While many on the right are sending their condolences and many on the left are rejoicing, the thoughts I found to be the most sincere and heartfelt belong to, surprisingly enough, Al Sharpton.
If you are not a Christian, you should understand the basics of the message. These two videos are short, enjoyable, and helpful. Please watch them.
Browse by Category
- * Best of WR (141)
- * Guides (39)
- * Series (45)
- 500 Words (4)
- Alcohol & Drugs (2)
- Amazon.com (4)
- Anarchism (1)
- Apologetics (110)
- Arminianism (17)
- Art (3)
- Atheism (116)
- Augustine (2)
- Baptism (1)
- Basics (3)
- Bible (24)
- Bible Studies (1)
- Bios (5)
- Black America (37)
- Books (241)
- Born Again (3)
- Buddhism (12)
- Calvinism (18)
- Capitalism (1)
- Catholocism (18)
- CCM (6)
- China (10)
- Church Life (108)
- Church Planting (2)
- Community (1)
- Complementarian (8)
- Cool Stuff (9)
- Creationism (189)
- Cults (1)
- Current Affairs (3)
- Dale (3)
- Death (3)
- Debates (15)
- Discipleship (3)
- Dreams (1)
- Economics (25)
- Education (34)
- Egalitarian (4)
- Entertainment (90)
- Environment (38)
- Ethics (20)
- Evangelical Center (8)
- Evangelism (9)
- Events (5)
- Feminism (11)
- G12 (2)
- Gamification (7)
- Gaming (2)
- Giants (1)
- God and Work (1)
- Government (3)
- Guidance (2)
- Gun Control (3)
- Health (35)
- Heaven & Hell (37)
- History (26)
- Holidays (1)
- Homeschool (3)
- Hope (2)
- Humor (112)
- Immigration (5)
- Inerrancy (10)
- Islam (137)
- Jazz (3)
- Judaism (2)
- Latino (8)
- Leadership (1)
- LGBT (146)
- Listomania (64)
- Love (2)
- Marriage & Family (25)
- Maths (5)
- Memes (7)
- Men's Issues (9)
- Mentoring (2)
- Missions (10)
- Molinism (11)
- Mormonism (5)
- Movies (8)
- My Two Cents (78)
- Narcisism (2)
- NDMF (2)
- Neo-fundamentalism (21)
- News (58)
- Obama (62)
- Orphans (1)
- Pacifism (7)
- Paradox (2)
- Paul (1)
- Peeves (7)
- Philosophy (12)
- Pneumatology (1)
- Podcasting (10)
- Poetry (3)
- Politics (156)
- Prayer (18)
- Preaching (6)
- Priorities (4)
- Pro-Life (80)
- Productivity (9)
- Progressivism (2)
- Public Policy (45)
- Quote of the Day (17)
- Racism (11)
- Reason (10)
- Sanctification (1)
- Satire (12)
- Science and Technology (68)
- Seasons of Life (4)
- Seminar (1)
- Seminary (4)
- Shopping (2)
- Sikhism (1)
- Skepticism (3)
- Slavery (5)
- Spam (19)
- Sports (7)
- Suffering (1)
- Tea Party (1)
- The Media (34)
- Theology (92)
- Throwback (1)
- Tripartite (6)
- Trump (12)
- Vegetarianism (1)
- Voting (1)
- War (7)
- Welfare (2)
- Words (1)
- Worldview (84)
- Worship (6)
- Writing (3)
- WWJD (2)
- Yoga (2)
Who is rejoicing at this man's death?
Wow, I didn't know he had died. Truly a landmark. Billy Graham will pass soon too. Pat Robertson is old too.
I look forward to the eulogies summarizing his accomplishments.
I wish it wasn't the case Sam, but from threads at DU, Kos, and other lefty bloggers you can see that his death is truly a good thing for many of them.
I can get the specifics if you want, I have seen and read them or else I wouldn't have said that.
But I wanted to point out that while some on the extreme are giddy, at least one that many consider to be extreme (Sharpton) gave a wonderful, heartfelt statement.
I'll be respectful and just quote him…
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
– Rev Jerry Falwell
I enjoy most of those quotes, so thanks for them.
I see among his accomplishments:
The Moral Majority
This was really one of the first influential groups that got Christians and Christian thought back into politics. It was later eclipsed by The Christian Coalition, but it was the first.
Liberty University
Liberty was also one of the first modern evangelical universities to create an accredited Christian Law School, and challenge and beat the likes of Harvard in national debate and legal competitions.
Despite his often cantankerous and controversial one liners, his legacy will live on for a century or more in the involvement of xians in politics and in the creation of excellent alternatives to secular higher education.
BTW, I note that they swept the national debate championships this year (2007). Poor Harvard couldn't even make it into the top 10 in any of the three categories.
Here's a little taste Sam.
Is it cherry-picking to some extent? Sure, but these are national journalist in private, along with high profile lefty blogs and bloggers doing this in public.
The next time a prominent liberal dies, if you see conservatives saying similar things, let me know and if I haven't already I will post about it and condemn it.
I am not surprised – their thinly veiled seething hatred for the imperfect righteous is blooming fully.
It reminds me of that song by Extreme called Peacemaker Die, in which they take the hateful peacenicks to task for their hypocrisy:
Celebrate? Mourn? People die all the time. Jerry Falwell was 73 and overweight, so his death isn't exactly a surprise, and frankly I don't see why anyone would be upset that it happened.
If you're a Christian, and a supporter of his, you likely believe that Jerry Falwell is living for eternity with his pal, Jesus. If you're not a Christian, and you oppose his "cantankerous and contraversial one-liners" (e.g. blaming 9/11 on feminists and gays), then you're probably glad he's not around anymore. Either way, who's complaining? His family, maybe, but ultimately I would assume they're firmly in the former category. Unless they're not, in which case, I do feel sorry for them.
But no one could reasonably feel bad for Jerry Falwell. If you think he's in "heaven", you should be happy for him. If you think he's in "hell", then you obviously believe in hell, and ostensibly you think he belongs there. And if you don't believe in any of that, you just think he's non-existent, which is hardly a bad place to be.
As a fellow human being, I'm sorry he's dead (as I'm sorry for his family). However, I won't mourn that this bigoted hate-monger is no longer around.
But why even be sorry that he's dead? All of my great-grandparents are dead; should I be sorry about that? People die. I hope he didn't go through any significant pain as he was dying, but why be sorry that he's dead?
To be sorry about something suggests that you wish it didn't happen. Are we so afraid of death that we would pretend to wish that people live forever? I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Not even Jerry Falwell, and ostensibly he looked forward to his own passing.
"But these things speak evil of those things, verse 10 [reading from Jude] which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Look at the Metropolitan Community Church today, the gay church, almost accepted into the World Council of Churches. Almost, the vote was against them. But they will try again and again until they get in, and the tragedy is that they would get one vote. Because they are spoken of here in Jude as being brute beasts, that is going to the baser lust of the flesh to live immorally, and so Jude describes this as apostasy. But thank God this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven."
"I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status."
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" [re:9/11]
"[Vice President Gore] recently praised the lesbian actress who plays 'Ellen' on ABC Television…I believe he may even put children, young people, and adults in danger by his public endorsement of deviant homosexual behavior…Our elected leaders are attempting to glorify and legitimize perversion."
"Someone must not be afraid to say, 'moral perversion is wrong.' If we do not act now, homosexuals will 'own' America!…If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way…and our nation will pay a terrible price!" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART… http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest….
***
Gee, it's too bad this saint is gone. I'm sure he's currently enjoying many virgins in heaven.
Just read Stewart's comment. Come to think of it, I'm glad he's dead.
Hi Stewart:
As you know I *am* a Christian, and I *am* saddened by anyone's death because I know from experience that losing someone hurts. I don't agree with Falwell at all, nor with Robertson, nor with any representatives of the Christian right. I'll look it up to see just who on those liberal sites celebrated Falwell's death; I am somewhat skeptical and I expect that IF any liberals celebrated his deaths there are some mitigating circumstances. I know that there were a lot of people in the US who celebrated when Sadaam Hussein's sons were killed, completely ignoring the fact that their own children were suffering great pain, and those Christians who believe that Sadaam's sons are in hell completely ignored Jesus' mandate to love our enemies.
There is a lot of insensitivity to go around if you ask me.
your Friend
keith
I think that there are really only two reasons to grieve someone's death – either we are sad for ourselves because we miss them, or we are sad because they had an untimely death.
Falwell lived a long life. So unless you miss him, I'd say you have no reason to grieve. If he's with Jesus, then we should be happy for him. If we believe he went to hell, perhaps we should be sad.
But Jesus told us to be concerned for the living, not the dead. But it would be good to remember his accomplishments, and learn from them, as well as learning from his foibles.
Here's Al Mohler's first Falwell tribute
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS on The DEATH of JERRY FALWELL
I don't really grieve the loss of Falwell. I've never meet the man and don't really know much about him, except Liberty, the old Moral Majority, and his penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth on occasion. I simply feel bad for those that knew and loved him.
Regardless of one's belief in the afterlife, it always hurts when someone dies. If Falwell had a personal relationship with Jesus then he is in heaven and rejoicing. His family can and should enjoy and celebrate that, but that does not completely remove the hurt from losing a loved one.
Keith, I hope you did check those sites because while many ridiculed him, others were all out gleeful.
I am curious as to your comment about believing Sadaam's sons being in hell as being contrary to Jesus' teachings about loving your enemies. If saying that someone is in hell or will go to hell is in violation of Jesus' teachings, then Jesus Himself violated His own teachings (which would make him sinful).
He spoke about hell more than heaven. He taught parables about people going to hell. Jesus loved his enemies, more than we ever could, but He also recognized the reality of our sinful condition and the end result of our residence in that state. That's why He came – to remedy that.
Hitch is my hero!
btw: I still can't get that hotlink stuff to work.
Insert this code when typing out your messages Louis:
< a href="http://www.wholereason.com">example title here
Just remove the space between the "< a" when you type out the hotlink code.
dang it, that should be…
Insert this code when typing out your messages Louis:
< a href="http://www.wholereason.com">example title here< /a>
Just remove the space between the "<" and the "a" when you type out the hotlink code. Do the same for the space between the "<" and the "/a>"
Hi Aaron:
I looked up Daily Kos (I sometimes read that site) and while I didn't search thoroughly for it I only saw one satirical article relating to Falwell's death; I didn't see the gleeful celebration I was warned about. I am not pleased by glee at someone's death. In Chile Agusto Pincohet recently died and there were Christian groups that were glad that he died but were appalled that he receive an official funeral. I agree with them about the funeral but disagree with them about his death.
Regarding Sadaam's sons death: what I heard were people celebrating the fact that they had died. My complaint wasn't that people claimed the sons were hell bound–not that any of us are in a position to decide who deserves divine punishment. When I mentioned hell my point was that it is entirely unchristian to be gleeful at the idea that a person could end up permanently separated from God–such glee is incompatibe with loving one's enemies. It's a separate discussion, but I am not so sure that Jesus did teach that anyone would be permanently separated from God. I am not interested in hijacking this thread to discuss it though. Maybe some other time.
your Friend
Keith
More Hitch on Falwell:
<a href-"http://www.slate.com/id/2166337/fr/flyout" rel="nofollow">Faith-Based Fraud
Did you see him and Ralph Reed on Hannity/Colmes last night? Cool! Hannity looked liked an idiot.
