logic, order, and universals can exist apart from a Creator, but yet you do not allow for an eternal, self-existent God to exist.And I havent seen you prove that the world is a result of chance. Again, chance without underlying rules to limit outcomes can only lead to chaos, and we wouldnt be here.You are assuming "rules" in the universe without having any justification in believing in rules, which results in arbitrariness. How is it that the world is not chaotic and random? If all that goes on in my brain is electrical impulses and chemical reactions, how is that not randomness and chance? Why is it that everything we do as humans is not just the result of chance?Your apparently honest and earnest attempts to understand the non-theist view is a far better defense of theism than most of those who post with nothing more substantive than a literal interpretaion of the Bible and refusal to admit that there worldview can only be justified by faith, not by logic.I do want to understand the non-theist position. I am sure my numerous questions get old, but I see no other way to understand your position. I do appreciate decent and intelligent responses, as opposed to attacking me and telling me how ignorant I am, even though you probably think that anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silent Snow,example- we always know that in a right triangle a^2 + b^2 = c^2, but we have to scientifically measure the triangle to see if it really is 90 degrees and the logic applies. this doesnt mean that logic isnt universal; its just not always useful in a particular situation. i mean that not every logical statement is immediately obvious. mathematicians spend countless hours discovering more obscure logical truths.I see and I agree.there is only one law of morality and it is unchanging- take into account every entity that is affected by a decision and weight them accurately(a more common and somewhat less accurate way to say this is "the golden rule"). of course, applying it properly can be devilishly difficult. no, it was never right, but people have always ignored morality to one degree or another. logic tends to be more certain than moral laws, and humans have done a much better job defining it, but one didnt exist before the other. your 4th question doesnt follow from the 3rd, which i didnt say anyway.So you believe that whatever makes people the happiest is the best decision? How did you come to find that this is the only law of morality and that it is unchanging? If the laws of morality developed at some time, as is implied if they existed after the laws of logic, then they are changing and not universal, which results is subjectivism. However, you said that they didn't exist after logic, so it was simply a misunderstanding.your answer is not false, but it doesnt answer it because then we have to ask why God would cause order, and how it is that God exists in the first place to cause this order. instead of explaining the universe and order, we have to explain God and order, which amounts to essentially the same unanswerable question. The universe simply is, or God simply is, take your pick.If you are asking WHY God caused order or created the universe, we are diving into theology. That is a whole other issue. If the God of the Bible does exist, then we cannot fully explain or fully comprehend Him. We cannot fully explain or comprehend mankind, let alone the God that created the universe. You are right, that either God is or the universe is. If the universe is, how does life have meaning? Where does logic and order and universals come from? We could go on and on with questions if the universe simply just is. Not that there are not mysteries in the Bible or with God, but there are many more answers with God than just with the universe. The universe does not create intelligibility or universal laws or life.nothing is absolutely certain, but evolution has much better support than many theories that people believe. i can explain it, but not simply. there are lots of books you can read if you want a detailed explanation.Your first statement is self-refuting. Whether evolution has better support does not make it true. You seem to admit that evolution is not a fact, but that there seems to be evidence for it. In an evolutionary world, as I have said in other posts, I do not see how you have anything but randomness and chance. Evolution cannot explain morality, logic, order, universals, the universe, etc. You are left with electrical impulses and chemical reactions in our brain that cause us to do and think the things we do. If you can explain how all does not happen simply by chance in an evolutionary world, please do.see above. i dont think there was a time when nothing existed, but logic, common sense, and human thought in general break down when you start talking about infinity.I do not see how you can just not have answer for the existence of the universe, yet you criticize me for saying that God just is, that He is self-existent and eternal. Why is it that the non-theist worldview cannot give an account for the existence of the universe, logic, order, etc? If it cannot give an account for such things, why is there any justification in remaining a non-theist, especially when the Christian worldview CAN give an account for these things? That simply sounds like willful rejection instead of "not having enough evidence" or something to that effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Copernicus,presuppostions are formed based on experience. At some point one has had no prior experience to form those opinions. Eg. when I began my religious education at around age 4 or 5 I had no basis to prejudge..I came to it with an open mind/blank slate, however you would like to characterize it.If you started with a blank slate, it would be impossible. Without knowledge that comes apart from experience, observation itself can make no sense or communicate that information. One man said (paraphrase), "If your mind is a blank slate, you don't even have mental categories such as, time, space, or causation, nothing you observe will be intelligible, and there is no way to interpret what you observe. In fact, the world would be a whirlwind of sensations with no way to organize them or interpret them." You surely do not believe that you even had the mental capacity at that age to make decisions concerning the existence of God, order, logic, morality, etc. At least I didn't.No, I didnt have the capacity to make decisions at that age, merely to start learning. That is what I meant by no presuppositions. I was using "blank slate" in the context of the particular subject, although at sometime prior to birth you do start with a totally blank slateWe definitely disagree here. Facts are truths that are either indisputable or provable to any reasonable/rationale person using rules of logic. They are not open to interpretation or world views, they are constant. Evidence is not necessarily