Faith-Based Fraud
Hi Aaron:
About the Jerry Falwell thing: I just didn't see the celebratory comments. I expect the reporters you quoted were quoted anonymously and I cannot speak to that. And the Daily Kos? I don't usually read the comments section, but anybody can post on those kind of things and i have read all kinds of hateful things on various comment boards from every possible side of the political spectrum. All such hatefulness is wrong and I pray that the Lord will help me avoid the temptation to indulge in it.
Now about the hell thing. You asked me the following:
"this is a good a place as any to hear your thoughts about how Jesus' words 'depart from me I never knew you' really doesn't mean that.".
I know the temptation one feels (when writing in a discussion forum) to come up with a rhetorical zinger, but I didn't say what you seem to think I said, and I think that possibly the quote you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. I think what it *does* say gives more support to the (mistaken) idea that "I'm not religious but I'm a good person so that'll get me to heaven" than it does to the usual conservative view of salvation, but let's focus right now on what it doesn't say: it doesn't say that the cursed person will never be reconciled to God, that the cursed person will never end up in God's loving presence.
The cursed characters seems to think that they are entitled to be with God in his glory because of all the good religious works they did–prophesying in Christ's name, casting out demons–but apparently they didn't get the point of the Gospel, they didn't get the stuff Jesus referred to earlier in the chapter you quoted from. Immediately prior Jesus taught us to take care of the giant log in our own eyes before were worry about the tiny sliver in the eyes of others–that was the kind of stuff that marked jesus' true followers.
Let me sketch out an argument for the position I lean toward: universal reconciliation in Christ.
1. God loves every person he created.
2. Creating a person who you know in advance will end up forever damned is incompatible with loving that person; to create that person to accomplish some other goal–even a worthy goal–is to use that person as a pawn and is still incompatible with loving that person.
3. Therefore God will not create anyone he knows in advance will end up forever damned.
4. But God in his omnisciences knows in advance exactly who will or will not end up forever damned.
5. Therefore God doesn't create anyone who will end up forever damned.
IMO the argument is pretty strong and to defeat it you'd needs some pretty strong evidence. My claim is that the Bible doesn't offer much evidence against it and that there is a decent biblical case *for* the idea that in the end everyone will be reconciled to God.
Anyway, let he hijacking begin:-)
your Friend
Keith
Keith, do you have children? If so, why would you bring those children in this world when you know they are going to be hurt in some way shape or form. Why would you, if you love someone, want to bring them in this crazy, messed up world? For me the answer is love. I love my two sons and the love is worth the risks.
It’s like that with God. He does desperately love everyone He created and He longs for them to be new and complete in Him. But He does not force Himself on anyone in this life, why would that change in the next?
Take Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The rich man, in hell, asks Abraham to help him out. Abraham tells him, “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”
If people reject Christ and His offer of salvation, then they reject the means in which God has established for them to be saved.
The reason I brought up the passage is because it seems clear how it ends. The last line of Jesus parable (Matthew 25:46) says “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” How do you escape the word “eternal” in this verse? What does that indicate but “eternal” or everlasting (which is used in some translations)?
Those that suffer that fate do so because they placed works as their reasoning, but Jesus’ rejects that because He says “I never knew you..” The relationship with Him, knowing Him, is what makes the difference – not prophesying, casting out demons, or even helping the poor, widows and orphans.
I do not want to get into the Calvinism debate (I find no use for it), but I am curious as to how you explain Romans 9, particularly verses 19-24:
You claim that God would not create someone who would “end up forever damned,’ yet here Paul says that God created some people to be “objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction.” This whole passage seems to contradict your second point.
What is your Biblical case for your position? How does someone become reconciled to Christ if they never ask Him to forgive their sins? Clearly, sin cannot enter the presence of God. The only way anyone can enter His presence is to have their sins removed. So my other question is this – are the sins of everyone forgiven and cleansed right now? If not, how does their death change that fact?
Aaron, I think your analogy is a bad one. Obviously I think this entire conversation is meaningless, but if I temporarily assume the existence of a loving deity, I find Keith's logic to be much sounder than yours, given all the premises.
You said:
To an omniscient being, the idea of "risk" is meaningless. Probability is nonsense, because it requires some level of ignorance about future events. Since an omniscient being cannot have any level of ignorance about anything, there is no sense in talking about risk-taking on the part of God.
Additionally, I doubt you would choose to become a parent if you knew with certainty beforehand that their life would be nothing but pain. To do so would be, I think, the antithesis of love. If you and your wife were both knowing carriers of a agonizing genetic condition like epidermolysis bullosa, would you still decide it was worth the 'risk'? If you still decided to raise biological children, knowing that 1 in 4 of them would live and die in the most painful way imaginable, I would not call that love. I hope you would not either.
In God's case, it would be even less of a question. If you believe that God is omniscient, then you must accept that he knows your eternal fate even before you are conceived. For God to allow your existence, then, is to give life to a child who he has 100% certainty will spent an eternity without salvation. And this is true even if you believe that it is ultimately your choice. Whether it's your choice or God's, He already knows what's going to happen to you. According to Christians, nothing could be worse than an eternity without salvation (whether you believe in an explicit hell or not), so what does that say about God's capacity for love? According to your book, we are made in his image, and I would not wish that sort of punishment on anyone, let alone someone I supposedly "love".
This is something that I cannot reconcile about Christianity, nor have I see you, Seeker, or any other Christian do so without invoking a mystery or contradiction. It is just one of the many motivational paradoxes in the religion which ultimately makes it seems much, much less likely than the simpler alternative. Love and omniscience are only logically compatible with universalism. To think otherwise is to remake love into something a great deal more sinister.
To think otherwise is to remake love into something a great deal more sinister.
Here are God's options when creating a world:
1. not created at all
2. created a non-free world of robots
3. created a free world where we would not sin
4. created a free world where we would sin, but everyone would accept God
5. created the current world
Number 1 can't really be considered an option, since something and nothing have "nothing" in common. Number 2 is an amoral world that would be devoid of good as well as bad.
Worlds 3 and 4 may be conceivable but not achievable. God can't force free creatures not to sin. Can there be such a thing as "forced freedom?"
I believe the current world is the only real possible world where the good things of life can be enjoyed.
While God is love, He is also justice and holy. A loving God wants all people to come to Him and to accept Him. A holy God has to do something about the sin in our life. If we come into His presence with sin we defile Him. A just God must punish the sin.
God being perfect, found the perfect balance of His nature. He sent Jesus to take our penalty for us in order to allow us to be cleansed and choose Him. It takes care of all of the issues. He remains, loving, holy and just because He allows people to come to Him, while providing an acceptable way, while not forcing anyone to do something they do not want.
When a person spends their entire life rejecting God, why would that change after they die? I also want to reiterate my question to Keith, "are the sins of everyone forgiven and cleansed right now? If not, how does their death change that fact?"
If their sins are forgiven now, what use is the acceptance of Jesus during this life? If everyone goes directly to heaven when they die then God is not being just – allowing some to reap the rewards while not going through the established method.
If their sins are not forgiven now, how do they become forgiven at some point after their death? Scripture says that "it is appointed to men once to die and then the judgement." Paul says that for Christians "absence from the body is to be present with the Lord." Where does that leave time or a place for individuals to realize they want to change or for anything else to take place?
I hate that I have to do this, but I must leave my part of the discussion at this point until Monday. I hope to continue it then.
This is something that I cannot reconcile about Christianity, nor have I see you, Seeker, or any other Christian do so without invoking a mystery or contradiction.
this is one of the toughest and best objections to Christianity, but my answer has been as follows.
1. We must not just ask the question "does it make sense to me, and do I like it" but "is it true?" Those are not the same question.
2. We may need a different perspective. We could ask "how could a loving God allow someone to go to (or choose) hell?" Alongside that, we should also ask "how could a loving and JUST God allow anyone who has sinned into heaven at all?"
Our idea of what is good and just is contaminated with our own self-interest and need to justify our sinfullness as "not that bad." This is why, in the story of the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18:18-24), Jesus challenges his idea of good, because he thinks he is good enough to get in as he is, being a "good" person. "There is none good but God" is Jesus' definition of good.
There is a chance that God will give everyone another chance before the judgment, and after their death when they realize that Jesus is real, and the true way. However, scripture does not indicate that.
3. This comparison might help. If God was loving, would he let children starve to death?
The fact is, children do starve to death. So either God is not real or loving, or there is another answer – and that answer could be that God has given us free will, and we have perverted it, and WE allow children to die because of our wickedness.
Same line of reasoning can be applied to the question "if God loves us, how could he create anyone he KNEW was going to hell?" Becuase maybe it's just not his fault.
4. What does God know?
The reality of both predestination and free will is a paradox. But many theologians have suggested that while God knows the outcome of things because he is outside of time, he does NOT know in this moment what you or I will choose.
You might want to check out What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge
Seeker = Jerry Falwell: The right’s holy fool.
The only difference is Seeker ignores step number 3. Here are more of Falwell’s positions on various issues. They pretty much match up to Seeker’s puerile conservative scratchings.
When Seeker dies, I’ll have a similar attitude. You reap what you sow.
Excerpt from: Jerry Falwell’s Hit Parade
Aaron, I know you won't see this until after the weekend, so you may not see it at all, but you've definitely left out at least one major option that a hypothetical god would have, when creating a world.
6. Create a world of people just like us, and give them all entrace to his eternal kingdom after they die, regardless of what they do in their lives, or whether they believe in him.
The only reason you don't consider this possible is because of your existing beliefs about God. Obviously I don't consider it a possibility either, for entirely separate reasons, but it is logically plausible if one accepts the existence of God. And as a possibility in that scenario, it has the advantage of cleaning up a great many other logical contradictions, not the least of which is the claim that God actually loves the people who he allows to spend an eternity in Hell.
I doubt that Falwell apologized for many of those quotes, and for the ones I agree with (I don't agree with all of them), neither will I apologize. Perhaps you would like to put up a list of my more heinous quotes for examination. I dare you to try to show how "fanatical" I am. I think mostly you just don't like to hear straight talk (pun intended).
Like Louis, I like calling a spade a spade, just without the four letter words.
I won't apologize for the gospel, nor for God's condemnation of sin, which includes the blight of homosexuality and the wickedness of those like atheists who suppress the truth because of their own hatred for God. Their condemnation is just.
And BTW, do you disagree with the claim that Mohamed was a terrorist? If you do, I'd say you are a ignorant fool who has not done his homework. You should agree with Falwell on this, if you ask me.
Hi Stewart:
You suggest this possibility that Aaron ignored in his response to me:
6. Create a world of people just like us, and give them all entrace to his eternal kingdom after they die, regardless of what they do in their lives, or whether they believe in him.
It seems to me that whether this is a possibility depends on what heaven is. Supposing heaven *is* having the most complete possible loving relationship with God, then by definition it would be impossible for someone who rejected this relationship to be in heaven. But is that what heaven is? Well, I'll cite the Gospel of John:
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3).
It seems arguable that the biblical view of heaven is precisely that relationship thing I was talking about in which case the option you propose might be logically contradictory.
…And as a possibility in that scenario, it has the advantage of cleaning up a great many other logical contradictions, not the least of which is the claim that God actually loves the people who he allows to spend an eternity in Hell.
Of course this dilemma doesn't apply to the Universal Reconciliationist kind of Christianity. And while UR is (now) a minority view among Christians, it is not unknown and has been embraced or at least considered as a possibility by lots of the most respected Christian thinkers throughout history.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Seeker
A couple of comments on your questions:
1. You suggest that a reason God might create someone he knew would end up forever damned because it's not his fault you suggest. Well I agree that if a person were to end up forever damned by his own free choice it wouldn't be God's fault the guy made the choice. But it would be God's *choice* whether to create this person or not, and it seems difficult to reconcile this with God loving the person
2. I would claim there is an important disanalogy between the hell and God's letting children starve to death. A person who has experienced great suffering in this life might be able to see that his suffering helped bring about an important divine goal, and from the perspective of heaven he might be grateful that God allowed him the honor of being part of that goal. Since his life wouldn't be a personal tragedy this would not be unloving toward him. But for a person who ended up forever damned his life *is* a personal tragedy and God's creating him would be unloving.
your friend
keith
In the same way that half the Jewish leaders of the Hebrew bible are terrorists, sure.
In the same way that half the Jewish leaders of the Hebrew bible are terrorists, sure.
So you find the teachings of the OT and that of Mohammed pretty much the same? I'd say that despite the similarities, Mohammedism is much more brutal, and consistently so.
From the point of view of how brutal they are, yes. The only reason you don't feel the same, is because you are convinced that the Hebrew patriarchs were following God's orders, thus they are excused from all culpability. Sites like "Evil Bible" collect such acts and show them side by side. You can see them, in this way, outside the explanatory context, which is exactly how you see the actions of Mohammed. As soon as you invoke God's "will" or his "wrath", or "justice", these sound more reasonable. If you don't believe in God, however, they all sound like murder and genocide, regardless of whether they were committed by Jews or Arabs.
Murder in the Bible
Hi Stewart:
1. I agree with you that genocidal acts are evil; in my opinion God didn't ever command any genocide. Obviously then I am not a biblical inerrantist. I call myself a theological moderate: I am far from a fundamentalist but neither am I a "Jesus Seminar" liberal. Politically I am a leftist, incidentally.
2. But your observation brings to my mind another point. I know a lot of atheists who argue that Christianity is dangerous because belief that there is an all powerful creator of the universe to whom we owe absolute obedience makes one vulnerable to appeals to kill in his name–you don't want to disobey God!!??! But surely the belief that God calls us to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to offer the Truth but never to force it on an unwilling person isn't dangerous! And Secular Reasoning has certainly inspired horrific violence, for example: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands. Those atrocities were committed because our military leaders reasoned that it was necessary to end the war on a successful note, that it would cause less harm to kill thousands than to do something different. That of course is the same logic the "God told me to kill" arguers use to justify *their* horrors as well.
your Friend
Keith
And Secular Reasoning has certainly inspired horrific violence, for example
I think this is getting off topic, and have fun with getting atheists to admit culpability in atheist and secularists atrocities
Anyway Stewart, that's a good point that I have not yet resolved in my own mind. Needless to say, Jesus and Mohammed are world's apart.
I want to design a shirt that has four faces on it, with = between each face. Something like
Aminejad = Hitler = Mohammed = Satan
I'm merely pointing out that acts of genocide by ancient Hebrew armies are consequentially equivalent to acts of genocide by ancient Arabs. I would not invoke the word "evil", though they each make me very sad to think about.
Keith, that's a fine point, and one which I will happily concede. I have no truck with religious groups who actually adhere to such principles. I don't agree with their beliefs about the universe, but neither do I find them particularly dangerous or offensive. In many cases they can be quite constructive, whether they are true or not. Unfortunately, such groups are surprisingly uncommon, though I certainly count Quakers as one of them.
Hi Seeker
Thanks for commenting. Actually though, I wasn't trying to get atheists to admit any culpability for atrocities. My gripe is with crude generalizations like "belief in God tends to lead to [fill in the horrible act of your choice]. This is the kind of sloppy thinking Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches has been indulging in. The same kind of crude generalization can be made against atheism or secularism in general. It's fallacious in both cases.
your Friend
keith
My gripe is with crude generalizations like "belief in God tends to lead to [fill in the horrible act of your choice].
I agree with this. I will say belief in God tends to lead to irrational beliefs like creationism.
Hi Cineaste
And I would say that atheism leads to irrational beliefs like "the universe somehow created itself":-)
your friend
keith
"And I would say that atheism leads to irrational beliefs like "the universe somehow created itself":-)
If you disagree with the physics, I'd like to continue the discussion in the "Atheism's Suicide of Reason" thread.
I take a look, but I don't disagree with any physics. Physics cannot demonstrate the self-creation of the universe.
your friend
Keith
Physics cannot demonstrate the self-creation of the universe.
Not according to inflation theory, M theory, string theory and the Cyclic Universe theory. None of these involve "a miracle happening" in any part of the process. Have you ever considered the possibility that the universe is not created?
Cin
Hi Cineaste
Yes I have considered the possibility the universe wasn't created. But that doesn't seem the least bit plausible to me.
your friend
keith
"But that [the universe by natural means] doesn't seem the least bit plausible to me."
Now, that's your faith talking. Anything other than natural cause would require a "miracle." In other words, supernatural intervention. This is the "magic man did it" thing again. I think we can agree that anything "supernatural" is a matter of faith by definition.
"Physics cannot demonstrate the self-creation of the universe."
Keith, you have no evidence other than faith to back this statement up. Physics provides several models without involving any supernatural agent.
Cin
Hi Cineaste:
Previously…
"But that [the universe by natural means] doesn't seem the least bit plausible to me."
Now, that's your faith talking. Anything other than natural cause would require a "miracle." In other words, supernatural intervention. This is the "magic man did it" thing again. I think we can agree that anything "supernatural" is a matter of faith by definition.
I would say that your belief that the universe existing without being caused is your faith speaking. We both depend on faith, the same as everybody.
Physics cannot demonstrate the self-creation of the universe.
Keith, you have no evidence other than faith to back this statement up. Physics provides several models without involving any supernatural agent.
IMO you are missing the point (perhaps I am not making the point very well). If physics says "the universe is the result of [fill in whatever is the hot new physical theory] this presupposes the logically prior existence of said physical process. This physical process would be part of the universe (assuming we mean the universe to mean all physical reality). That physical process doesn't create itself.
or so it seems to me.
your friend
keith
Why do you insist that existing physical processes require a creator? Why can't they just exist, having always existed? If you think that the existence of something implies a creator, I have a question for you:
Who (or what) created the creator? And, then, what created that creator? And so on, ad infinitum.
Even if you posit a First Creator or unmoved Mover, the question still arises.
btw: faith is belief without evidence. Cineaste is challenging you to provide evidence for your assertions. Science provides evidence or leaves the question open. Religion closes the question (or considers it answered) without evidence. They are doing entirely different things. Your accusation that Cineaste depends entirely upon faith is thus a misapprehension – or perhaps a deliberate rhetorical ploy to muddy the waters.
Hi Louis:
You kindly asked:
Why do you insist that existing physical processes require a creator? Why can't they just exist, having always existed? If you think that the existence of something implies a creator, I have a question for you:
Who (or what) created the creator? And, then, what created that creator? And so on, ad infinitum.
Even if you posit a First Creator or unmoved Mover, the question still arises.
Why do I think the existing physical processes require a creator? Only because that necessity seems clearly true to me. Avoiding the overused "finding a watch in the woods" analogy, I'll give you a different one. The Quadratic formula from high school algebra. When you see that formula with all it's squares and square roots and all there a clear intuition that there must be something behind it, it must have been derived from something. When you finally see the derivation, the derivation satisfies the original intuition.
I have that same intuition when I contemplate the existence of the physical universe (and not that majority rules in such cases but most people share that intuition with me I'd say). There must be something behind the existence of the universe, it seems to me.
It also seems clear to me that there cannot be an infinite chain of pyhsical processes behind the physical processes. In fact, the entire infinite chain would be a mass of physical process and it owuld still be the kind of thing that my intuition tells me must have something else behind it. So the something else would have to be non-physical.
So who created the original non-physical process? IMO the question doesn't make sense. That which is caused to exist cannot be the first cause, so when you reach the first cause the very question "what caused the first cause?" is a logical contradiction. At least that's the way it seems to me.
Oh yeah; you also objected to my comment about the belief in an uncaused universe requiring faith. In fca6 you suggested that my comment was a deliberate rhetorical ploy. Ouch, friend Louis:-) You defined "faith" as "belief without evidence". Since that was the definition I was working from, let's see how the "uncaused universe" fits into the definition. There cannot be any evidence that the "uncaused universe" is a plausible alternative; science cannot even touch such questions. Science can try to describe the processes we observe in the physical world but it cannot find evidence for the ultimate cause of those processes nor can it find evidence that the ultimate cause is a physical process. So..if anyone believes that it is, that person holds his belief by faith. Science has nothing to do with it.
your Friend
keith
Everything you describe above is completely subjective. You provide no proof, no evidence, nothing objective that someone else can verify. I appreciate your awe in the face of the wondrous cosmos (I share it), but I see no reason to jump from that to a God. Sorry.
I would say that your belief that the universe existing without being caused is your faith speaking. We both depend on faith, the same as everybody.
That’s different. I believe in science because of the wealth of evidence that indicates it’s conclusions are likely to be true. You believe in God because you have faith. So, my “faith” (as you put it) is a belief based upon evidence. Yours is a belief based on… well, faith. You are using two different meanings of the same word to create a semantic booby trap. That’s called, equivocation. AKA, argumentum ad hominem.
“If physics says “the universe is the result of [fill in whatever is the hot new physical theory] this presupposes the logically prior existence of said physical process. This physical process would be part of the universe (assuming we mean the universe to mean all physical reality). That physical process doesn’t create itself.”
You are the one presupposing that the universe came from absolutely nothing. What evidence do you have for this? And, even then…
Energy is matter. You know Energy equals Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared? Therefore, matter came from nothing according to inflation theory. I already linked this for you.
Keith, your argument depends upon “a miracle happening.” Using Occam’s razor, it’s far more likely that the universe came about like everything else, through a natural process. What is more likely to you? That the natural order of things was suspended or “magic?”
“I have that same intuition when I contemplate the existence of the physical universe (and not that majority rules in such cases but most people share that intuition with me I’d say). There must be something behind the existence of the universe, it seems to me.”
This is just not a good argument. In a court case it would be akin to asserting, “I have a strong intuition so and so is responsible and many others share my intuition as well.”
“There cannot be any evidence that the “uncaused universe” is a plausible alternative; science cannot even touch such questions. Science can try to describe the processes we observe in the physical world but it cannot find evidence for the ultimate cause of those processes nor can it find evidence that the ultimate cause is a physical process.”
Again, this simply isn’t true. I’ve linked to several theoretical models demonstrating just the opposite. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says it’s possible to get something (energy) out of nothing. Also, the universe can be “cyclic” (linked earlier) which means the process is eternal. Keith, if you truly believe that science has nothing to do with the first cause, then you should just tell astrophysicists and cosmologists like Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc. that they needn’t bother continuing their work on the “first cause.” Point out to them that science “cannot find evidence for the ultimate cause of those processes [that caused the universe].” Keith Johnson has a strong intuition.
What is more likely to you? That the natural order of things was suspended or "magic?"
should be…
What is more likely to you? That the natural order of things was suspended "magic" or that the first cause was a natural event?
Hi Louis:
A couple of points. Thanks for your kind response BTW.