fact, although a preponderance of evidence can be used to establish the factuality of something.Do you believe that it is a fact that God does not exist or that there is no heaven or hell? Also, you are saying that something is able to be proven true by looking at the facts? In other words, do you know something to be true after you have verified it empirically by appealing to the facts?non existence cant be proven, it can only be disproven by a counterexample. Yes, things are able to be proven true.Logic is a science. A set of rules, developed initially by the Greeks (generally credited to Parmenides I believe) to model reasoning and which can be used to analyze the truth or falsehood of a proposition. I would counter your question "how can there be logic" with "how can there not be logic, without logic thought would be ultimately chaotic and we would be unable to function."Did logic exist before the Greeks? Did they not apply logic to develop logic? Has there ever been a time when there was a square circle or when it was the case that A and not-A were the same at the same time? Once again, I am not denying that there IS logic. It is impossible to not use logic. To try to prove that logic is false is self-contradictory, because you need logic to disprove logic. My question would, are the laws of logic material or immaterial? Are they unchanging and universal?Formalized logic did not exist prior to the Greeks as far as I know. Reasoning, which is not the same as logic, did exist and is what was used to formalize the rules of logic. "square circle" is a bastardization of a math proof that a circle cannot have exactly the same area as a square. it has no meaning in logic or conversation since they are defined too be two different things. No, A and not-A cannot have been the same at the same time, they are mutually exclusive. In the next sentence you are misusing the word logic. It is impossible not to use reasoning, it is very possible to not use logic. Look at matt's posts. Rules of logic are thoughts, thoughts are immaterial, so the rules of logic when confined to thought are immaterial. If you write them, then the media used to write is material, but the thoughts they present are not. Yes I belive they are unchanging and universal but cannot be proven to be so as demonstrated by Godel's incompleteness theorem. However, the absence of evidence of any inconsistencies in the centuries that formal logic has been in use is sufficient for me to believe there are none.Morality is just a set of rules for social conduct. Different societies develop different moral codes that help them thrive and prosper. Individuals in that society adhere to that societies moral code either because it agrees with their individual philosophy or for fear of punishment of some sort. That different societies do develop different moral standards is one indication that they are of human origin and not divinely inspired. Again, has it ever been right to rape or murder someone because that is what you wanted to do? If I decide that it is alright to kill or torture all people who are mentally handicap, is there a standard or criteria that I am obligated to follow that would not allow me to do such things? What would make that wrong, other than other people telling me I shouldn't? However, what gives them the right to tell me what I should or shouldn't do? Is morality objective or subjective? Are there certain laws of morality that are universal? Are these laws or rules immaterial in nature? Are they unchanging?Since I have already stated that morality is a social construct and that different societies have different moral codes they are obviously not universal nor unchanging. Whether rape, murder, torture are right or justified are subject to the moral code of the society you live in and your own personal conscience. Your society does have the right to impose its beliefs on you in order to allow you to be part of that society. If you do not want to follow those beliefs you can withdraw from that society or suffer the consequences that the society has established for defying them.Order can have different meanings. I assume here you are asking how does order arise out of seemingly random and complex interactions? Order arises out of different sets of rules, depending on the "type of order" you are examining. First of all, nature appears to be inherently mathematical. The laws that govern how things interact in the universe are the purview of physics, and physics has its feet firmly planted in both the experimental world and the more ephemeral world of math. For example, Newton developed his laws by observation and experimentation. However, those laws can also be developed from a purely mathematical viewpoint. Biology studies order in the animal and plant kingdoms. Biology exhibits order because it is essentially carbon based chemistry, and chemistry shows order because elements canot combine randomly, reactions are governed by rules as well. Once bounded by rules order arises quite naturally. There is the example of monkeys randomly typing and how long (in the trillions of years I believe) it would take x monkeys to generate the works of shakespeare just typing randomly. Of course the length of time is enormous. However if you overlay a set of rules as to how letters and words can be combined into words and phrases respectively, then the entire works of Shakespeare can be reproduced in a matter of days from random input. All of this of course begs the question "where do the rules come from?In most cases we dont know yet and in many cases we may never know. Not having an answer is not a basis for introducing god, though, since introducing god overlays a different set of questions without providing any rational solution to the initial questions. It is more satisfying to explain order and those deeper questions with the premise that if they werent so, we wouldnt be here to ask the questions, than it is to introduce "god" to settle those issues. All you have done with logic and order is apply a transcendental nature to them in place of God. You say without logic and order, there would be chaos, but there is not chaos. Therefore, logic and order must be the precondition for human intelligibility. The question obviously is, what makes logic and order? What gives them "rules" that they obey? How did these things even come to be? Did they evolve? Was evolution not a random event that happened by chance? How did these things evolve from mere randomness and chance?Without order we wouldnt exist, so it is a precondition for everything. We dont yet know how these things came to be or what gave them rules or order. We dont know that they "evolved from mere randomness and chance", in fact I doubt that they did. If in the prior sentence you are referring to biological evolution, no, natural selection is not random, it is ordered, although it happens to be driven by a random process of mutation.events in the world happen because