1. My intuitions are not based on any awe for the universe. I am not actually all that awed. I think there are some really cool things there (I really like the math behind Einsteins Special Theory of Realtivity, and thunderstorms are neat) but I am not all that much of a nature dude. I prefer mathematics and music to be honest. My intuition about the universe being created is more like what I said before about the Quadratic Formula: you see the formula and you just know there has to be something *behind* it, at least that's how it seems to me. You objected that I offered no proof; let me comment about that next.
2. Absolutely I offered no proof for my intuitions (intuitions you seem not to share, but not that majority rules or anything but there are quite a few people who do share it). I offer no proof because I cannot think of anyway *to* prove it, no more than I can prove that the universe actually existed prior to last Thursday (as opposed to all kinds of crazy alternatives including the universe just popping into existence with all of our memories prepackaged into our brains). I cannot think of a way to prove that either, but I don't find myself troubled by not being able to prove something like that either. All of us are the same in this kind of situation: when you find yourself strongly convinced that something is true you draw conclusions about other things based on that something, and you don't quit believing that something until you are given good reason to seriously doubt it or reject it.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cineaste:
From before:
I would say that your belief that the universe existing without being caused is your faith speaking. We both depend on faith, the same as everybody.
That’s different. I believe in science because of the wealth of evidence that indicates it’s conclusions are likely to be true. You believe in God because you have faith. So, my “faith” (as you put it) is a belief based upon evidence. Yours is a belief based on… well, faith. You are using two different meanings of the same word to create a semantic booby trap. That’s called, equivocation. AKA, argumentum ad hominem.
I wouldn’t agree that I am using a different meaning of the word “faith” than you are. I am using faith to mean “belief not based on evidence”. I contend that it is not even logically possible for the belief [that natural processes can exist uncaused] to be supported by evidence. You may disagree with me about that claim, but my claim doesn’t equivocate on the word “faith”.
You are the one presupposing that the universe came from absolutely nothing. What evidence do you have for this? And, even then…
But I didn’t say the universe came from nothing; I said the opposite. I said the universe came from something and that this something must not have been a physical process itself.
“Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing.”
What it offers is a model about how some amount of energy could appear when previously said energy didn’t exist. I am not arguing that point. As a law of physics it is exactly the kind of thing my argument says must have a cause. This example of yours doesn’t refute my argument.
Energy is matter. You know Energy equals Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared? Therefore, matter came from nothing according to inflation theory. I already linked this for you.
Know it? I can even derive it:-) Like I said, I am not arguing that energy couldn’t have come into being by the kind of thing you are suggesting.
Keith, your argument depends upon “a miracle happening.” Using Occam’s razor, it’s far more likely that the universe came about like everything else, through a natural process. What is more likely to you? That the natural order of things was suspended or “magic?”
I would say your argument depends on it being a brute fact that there are laws of the universe that exist because they exist and that’s that. This seems much less plausible to me than that something caused the laws of the universe to exist. And about Occam’s Razor, I would challenge you to demonstrate that Occam’s razor is anything more than a convenience; I would challenge you to show that a simple explanation is more likely to be true than a complex one. It seems to me that the world is often more complicated than we’d like.
You say it’s unlikely for the natural order to be suspended, but that isn’t what we are talking abuot right now IMO. The issue is: where did the natural order come from?
“I have that same intuition when I contemplate the existence of the physical universe (and not that majority rules in such cases but most people share that intuition with me I’d say). There must be something behind the existence of the universe, it seems to me.”
This is just not a good argument. In a court case it would be akin to asserting, “I have a strong intuition so and so is responsible and many others share my intuition as well.”
I disagree; I think it’s an outstanding argument:-). It is a valid argument in that the conclusion follows logically from the premises and it is (I claim) a sound argument because it’s premises are (I claim) true. For you to deny it’s soundness you’d have to show the premises are false. What my argument cannot do is convince a person who doesn’t agree with the premises. But that’s how it is for every argument ever made. If a jury doesn’t agree with the premises the prosecutor makes when he presents his evidence, if the jury thinks there’s other explanations for how the murder weapon got in Wild Bill’s car, the jury will not be convinced by the photo of the machete in his car. I cannot help it if you don’t agree with my premises, but since they seem true to me I am logically compelled toward their conclusion.
“There cannot be any evidence that the “uncaused universe” is a plausible alternative; science cannot even touch such questions. Science can try to describe the processes we observe in the physical world but it cannot find evidence for the ultimate cause of those processes nor can it find evidence that the ultimate cause is a physical process.”
Again, this simply isn’t true. I’ve linked to several theoretical models demonstrating just the opposite. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says it’s possible to get something (energy) out of nothing. Also, the universe can be “cyclic” (linked earlier) which means the process is eternal.
Here we seem to be rehashing things. All I can say is that I think you are wrong that what yuo cited even addresses the issue at hand.
Keith, if you truly believe that science has nothing to do with the first cause, then you should just tell astrophysicists and cosmologists like Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc. that they needn’t bother continuing their work on the “first cause.”
If what they are trying to do is find a first “physical” cause for the existence of matter and energy and such in the universe then nothing I have argued has anything to do with that. But if they are trying to draw theological conclusions from their science, well there view is IMO philosophically naive.
Point out to them that science “cannot find evidence for the ultimate cause of those processes [that caused the universe].” Keith Johnson has a strong intuition.
Please don’t tell tnem that; I don’t want to demoralize them:-)
your Friend
Keith
…my claim [We both depend on faith] doesn't equivocate on the word "faith".
You are equivocating. I don't have any beliefs not based upon evidence while you believe in a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient magical man.
"But I didn't say the universe came from nothing; I said the opposite."
Circular reasoning; if God is a "something" who created God?
"As a law of physics it is exactly the kind of thing my argument says must have a cause."
Again, here is the cause according to inflation theory: "Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated." You may be mistakenly calling a quantum fluctuation, God.
"I have that same intuition…" "I disagree; I think it's an outstanding argument:-)"
Intuition = Bad Argument.
"…All I can say is that I think you are wrong"
Me and all the astrophysicists.
"If what they are trying to do is find a first "physical" cause for the existence of matter and energy and such in the universe then nothing I have argued has anything to do with that."
This means your argument itself is completely faith based. If so, we may as well be arguing over the existence of Santa and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"But if they are trying to draw theological conclusions from their science"
None of their models have "in step 2 a miracle happens." Your argument does! You danced around this question without answering: What is more likely to you? That the natural order of things was suspended "magic" or that the first cause was a natural event?
Keith, what evidence could I possibly present, what argument could I possibly make about the first cause being a natural event, that would be accepted by you? I think the answer is NONE. That means you are being unreasonable. I can understand why. Your faith demands it of you. If you admit that it's possible the universe had a natural cause it would be akin to admitting an existence without God is possible. You are in an untenable position. This is one of the reasons I think faith is so destructive. As Louis pointed out, "Religion closes the question (or considers it answered) without evidence." Faith is unreasonable.
Hi Cineaste:
I hope we aren't repeating too much ground. I will try not to get into a debate spiral:-). There are a couple of things I want to respond to.
FROM BEFORE:
…my claim [We both depend on faith] doesn't equivocate on the word "faith".
You are equivocating. I don't have any beliefs not based upon evidence while you believe in a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient magical man.
When I said you hold your belief based on faith I was saying that your atheism is NOT based on evidence; my argument was to that effect. You disagree with my assessment but that doesn't mean I was using the phrase "belief without evidence" differently from you.
"But I didn't say the universe came from nothing; I said the opposite."
Circular reasoning; if God is a "something" who created God
IMO your question is logically incoherent (I use the term in a technical sense; I mean no offense, really I don't). In the argument I offered the term "God" means "the First cause on which everything else is an effect" The idea of there being a cause for this first cause is a logical contradiction.
"As a law of physics it is exactly the kind of thing my argument says must have a cause."
Again, here is the cause according to inflation theory: "Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated." You may be mistakenly calling a quantum fluctuation, God.
To make sure I understand what you are saying: you are NOT saying that the reason quantum fluxuations exist is because of quantum fluxuations are you?
"I have that same intuition…" "I disagree; I think it's an outstanding argument:-)"
Intuition = Bad Argument.
care to offer any evidence for that claim? :-)
"…All I can say is that I think you are wrong"
Me and all the astrophysicists.
I mean no disrespect, but I am skeptical of your assessment of what theological conclusions can be validly derived from astrophysics.
"But if they are trying to draw theological conclusions from their science"
None of their models have "in step 2 a miracle happens." Your argument does! You danced around this question without answering: What is more likely to you? That the natural order of things was suspended "magic" or that the first cause was a natural event?
Their models don't even address the idea of whether or not there is a divine cause behind the existence of physical processes–science says nothing about such things. As to your question, my argument doesn't assume the "natural order" is ever suspended,s so your question is sort of like "when did you stop beating your wife?". My argument isn't about the natural order being suspended, it is about what is behind the fact that a natural order even exists.
I believe that God does in fact from time to time bring about miracles but that's a separate issue from what we are discussing) my argument would be perfectly consistent with deism which holds that God created the natural order (perhaps by making things work according to Quantum mechanics) and then let the natural order run its course.
Keith, what evidence could I possibly present, what argument could I possibly make about the first cause being a natural event, that would be accepted by you? I think the answer is NONE. That means you are being unreasonable.
The answer IS none and the reason that's the answer is it's logically impossible for such evidence to exist. Suppose you found a first physical cause–it is logically impossible that you could provide evidence that there is nothing that caused this first physical cause to exist. You disagree? Please describe how anything you have said so far counts as evidence that a first physical cause is itself uncaused.
I can understand why. Your faith demands it of you. If you admit that it's possible the universe had a natural cause it would be akin to admitting an existence without God is possible. You are in an untenable position. This is one of the reasons I think faith is so destructive. As Louis pointed out, "Religion closes the question (or considers it answered) without evidence." Faith is unreasonable.
One of my sinful tendencies it to get irked when a debating partner speculates about the so-called reason I hold the belief I hold. I expect you are equally irked when a Christian tells you the reason you don't believe in God is that you don't want to pay God the respect and obedience he deserves. You and I disagree about this issue, but I will not speculate as to why you don't see the obvious wisdom of my POV:-)
your Friend
keith
Actual video of the creation of the universe.
“When I said you hold your belief based on faith I was saying that your atheism is NOT based on evidence; my argument was to that effect.”
You are still equivocating. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. As the person claiming the existence of the supernatural, the burden of proof resides with you. My position, the default position, requires no proof but yours does. Keith you may as well claim you believe in leprechauns and that my lack of belief in them is not based on evidence. You are equivocating.
“The idea of there being a cause for this first cause is a logical contradiction.”
By your rational, God is a logical contradiction. Your reasoning is circular. Your argument presupposes a supernatural first cause.
You said…
1. There must be some sufficient reason [“equivalent to cause”] for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics.
What evidence could I possibly present, what argument could I possibly make about the first cause being a natural event, that would be accepted by you? You reply, “The answer IS none.”
The supernatural is implicit in your 1st premise as the only explanation for “natural phenomena” right?
6. Taking these premises together, the universe must at the bottom of it all be the result of an intelligent creative agent.
AKA: Supernatural Magic Man. Your argument concludes with the supernatural. You’re whole argument is essential “Magic Man did it” from beginning to end. It’s circular reasoning.
“If you admit that it’s possible the universe had a natural cause it would be akin to admitting an existence without God is possible.”
You see? You didn’t address this. The reason is because you know it’s true.