man, exercising free will, causes them to happen within the underlying constraints of the "rules" that govern the realm in quesition.So man causes the electrical impulses and chemical reactions in his brain? Are you saying that EVERYTHING that happens is the result of free will? No, some things happen that are not the result of any conscious decision, rain, earthquakes, the formation of planets, solar systems etc. They are not the result of free will since they arent the result of conscious decisions. Your question about "causing" electircal impulses and chemical reactions needs a precise definition of "causing". If you mean that there is a causal relationship between my deciding to type a letter and the electrical/chemical process that result in typing that letter, yes, I have cause them. If you mean that man somehow was responsible for "causing" electrical and chemical reactions to be the mechanism for thought and action, no.Im really not sure what you are asking about here..experiences being alike? causal connection between what events? As far as universals go, again, without a set of universal rules there would just be chaos, and we wouldnt be here to ask the question. How do events have meaning? I am perfectly comfortable with things if events dont have any greater meaning beyond how they affect us personally.Again, you simply applied a transcendental nature to universals. The question is how these universals came to be? How do these things develop in a world of evolution?Again, we dont know yet how they came to be.I think a lot of this is repetitive. Again we dont have and may never have the answer to where the "rules" came from, but answering the question "we wouldnt be here if those werent the rules" is a more parsimonious answer than adding some external being to the picture, because ultimately you then have to answer where that external being came from or you havent resolved anything, but have added another layer of complexity.You object to God because we cannot explain where He came from, but yet you allow as perfectly rational to assume that order, logic, and universals can have no beginning.I havent objected to god nor denied the possibility, since it can never be disproven. Nor have I stated anything about the beginning or lack thereof of order and reason. Order and reason are self evident in the conduct of our daily lives. God isnt. Why should I deny what is evident, but accept something that isnt?You do not add another layer of complexity to the issue; the Christian worldview can explain where logic and morality and order comes from. The Christian worldview can explain that God, because He is God, is self-existent and eternal. How could God be anything but that? If God was a created Being, then He would obviously not be God, for there would be some higher power over Him. The Christian worldview proposes where logic morality and order came from, they dont explain it. Dont ask me how god can be anything but anything else...you have defined your god to be what you want him to be. If something is impossible for your god to be, youve defined it that way, sobeit. That doesnt mean your definition is right, or even plausible.You may not be able to make sense of that in YOUR worldview, but mine can. My worldview can also make sense of logic, order, morality, and universals, but I am not seeing that you can. You simply are left to say, "Well, they just are, but I don't have any answer as to why or how they came to be." How is that not simply blind faith in the existence of these things? I would say, without GOD, you have no logic, no order, no universals, no morality. However, these things do exist, and therefore God exists. HE is the precondition of all intelligibility, not logic or order. You just place logic and order and universals in the place of God, but yet you see that as consistent. No, I freely admit that we dont have and may never have all the answers. Your worldview assumes a particular cause (god) without anything to support it, and doesnt allow for other possibilities. I find it very arbitrary to say that logic, order, and universals can exist apart from a Creator, but yet you do not allow for an eternal, self-existent God to exist.It is not arbitrary to say that logic and order exist, there existence is self evident and above you even recognize that, and make the leap that god is the reason for their existence. It is arbitrary to introduce a non-falsifiable premise for which there is no evidence on top of what is self evidentAnd I havent seen you prove that the world is a result of chance. Again, chance without underlying rules to limit outcomes can only lead to chaos, and we wouldnt be here.You are assuming "rules" in the universe without having any justification in believing in rules, which results in arbitrariness. There is justification for believing in rules, since without them we wouldnt be here to have this discussion. Again I have not stated where they come from, nor denied that it is possible that some super-intelligence is responsible for them.How is it that the world is not chaotic and random? If all that goes on in my brain is electrical impulses and chemical reactions, how is that not randomness and chance? Why is it that everything we do as humans is not just the result of chance?Electrical and chemical impulses are merely mechanisms, they are not random since they are governed by the laws of physics. They are to human function what a hammer is to a carpenter...the means to cause something to happen. A hammer doesnt land randomly on wood or the head of a nailYour apparently honest and earnest attempts to understand the non-theist view is a far better defense of theism than most of those who post with nothing more substantive than a literal interpretaion of the Bible and refusal to admit that there worldview can only be justified by faith, not by logic.I do want to understand the non-theist position.That is the ignorance I refer to a few lines down. I am sure my numerous questions get old, but I see no other way to understand your position. I do appreciate decent and intelligent responses, as opposed to attacking me and telling me how ignorant I am, even though you probably think that anyway.[/b]Yes, I do think you are ignorant, in the literal sense of the word, which is to ignore or preclude without evidence or justification. I do not think you are unintelligent (as opposed to certain other theists, lol)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you guys have to stop replying like that. Use the quote feature or something. It's impossible to read and understand who's saying what.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, you guys have to stop replying like that. Use the quote feature or something. It's impossible to read and understand who's saying what.
Sorry....I agree its not easy to follow, but mastery of mutiple quotes within a single post has eluded me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...