Exactly Louis! Thats one of my favorites especial since it also exposes "Intelligent" design as unscientific.
Hi Cineaste:
I think you are mistaken to say that atheism isn’t a belief. It is at the very least the belief that you ought not embrace theism.
How is it a contradiction to say that the First Cause cannot itself be caused?
It seems we are going to continue talking past each other about your assessment of my argument, so I’ll leave you to that assessment with no hard feelings.
I didn’t deliberately ignore any of your points. I admit that I could be wrong about any of my beliefs, including my belief about God; I’m a pretty humble guy:-). On the other hand, my belief is that the universe in fact cannot exist and would not continue to exist without God.
your Friend
keith
Hi Cineaste:
IT might surprise you to know that I agree with you that Intelligent Design is not scientific. That’s because it isn’t science regardless of what its proponents claim.
your Friend
keith
Hi Cineaste:
I think you are mistaken to say that atheism isn’t a belief. It is at the very least the belief that you ought not embrace theism.
How is it a contradiction to say that the First Cause cannot itself be caused?
It seems we are going to continue talking past each other about your assessment of my argument, so I’ll leave you to that assessment with no hard feelings.
I didn’t deliberately ignore any of your points. I admit that I could be wrong about any of my beliefs, including my belief about God; I’m a pretty humble guy:-). On the other hand, my belief is that the universe in fact cannot exist and would not continue to exist without God.
your Friend
keith
Cineaste, although I reject his argument, and consider his logic on this issue signficantly flawed, I have to agree with Keith when he says that atheism is a belief. Any logical premise, when sincerely stated, is necessarily a belief. How could it be otherwise? If your brain contains an accessible pattern of neurons that represent a statement of fact about the way the world is not, it’s functionally the same as if it was a pattern the represented a statement of fact about the way the world is. They are both beliefs.
It’s not as if you or I don’t have an opinion on the matter, or have never considered it. Before composing this post, I did (for example) have the belief that Keith Johnson is not a highly-evolved octopus-man. Having considered that possibility just now, however, I necessarily believe it not to be the case. You may argue that this is a non-belief, but that sort of statement tacitly agrees that it is still, in fact, a kind of belief. Similarly, you and I believe (for various reasons) that the Christian god does not exist. If that statement is to be considered true, then we must hold beliefs. And so we do, though I maintain that they are not matters of faith, at least as religious adherent understand the word.
since whoever runs this site thinks it’s okay to censor comments I will no longer be participating here
“I think you are mistaken to say that atheism isn’t a belief. It is at the very least the belief that you ought not embrace theism.”
This is simply false. I’ve had this conversation with theists before…
I don’t deny God’s existence Keith nor do I hold a belief that I “ought not embrace Him”, I just lack a belief in God.
Here is more…
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm
“It seems we are going to continue talking past each other about your assessment of my argument”
I showed that the supernatural is implicit in your first premise which matches your conclusion. That’s proof of circular reasoning. If you are truly humble, you would admit I’ve shown your argument to be fallacious instead of persisting that it’s valid.
“I admit that I could be wrong about any of my beliefs, including my belief about God; I’m a pretty humble guy:-).”
Though highly improbable, I admit there could be a God. I too am very humble.
“On the other hand, my belief is that the universe in fact cannot exist and would not continue to exist without God.”
You could add, “even though I have no evidence to support such a belief.” That’s quite a stretch.
Louis, your Family Guy video linked is still there, I even commented on it.
hi Cineaste:
may your amp always go to eleven:-)
Keith
I've come to realize that when discussing "God" with theists, one usually needs a hammer to kill a fly. I truly wish it were otherwise friend Keith.
Cin
My bad. First it was there, then it wasn’t (at least on my computer). Weird.
Hi Cin:
I’m really not trying to be argumentative here but from your comments it seems to me that you think that belief in God is inconsistent with a scientific outlook. So in the interest of promoting a wide range of philosophical consideration I would point out that William Phillips the 1997 Nobel Prize winner in Physics is a devout Christian. this doesn’t prove that Christianity is true or that theism is a respectable position even. But IMO it is prima facie reason to think that *really* knowing cutting edge physics (as opposed to just reading some articles aimed at the layman) is perfectly compatible with belief in God. You may be right about God and all, but unless you have a more advanced degree in Physics that Dr. William Phillips, you might consider the possibility that he knows enough to know that science doesn’t damage theism at all.
your friend
Keith
“…but from your comments it seems to me that you think that belief in God is inconsistent with a scientific outlook.”
No, sir. Dr. Francis Collins is a devout Christian and an excellent geneticist as well. I also have great respect for Christian historian Bart D. Ehrman. Where science and religion conflict IMO, is when religion starts making scientific claims like creationism (Genesis) and miracles like the sun stopping in the sky or talking donkeys. Einstein himself believed in Spinoza’s God. Keith, I can’t remember if I have shown you this video before but it really does a good job synopsizing my views on this topic. Please check it out…
Beyond Belief ’06 – Ann Druyan
There are aspects of Christianity I respect very much, such as pacifism. I always looked forward to the end of mass where we would all shake hands with perfect strangers and say “peace be with you” “…and also with you” was the reply. To me that was the most worthwhile part of going to church. I think being a true pacifist, in the spirit of The Sermon on the Mount (BTW, Stewart is a pacifist), takes so much more courage than being a non-pacifist. There are other aspects of Christianity which I have no patience or respect for such as fundamentalism, e.g. creationism, faith healing, etc. I think belief in God is not inconsistent with the scientific outlook unless one puts his or her faith above the evidence. This applies to Wiccans, Christians, Muslims, Pastafarians, Buddhists, Hindu’s, etc.
Hi C
You wrote:
No, sir. Dr. Francis Collins is a devout Christian and an excellent geneticist as well. I also have great respect for Christian historian Bart D. Ehrman. Where science and religion conflict IMO, is when religion starts making scientific claims like creationism (Genesis) and miracles like the sun stopping in the sky or talking donkeys.
Then I stand corrected about your attitude wrt religion. I agree with you about religion being unable to make scientific claims, but claims that miracles occurred do not conflict with science. Science tells us how the natural is ordered, but it doesn’t give any reason to think the supernatural doesn’t sometimes happen.
There are aspects of Christianity I respect very much, such as pacifism. I always looked forward to the end of mass where we would all shake hands with perfect strangers and say “peace be with you” “…and also with you” was the reply. To me that was the most worthwhile part of going to church. I think being a true pacifist, in the spirit of The Sermon on the Mount (BTW, Stewart is a pacifist), takes so much more courage than being a non-pacifist.
I gotta agree with you there. Matthew 25 tells us what jesus’ priorities were: he sent the religiously correct away while he welcomed the folks who offered comfort to their neighbors in need, declaring that comforting those who suffer is identical to comforting Christ. But I will say that Christians in the US generally pacifists and many people of good will disagree on the war/peace issue.
yuor friend
Keith
Quoted by Sullivan today:
The believer will open his mind to the truth on condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception. – Alan Watts, “The Wisdom Of Insecurity.”
Hi Louis
I agree with Watts.
your Friend
Keith
On pacifism: I think it doesn’t matter what religion a person is, or is not. Any person will be a pacifist until he or she feels the need to defend his/her family or life.
Lawanda, Jesus didn’t.
Keith, yes, I prefer Watts’ definition to what passes for faith in Christendom.
Lawanda, you’re like a competitive person who assumes that cooperative people are really just working some angle. Before you declare that all pacifists are liars (as your above posts implies), please consider the possibility that there are people out there who legitimately think about these things differently than you do. My life, and the life of my family, are not worth more than your life, or the life of your family. How I personally feel about them is entirely beside the point. Although these feelings can and do affect the decisions I make, I try very hard to limit the scope by which it does.
Too much stuff on comment on here, but I have read everything – just so everyone knows.
I will hit some highlights.
Keith, I completely disagree with your position on “Universal Reconciliationist,” but I enjoy having you here. It is a nice addition to have a liberal, pacifist, mathematician, Christian here to add to our little conglomeration.
Louis, I hope nobody got rid of your comment. Occasionally, I do “censor” comments in that I delete spam or just personal trash that has nothing to do with the post – I haven’t done that to any regular commentors. Sometimes I also edit language if it becomes a bit too harsh, but I will put a note saying I did so.
Cineaste (and Louis too), as Keith said the whole question of “who created God” comes across as so illogical and contradictory that on my end, I get frustrated trying to address that over and over and over again. I can see that we have no answered it to your liking, but I feel that no one ever could.
Our contention is that something non-physical cannot have a physical cause. We would say that the universe at some point needs some non-physical cause. If you say some law or theory can explain it, then I pose the same question to you – where did that law or theory come from? Who made or founded it? Our belief is that logically only a beyond-natural cause could be a first cause for nature and a beyond-nature first cause does not require a cause by the very nature of it being a beyond-nature first cause.
It is odd that you say religion can exists and be all warm-and-fuzzy unless it starts going where I don’t want it to go (science, sex, morality, insert your pet issue here). Cineaste, I appreciate the offer of a semi-compromise, but I can’t let you (or someone else) determine where my faith can or cannot be relevant to my life. Louis, quoted “faith lets go” and to me faith follows Truth and I will follow Truth where it leads regardless of whether my faith has been invited or “allowed.”
But wow, who knew that my linking to an Al Sharpton quote on Jerry Falwell would lead to all these discussions. I enjoy that about here above anything else and even those that I disagree with, I value your contribution and your opinions here. It would not be the same with out you.
“Cineaste, I appreciate the offer of a semi-compromise, but I can’t let you (or someone else) determine where my faith can or cannot be relevant to my life.”
Huh?
Aaron, I think that Cineaste understands your position on this. But I suspect that you are not allowing for certain possibilities which he (and I) consider more likely than your theistic explanation. I believe you are using the term “supernatural” to mean something which is slightly different from what he or I might mean by it.
In asking myself “What caused the universe?”, I must consider supernatural means. But when I say supernatural here, I do not necessarily mean “magic” or “God” or anything else mystical in nature. I simply mean something which could not, otherwise, occur within this universe. If another universe spawned this one, and the physical laws in that universe were/are different than here, then it would be sensible to refer to that universe as being supernatural.
When you say “supernatural”, however, there is an implication of intelligence which is unwarranted. You have asked yourself, “Why is there nothing instead of something?” and it seems sensible to answer “Because someone made it?” But this does not satisfy us. We ask the same questions, and we consider the same possibilities, but we still find no answer to the question of Why?. Adding intelligence to the mix doesn’t make our question any easier to solve, it just adds a level of complexity to it that further confuses us, and which has no evidence to back it up.
The fundamental question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” is unanswered, and it remains unanswered when you add a deity to the mix. Only now I’m stuck asking “Why is there God, instead of no God?”. You can’t answer that question any more than anyone else can answer the first. It’s the same question, only it’s been dressed up in theological vagueness. Cineaste and I are happy to admit that we can’t provide an answer, and even that it may be impossible to provide an answer. Religion says, “No, we know exactly what the answer is”, in spite of the fact that the answer is unevidenced and unintelligible.
I start the sentence with “I think”…. Not “This is an unmitigated fact and it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks about it:” So that’s what I meant, “I think”
I actually just had that thought pass through my head when I read the posts, and felt it needed to be pointed out, as it is true of humans in general. And I do like to converse with people who do not necessarily agree with me. :)
Christians have to take into consideration all the angles of any situation when it comes to whether they will take a “pacifist” or otherwise action.
Because it is not always just “Yes, I am a pacifist: all fighting is evil.” or “No way, I looooove to fight!”
The Bible says husbands are to love their wives to the point where they would give their own life for their wives. Well, to me that implies they might have to fight something or fight in some way to show how much they love their wife. Because according to the Bible (and human nature) they are also supposed to provide for their families as well, that to me means they should try not to die, but may still have to face situations in which there could be fighting.
I would say that anyone who has people he is trying to protect who would not defend himself against any dangerous situation, even by fighting, would not be showing love for the people who depend on him. Which is why many good christians had no qualms on not being pacifist when they went into WW2.
Jesus giving his life was what we all depended on and also how he showed his love, so he of course did not fight back or defend himself.
Sorry this is not as well written as I would like…. kinda busy around here :)
Hi Louis:
The thing is: there are unreflective people of every kind of world-view. But I know quite a few Christians whose Christian faith is quite consistent with the ideal Alan Watts offered. Even folks I don’t agree with on a lot of issues (Like Seeker and Aaron for example) are still among those who let truth as they see it be their guide. The problem with arguing is that we too often assume that because the guy we are arguing with can’t see the “obvious flaw” in their thinking the must be clinging to their belief instead of being open to the clear truth. I fall into that sinful trap too, but it’s not just we Christians who are a little too uncritical of our own presuppositions.
your friend
Keith
Hi Lawanda:
I disagree with so much of what you said that I need to say this first: I think you make some really great points and that your position wrt pacifism is IMO a very defensible position. Issues like this are not easy and really smart people can disagree about them. So surely it’s understandible for a doofus like myself to disagree with you:-)
Anyway, you wrote:
Christians have to take into consideration all the angles of any situation when it comes to whether they will take a “pacifist” or otherwise action.
Because it is not always just “Yes, I am a pacifist: all fighting is evil.” or “No way, I looooove to fight!”
I share your objection to oversimplification. It is uncharitable and foolishly arrogant to imagine that the only reason a person might think violence is an acceptable tool from time to time is that they love to fight.
The Bible says husbands are to love their wives to the point where they would give their own life for their wives. Well, to me that implies they might have to fight something or fight in some way to show how much they love their wife. Because according to the Bible (and human nature) they are also supposed to provide for their families as well, that to me means they should try not to die, but may still have to face situations in which there could be fighting. I would say that anyone who has people he is trying to protect who would not defend himself against any dangerous situation, even by fighting, would not be showing love for the people who depend on him. Which is why many good christians had no qualms on not being pacifist when they went into WW2.
1. There is quite a difference between defending your family against a criminal intruder and fighting a war against people who happen to live in a different country. One could be OK with the former while seeing the latter as always immoral.
2.IMO the above presupposes a pretty debatable thing. It presupposes that we can accurately predict the final results of a violent act so as to tell that our families would be better off if we kill someone than if we choose some other alternative. I don’t see how we can predict such things, and from a Christian perspective there are more important things than whether we postpone our inevitable deaths by a finite period of time. We Christians are to love our enemies and I am not sure that I could do that while I was killing said person. If there is a spiritual benefit from loving our enemies then I teach my children the wrong lesson if I choose to kill instead of love. I’d be making things worse for my family by killing. I am not saying BTW that I know what I would do–I am actually not even sure what I should. But given the assumptions of the Gospel of Christ pacifism even against a criminal intruder is at least defensible.
3. About qualms: IMO both pacifists and non-pacifists should have some qualms about our position. War against the Nazis? It is arguable that humanity’s willingness to go to war in WW I is what brought about the conditions that allowed Hitler to gain power. And the war didn’t stop the Holocaust nor the millions of deaths in combat. Also, to conduct the war we had to make deals with our Soviet allies, allowing Stalin to control half of Europe and torment them with genocide and tyranny. That was all part of the cost of WW II. And that’s the problem with war. IMO it is somewhat naive to imagine the good things we hope the war will get done won’t be more than cancelled out by the unforeseen bad side effects. Something to think about, it seems to me.
your Friend
Keith
In some ways “yes.” In some ways “no.” Clear enough? Let me explain.
Part of this flows from why I get frustrated with the continual “who created God question” is because my explanation almost always gets used to assert, “well that doesn’t answer anything because that could describe FSM.” To which I reply, “Yes, it could, but only because the argument of First Cause is used simply to illustrate that the universe needs a supernatural First Cause, not what or who that First Cause is.” The use of FSM or “magic” is virtually always used to try to paint the other side into a corner of absurdity with no real logic behind but simply word play.
When I think of the supernatural first cause, I, of course, think of the Judeo-Christian God. But when I am arguing logically for a supernatural first cause, I do not suppose that is the only logical conclusion from that case. My belief in and following of the Judeo-Christian God flows from so much more than that one line of thinking. Not to mention, that line of thinking can flow to so much more than the Judeo-Christian God.
My contention is that there has to be a First Cause somewhere. You can assert another universe as a beginning point for our universe, but then we ask where that universe comes from? We can assert scientific laws, as Cineaste has, but then we ask where did those come from? To simply say, “They have always been here” is to step completely in the realm of “magic” with no logical foundation.
When someone says God is the First Cause and therefore He did not need a First Cause, that is a logical statement (may or may not be true, but it flows logically). The God of Christianity is supernatural and exists outside of time and space therefore He is not confined by the laws of nature – He started them – so He does not require a cause as creation does.
However when you say this scientific law has always existed? How do we know that? How can it exists before there was anything for it do “rule” over? What made it change from simply existing to the act of “creating” the universe? It leads to an endless array of questions with no answers – which is not automatically a bad thing, but just one that should be understood up front.
Christianity seeks to give an answer to that question. There is something instead of nothing because God desires relationships, because God is creative and wants to create, because God is loving and wants something to love, etc. The nature of who God is is illustrated in the very act of creation.
Now you may not agree with that answer and it may not satisfy your questioning. I understand that. This is a question that no one will every be able to “prove,” but it is one that is of concern to Christian theologians and one that Christians feel point to the very character of God.
Keith, as you tend to do I will start out with a compliment, your explanations behind your beliefs are concise and well-reasoned and I enjoy them because they make me think. They haven’t changed my mind yet, but they make me think.
But here is my problem with your arguments for pacifism as opposed to war. You are able to look back in history, see a war and then bring up the negatives that resulted from that situation. We can’t go back in time and see what might have happened if we had not engaged in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
It difficult to argue against hypothetical situations and the hypothetical wonderful outcomes. I can’t say that if we had simply stayed at home in WWII, Nazis would have run rampant across Europe, millions more would be dead and today Nazism and Communism would be the two main political ideologues. I can’t say that because we have no idea. Neither can you argue that Germany would have collapsed, Japan would have changed and the Soviets would have stayed in Russia. We don’t know.
That’s the problem with pacifism and every other choice we make as individuals and nations as well. We don’t know what unintended consequences our actions will bring. We have to do the best with what information we have currently. Often mistakes are made, but they cannot be honestly weighed against hypothetical successes.
My friend Keith,
I object to your calling yourself a doofus ;)
1. There is quite a difference between defending your family against a criminal intruder and fighting a war against people who happen to live in a different country. One could be OK with the former while seeing the latter as always immoral.
Fighting a war just because people live in another country would definitely be immoral, no question.
Those who participate in wars usually do not have much of a choice, you know. The leaders of their country, whom they have elected (in our case); have told them that another country poses a threat to their country’s (= family’s) well-being and have demanded they fight.
If they are in the Military which is the path of many people who are looking to improve their education, or just need the money, or if there happens to be a draft, like in WW2, then they don’t have much choice.
But I am sure many who are christians and therefore have trouble with the concept of attacking their enemies would be thinking like this: I can either 1)Be pacifist, i.e. let my country fall into someone else’s control, possibly endangering my family, and just trust that the end result is God’s will (your point #2)… or 2)Be protective actively, i.e. trust my country’s leaders who have demanded that I fight this war in order to keep my family safe, and just trust that the end result is God’s will (again your point #2).
I personally respect both decisions, as I realize how very difficult both would be. Both are actually biblical. In my experience my family members are more the actively protective slant. So you can see where my thoughts come from.
The fact that most war is useless, utterly futile, and even wrong; I totally agree. That there will always be wars and rumors of them, I also know to be true.
Hi Aaron:
Your post covers a wide range of ideas and I’d love to jump in on your side (if only to bask in the glow of your skills:-). on the other hand, if I focus on the part where you disagree with me, I get a closer look at those skills. So here I go:-)
You wrote: But here is my problem with your arguments for pacifism as opposed to war. You are able to look back in history, see a war and then bring up the negatives that resulted from that situation. We can’t go back in time and see what might have happened if we had not engaged in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
It difficult to argue against hypothetical situations and the hypothetical wonderful outcomes. I can’t say that if we had simply stayed at home in WWII, Nazis would have run rampant across Europe, millions more would be dead and today Nazism and Communism would be the two main political ideologues. I can’t say that because we have no idea. Neither can you argue that Germany would have collapsed, Japan would have changed and the Soviets would have stayed in Russia. We don’t know.
Keith’s before: And that’s the problem with war. IMO it is somewhat naive to imagine the good things we hope the war will get done won’t be more than cancelled out by the unforeseen bad side effects.
That’s the problem with pacifism and every other choice we make as individuals and nations as well. We don’t know what unintended consequences our actions will bring. We have to do the best with what information we have currently. Often mistakes are made, but they cannot be honestly weighed against hypothetical successes.
I completely agree; we do have to make the best decision we can based on very limited information. But as Christians we have some information not available to others (I say with the customary but hopefully polite arrogance of a true believer:-). We know that we are supposed to love our enemies and we know there is a spiritual benefit that loving our enemies brings. I find it difficult to square loving our nations enemies with the premeditated killing of them which is how one wages war. We are supposed to imitate Christ, and Christ showed his love for his enemies by dying for us (see Romans 5:10 to see that we were enemies of Christ). I find it difficult to square loving our nations enemies with killing premediated killing of them. And this ignores the fact that nearly every victim of warfare is an innocent victim, be he a child caught in the cross fire or a soldier who is just trying to fight for his country the same as our soldiers fight for ours.
None of us can come up with even a half-way accurate calculation for the total effect of our actions, so in my opinion we have to have faith that by seeking to follow Jesus’ doctrine of love, all the things we really need will be added to us (Matthew 6:33). I won’t argue that my view is obviously the right one; in fact I think it’s a difficult issue. But I think the case for Christian pacifism is at least a strong one.
your friend
keith
I think any conversation on Christian pacifism ought to be moved to this post, Christian Pacifism, Christian War
In the related links, I have linked to articles that I think answer this dilemma – and I think the term “christian pacifism” is an oxymoron – that is, I do not think that pacifism is biblical, and it is certainly not a proper application of Jesus’ teaching of ‘turn the other cheek.’
“If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?”
— Art Hoppe
Hi Seeker
I’ll be following your detour. If possible, please check out my post. I really do want to continue the discussion if anyone is interested.
keith
I notice a lot of the Christian’s (even the liberal ones,hang on in there guys and gals!) who have posted here are making arguments that are deeply flawed. There is no proof of the existence of ANY god, let alone an alternately loving/vengeful god. Basing an argument on an unproven premise is irrational, feel free to delude yourselves but your position is based on faith alone. Faith is not knowledge and you do humanity a disservice by pretending otherwise. If you can’t win an argument without bringing your imaginary friend into it, perhaps your logic sucks just a teensy bit. Just a thought.
There is no proof of the existence of ANY god, let alone an alternately loving/vengeful god
That all depends on what kind of proofs you will accept, how you might define God, and whether or not you are willing to define faith in other ways than blind faith.
Hi Ed:
Here’s a fact about arguments: every valid argument can be written as a formal argument, starting with premises and applying proper logic to those premises one draws proper conclusions. Since human beings are finite, then it is a fact that all of our arguments–even if you put them all together–have a finite number of statements, which means necessarily they start with unproved premises. If using unproved premises makes a position irrational then every position ever is iirational.
This limitation on what can be proved (depending on how you use the word “proof”) is inherent the our finitude. For example, I would point out that you cannot prove you have any opinion about anything, because you cannot show us what’s going on inside your mind. Suppose you believe that theism is irrational; you cannot offer any evidence that this is really your opinion (your claim is perfectly consistent with your simply stubborning and sinfully refusing to bow down to the Lord). I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF THAT, I AM JUST MAKING A POINT. You cannot prove your claim but you are perfectly rational to believe you really are an atheist. Therefore–and the reader should pay close attention to the narrowness of my conclusion–it is not inherently irrational to believe something even if yuo cannot prove it to someone else.
your Friend
Keith
which means necessarily they start with unproved premises. If using unproved premises makes a position irrational then every position ever is iirational.
Try having this discussion with evolutionist believers. They will not get it.
Keith,
“…all of our arguments–even if you put them all together–have a finite number of statements, which means necessarily they start with unproved premises.”
But Keith, what made your argument invalid was that it’s premise begins with an implicit supernatural agent and concludes with a supernatural agent. That just won’t do, logically.
Now, what you wrote above is also questionable. Consider this argument…
1. All men are mortal.
2. Cineaste is a man.
3. Cineaste is mortal.
Now, even if you argue that 1 and 2 are unproven, there is substantial evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. That cannot be said when you include the supernatural in your premises. By definition, there is no evidence to prove the supernatural exists. That is why the supernatural is always considered a matter of faith by definition.
Cin
Hi Cineaste:
I do have a couple of comments about your comments. So here I go:
You wrote: “…all of our arguments–even if you put them all together–have a finite number of statements, which means necessarily they start with unproved premises.”
But Keith, what made your argument invalid was that it’s premise begins with an implicit supernatural agent and concludes with a supernatural agent. That just won’t do, logically.
I don’t agree that I implicitly assumed any supernatural agent, but I’ll need to compare my argument to the classic Socratic syllogism you quote below to demonstrate my point. So….
Now, what you wrote above is also questionable. Consider this argument…
1. All men are mortal.
2. Cineaste is a man.
3. Cineaste is mortal.
Now, even if you argue that 1 and 2 are unproven, there is substantial evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
The analysis of the evidence for (1) and (2) could be written in the form of a formal argument. For example:
A. If [this particular set of facts] is actually factual then it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
B. [This particular set of facts] is actually factual.
C. Therefore it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
This argument doesn’t presuppose its conclusion because neither premise contains the assumption that it’s unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal. Either premise separately is consistent with some men not being mortal. But when you put those premises together it is NOT possible for any men to be non-mortal–taken together they ENTAIL the universal morality of men.
This is the same for my argument. Any of the premises individually are consistent with there not being an Intelligent First cause of the universe, so the argument doesn’t assume its conclusion. But taken together, they entail intelligent creation of the universe. But this isn’t an example of assuming my conclusion, it is an example like any other example of deductive reasoning.
That cannot be said when you include the supernatural in your premises. By definition, there is no evidence to prove the supernatural exists. That is why the supernatural is always considered a matter of faith by definition
None of my premises included the existence of the supernatural. They boiled down to (this really oversimplifies my argument mind you):
(a) IF there were no supernatural, the natural would not exist. This doesn’t presuppose the existence of the supernatural since the premise taken alone could be true even if the supernatural didn’t exist.
(b) The natural does in fact exist. This premise also doesn’t assume the supernatural exists.
Thus, neither premise assumes the supernatural exists. But taken together the ENTAIL the existence of the supernatural, the same as for any deductive argument.
What I have described above is a simple matter of deductive logic. There is a logical problem with the way science reasons, but getting into that would take us off point, and right now it would too easy for people to get the idea that my philosophical and logical points argue that science is invalid. Let me assure you I think science is quite a good tool to figure out how the real world is., But there are areas that science cannot touch; too often atheists misunderstand that.
your Friend
keith
Hi Seeker:
I actually was trying to do just that. I know of some evolutionary folk who get it just fine (I am one of them). I even know some atheists who get it.
your Friend
keith
Keith,
“I don’t agree that I implicitly assumed any supernatural agent…”
Your first premise:
1. There must be some sufficient reason [“equivalent to cause”] for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics.
I asked: “What evidence could I possibly present, what argument could I possibly make about the first cause being a natural event, that would be accepted by you?”
You reply: “The answer IS none.”
You just ruled out a natural “first cause.” So, that leaves only a supernatural “first cause” for the “existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics.” The supernatural is implicit in your 1st premise as the only explanation for “natural phenomena” right? Likewise, your conclusion is that the universe is a result of a supernatural agent.
Also, it’s a magical explanation. No evidence exists to validate your first premise.
“But there are areas that science cannot touch; too often atheists misunderstand that.”
Keith, did you watch this?
Ann Druyan: Science and the unknown
There are “areas that science cannot touch.” By definition, this area is also known as the Supernatural. Now, religion tells us they KNOW the supernatural exists. Religion claims to posses knowledge for which there is no evidence. That’s presumptuous. Atheists do not claim the existence of the supernatural for lack of evidence. That’s unassuming.
“Any of the premises individually are consistent with there not being an Intelligent First cause of the universe, so the argument doesn’t assume its conclusion.”
You have said that the first cause must be supernatural and you won’t accept my natural explanations for first cause. My “natural” first cause argument is implicitly “unintelligent” or “unguided.” Your “supernatural” first cause argument is implicitly “intelligent” or “guided.” If it’s otherwise, please provide an example of an “unintelligent” “unguided” supernatural event.
Cin
OK, Cin, since you like this argument, how about this one?
1. Life can not come from non-life using natural processes (good assumption based on all scientific observation to this time)
2. There is life on earth
3. Therefore, all life on earth must have originated from an originating, non-natural (supernatural) source
Again, I agree that the first step is an assumption, and it can and should be evaluated for likelihood. And the others can logically follow. But it all depends on the soundness of your first assumption.
Hi Cin:
My first premise doesn’t say there must be a non-physical first cause since it doesn’t say there has to be a first cause at all.
I did watch the video; I thought Ann Druyan spoke well, was very polite and she articulated the standard argument very well, but I remained unimpressed by the standard argument. She seems unaware of the fact–and it is a fact–that science has to depend on untestable assumptions to even get off the ground. This isn’t a flaw of science, it is a quality that science shares with every form of human thinking. I illusrated this fact in my comments about the “all men are mortal” syllogism you posted.
yuor friend
Keith
Keith, in the context of your argument, “intelligent creative supernatural agent (God)” is implicit in the phrase “sufficient reason (cause).” Your argument ends where it begins.
“…in my comments about the “all men are mortal” syllogism you posted.”
This too suffers from from the same circular reasoning…
A. If [this particular set of facts] is actually factual then it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
B. [This particular set of facts] is actually factual.
C. Therefore it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
I’ve put in bold where your conclusion is already implicit in your first premise.
Cin
Hi Cin:
You wrote: Keith, in the context of your argument, “intelligent creative supernatural agent (God)” is implicit in the phrase “sufficient reason (cause).” Your argument ends where it begins.
I don’t think so. If the premise There must be some sufficient reason for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics. assumed the supernatural existed it would be logically impossible that said premise be true if there were no supernatural. But it isn’t logically impossible for the premise to be true in a world with no supernatural, and I can give you an example of just such a situation: if there were an infinite regression of causes then there could always be a prior physical cause for any physical process.
If the argument I posted about the evidence for the claim “all men are mortal” were circular, then you could never reasonably conclude that all men are in fact mortal. I would challenge you to cite the evidence for universal mortality and–this is the crux of the matter–demonstrate how those set of facts count as evidence for the claim. If you do anything more than just insist that it’s obvious then you will be making assumptions for which yuo have no evidence.
your friend
keith
Keith, before we continue, can you grant that this argument is circular because the conclusion is implicit in the first premise…?
A. If [this particular set of facts] is actually factual then it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
B. [This particular set of facts] is actually factual.
C. Therefore it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
If you can’t grant grant this, I don’t believe that you will be willing to grant any of my other points.
Seeker, your argument is invalid. It’s invalid, meaning the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises because, one can say that Earth was seeded with life from somewhere else. Maybe just remove the word “Earth” from your argument.
Keith,
I also noticed that the first two premises seem redundant. They are phrased…
If [this particular set of facts] is actually factual…
It’s essentially saying, “If this set of facts are facts…”
Cin
Hi Cin:
The rephrase the premise to [this particular set of facts]. I was being cute.
your friend
keith
Also Cin:
I cannot grant that the conclusion is implied in the premise. This is because IF the conclusion were implied in the premise then it would be logically impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. But this isn’t the case for premise A; without premise B. the conclusion C doesn’t follow.
Also, without an argument of the form I offered, can you demonstrate that the evidence supports the claim that all men are mortal. Please note that the mere fact (if it be a fact at all) that there has never been a man who was not mortal doesn’t logically imply universal mortality of man–you need another premise to draw that conclusion.
your friend
keith
Keith,
A. If [this particular set of facts] is actually factual then it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
B. [This particular set of facts] is actually factual.
C. Therefore it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
Do you see what I see in bold? It’s the conclusion C in premise A. It’s circular and it’s obvious and you are being obstinate.
“I was being cute.”
…
Sir, if you can’t grant the obvious, I see no reason to continue.
Cin
Cin:
How dare you call me sir:-)
But you misunderstand what it is for an argument to be circular. A circular argument is one that assumes as a premise the truth of the conclusion. My argument doesn’t do that. I don’t know how familiar you are with formal logic, but the argument I offered was of this form:
1. IF A is true then B is true.
2. A is true
3. therefore B is true.
In my argument,
A = [this particular set of facts],
B = it is unreasonable to doubt that all men are mortal.
The conclusion of the argument is B. For my argument to be circular, B being true would have to be contained in one of my two premises. But that’s not the case. Premise (1) doesn’t presuppose the truth of B; it merely says that IF a particular condition holds THEN B is true. Premise (2) doesn’t presuppose the truth of B either; it merely says that condition A holds. Taken separately, neither premise implies the truth of B, but together they logically entail B. That’s the way it is with all deductive arguments and if that’s circular then all deductive reasoning is automatically fallacious.
I do notice that you have yet to respond to my challenge to show how one can draw the conclusion that the evidence supports universal human mortality without using an argument of the form I presented. The reason I ask this is that I guarantee that your argument will depend on a premise just like the one you objected to (you probably won’t actually state the premise, but without the premise your conclusion won’t follow logically from the evidence). If you aren’t willing to actually examine how you draw conclusions from evidence, if you are more interested in hanging on to your faith than in critically examining it, then I suppose there isn’t much reason to continue this discussion.
I hope you reconsider the challenge.
your Friend
keith
1. IF A is true then B is true.
2. A is true
3. therefore B is true.
“A circular argument is one that assumes as a premise the truth of the conclusion.” And, you have done so. You have already assumed B is true because of A. So, your argument is circular reasoning. Here is your argument…
1. IF A is true then B is true.
2. A is true
3. therefore B is true.
1. If the Bible tells me so then I know the Bible is true.
2. The Bible tells me so.
3. Therefore, I know the Bible is true.
I know the Bible is true.
Friend Keith, I hope you can see how circular this is now. You now have a picture.
“Also, without an argument of the form I offered…”
The form is invalid. It’s circular reasoning. I’ll be happy to discuss this with you once you grant the obvious; that your reasoning is circular.
Cin
Hi Cin:
I guess we are stuck here. The argument (with the A’s and B’s) is exactly the kind of argument you’d see in a textbook on formal logic and it isn’t circular. In fact, it has a formal name: modus ponens. Look it up if you don’t agree. I suppose we’ll have to discuss some other thing until then.
yuor friend
Keith
Keith, I think this article would interest you…
Circular reasoning (also called ‘begging the question’) is an informal fallacy of presumption. “These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion, but because the premises presume what they purport to be true. Begging the question attempts to hide the fact that a certain premise may not be true…” (P. J. Hurley, Logic, 3rd ed., Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, Ca., 1988, pg. 136). Later, Hurley writes under the heading “Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)”:
Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. If the reader or listener is deceived into thinking that the key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound, when in fact it may not be. Two requirements must be met for this fallacy to occur:
1. The argument must be valid. [i.e., the structure of the argument must follow rules of validity – A. Thorn]
2. Some form of phraseology must be used to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise.
The kind of phraseology used varies from argument to argument, but it often involves using the conclusion to support the questionable premise. (Ibid., 137)
Thank you, Mr. Hurley, for this clarification. Now, notice what Mr. Hurley states: “it [the fallacy of begging the question, or circular reasoning] often involves using the conclusion to support the questionable premise.” Oh really? This is backwards, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the premises be asserted to support their conclusion rather than the other way around? Where have we seen this before? I can think of a couple examples.
Let’s start out simple:
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q).
Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
Simple modus ponens format: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. The argument may be said to be valid, just as Mr. Hurley stipulated. Okay, fine. But is it true? Well, that’s where the problem comes in. Look at the phraseology. See the problems? Where do you suppose the problem lies? Correct, the problem lies in the first premise. Premise 1 errs in its presumption, a classic question-begging give-away. Premise 1 presumes that the Bible is a reliable and trustworthy source of claims. However, this is not established. It is presumed. Many people accept this form of argument as sound, however, not realizing that the argument is just another instance of circular reasoning. After all, if you substituted “Koran” in place of “Bible” in the above example, you still maintain the same validity (modus ponens), but with this change you would be establishing the ‘truth’ of a competing religion. Would you accept the argument then? Or, does this shift only highlight the erroneous presumption involved in the original example?
By his own statements (see above), CVT seems to believe that such arguments may be accepted into the realm of knowledge. Some will say, “So what?” A mind is a terrible thing to squander.
Now let’s look at another example of circular reasoning in progress:
Premise 1: If we presuppose the existence of God (P), then we can be certain that such a being exists (Q).
Premise 2: We presuppose the existence of God (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, we can be certain that God exists (:Q).
How’s that one? Is this argument valid in form? Well, let’s see. It seems to follow the basic pattern of modus ponens: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. I have inserted these variables into the terms of the argument to show their position. Now, can you see how this argument is begging the question from the preceding? First, you might want to identify the troublesome phraseology. Does the argument achieve soundness? Where do you suppose is the troublesome phraseology that Hurley mentions? Perhaps some will think that there is no troublesome phraseology here, that the argument is completely sound and reliable. But does the conclusion necessarily follow from the premises? If I replace ‘God’ in the above syllogism with ‘tooth fairy’, does the argument achieve the same truth status? Or, let’s see if the same soundness is achieved if we alter the argument slightly in a different manner:
Premise 1: If we presuppose the non-existence of God (P), the we can be certain that such a being does not exist (Q).
Premise 2: We presuppose the non-existence of God (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, we can be certain that God does not exist (Q).
Same format, same distribution of terms, same model of validity. In fact, this argument is completely parallel with the former with some very minor exceptions. A few terms have been varied, but the logical process is basically identical [5]. Now, it is quite humorous to note that some folks will accept the first variation as true while rejecting the second variation as false. Why is that, do you suppose? Are both sound? Are there no premises of questionably true character in either case? Do the conclusions necessarily follow the premises? Perhaps, one will say, that there are no errant presumptions in the first variation (the “pro-god’s-existence” version), but that the second variation (the “con-god’s-existence” version) does presume erroneous facts. How can this be? Neither argument provides a justification for either of the premises that the other does not, so we must examine each argument as equals, not conferring the benefit of the doubt to either one over the other. Agreed? No? Yes? Not sure? I’m bored and I don’t want to think about this any more?
1. [If] All men are mortal. [Then Cineaste is mortal.]
2. Cineaste is a man.
3. Cineaste is mortal.
This ^ looks reasonable.
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q).
Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
This is not reasonable. And neither is this:
Premise 1: If we presuppose the existence of God (P), then we can be certain that such a being exists (Q).
Premise 2: We presuppose the existence of God (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, we can be certain that God exists (:Q).
Nor is the con argument (God does not exist) using the same reasoning.
This is a reasonable argument:
1. IF the Bible contains valid information, then God exists.
2. The Bible contains valid information.
3. God exists.
OR
1. IF the Bible does not contain valid information, then God does not exist.
2. The Bible does not contain valid information.
3. God does not exist.
Nobody really can prove either of those premises about the validity of what is in the Bible in the #1 space beyond all doubt, can they?
Some people will see evidence FOR the bible being true, some people will see evidence to the contrary.
Both are actually reasonable arguments, though, right?
This is a reasonable argument:
1. IF the Bible contains valid information, then God exists.
2. The Bible contains valid information.
3. God exists.
Using the exact same logic…
1. IF the Qu’ran contains valid information, then Allah (God) exists.
2. The Qu’ran contains valid information.
3. Allah (God) exists.
Both the Qu’ran and Bible contain valid (factual) information like the existence of Jerusalem, etc. but God’s existence does not follow from that.
Keith, do you see how your use of modus ponens is circular?
Cin
Ok, then:
1. If the Bible (or Koran) contains valid information concerning God (or Allah), then God (or Allah) exists.
2. The Bible (or Koran) does contain valid information concerning God (or Allah).
3. God (or Allah) exists.
OR
1. If the Bible (or Koran) does not contain valid information concerning God (or Allah), then God (or Allah) does not exist.
2. The Bible (or Koran) does not contain valid information concerning God (or Allah).
3. God (or Allah) does not exist.
Still both reasonable arguments. Still with unprovable evidence. Just like this one:
1. If evolution is absolute fact, then God is absolutely non-existent.
2. Evolution is absolute fact.
3 God is absolutely non-existent.
and
1. If evolution is not absolute fact, then God is not absolutely non-existent.
2. Evolution is not absolute fact.
3. God is not absolutely non-existent.
None of that necessarily follows. The supernatural cannot be proved or disproved. Not even in simple modus ponens. That’s the flaw in Keith’s logic; that is exactly what he is attempting to do. Forgive me Lawanda, but I don’t want to get sidetracked from my discussion with Keith. I am hoping he will respond to my demonstration of modus ponens as circular reasoning.
1. If the Bible tells me so then I know the Bible is true.
2. The Bible tells me so.
3. Therefore, I know the Bible is true.
I know the Bible is true.
The supernatural cannot be proved or disproved.
I don’t mean to distract you, but if that is the case in your opinion, why do you try to disprove it to those who see the evidence (in the Bible) for the supernatural?
You say our argument (those who believe the bible is true) is unreasonable, or not logical. But if you look at those I posted above… Is not one argument just as “reasonable” or “logical” as the other, when in fact (and by your own opinion, even) there is no way to prove or disprove anything about the supernatural, or God’s existence?
And, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of fairies. Nor do I have to respect the beliefs of those who see evidence of fairies. Nor should I. Neither do you. Nor should you.
Hi C:
We are getting somewhere now. You agree that the argument I presented is a valid logical form (modus pones); your objection is that the argument is based on unverified premises. So I repeat the challenge I offered you before. Let me be more detailed:
1. Pick any scientific theory or claim or whatever at all.
2. State as much evidence as you know for that claim.
3. Explain how the supposed evidence actually supports the claim, without having to resort to saying something like “it’s obviously true that these things support the claim”.
To be open about what I am aiming at here: I claim that you will either have to use some premise that you haven’t supported OR you will have to play the “it’s obvious” card. If you you use the unsupported premise, you prove my point. If you claim obviousness, well that’s the same claim theists make when we say the existence of the universe is evidence for God. I can make the same exact objections to your case when you try to meet the challenge as you have used against my argument. I have issued the challenge a few times now; is there some reason you don’t want to take it?
your friend
Keith
Keith,
“I have issued the challenge a few times now; is there some reason you don’t want to take it?”
Yes. Because I don’t want to change the subject yet. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. First, grant that your argument, which uses modus ponens form, is circular reasoning. I don’t understand your obstinacy. This article mirrors what I have been saying throughout this thread.
Example of a modus ponens form argument with circular reasoning.
1. If the Bible tells me so then I know the Bible is true.
2. The Bible tells me so.
3. Therefore, I know the Bible is true.
I know the Bible is true.
Keith, I think that you take pride in your arguments which is good, but please take care that you don’t become so prideful that you can’t admit a mistake.
Cin
P.S. If you find that I have erred in my reasoning, please point it out. I’ll grant it to you if you can show me.
Hi Cineaste:
I cannot admit that modus ponens is circular reasoning, nor can I admit that basing an argument on a premise that I cannot prove to be true is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is nothing more than using the conclusion of an argument to allegedly justify the premise that led to the conclusion. Such an argument goes round and round and round, hence the adjective “circular”.
Now unless you think trivial semantic disputes (such as what name should apply to a kind of argument) are important, then my refusing to agree with your terminology shouldn’t prevent you from meeting the challenge. You agree my argument is logically valid, your complaint is that I haven’t offered any justification for the premises of my argument. I completely agree with you there. Our disagreement hinges on my claim that you cannot conclude that the evidence supports anything without either using similar argumentation or asserting that your interpretation of the evidence is obviously correct. You can prove me wrong by successfully meeting the challenge.
your Friend
keith
“I cannot admit that modus ponens is circular reasoning…”
1. If the Bible tells me so then I know the Bible is true.
2. The Bible tells me so.
3. Therefore, I know the Bible is true.
So, this ^ is not circular reasoning? Even Lawanda called it “not reasonable.” If you can’t admit the above is circular then I don’t think that you will grant any other points I may make about your challenge. That’s too bad. I think I would have acquitted myself well with your challenge even though 1. you are stacking the deck against me and 2. I don’t even know what stand I took that led to your challenge..
Cineaste, this example is circular, but the others are not necessarily so. The reason this one is circular is that (1) is circular even by itself (recursive dependency on the Bible). But if you replaced it with “If Brit Hume tells me so, then I know the Bible is true”, it would no longer be circular. It would just be unevidenced.
Keith has readily admitted this, saying, “your complaint is that I haven’t offered any justification for the premises of my argument. I completely agree with you there.” In other words, he can’t prove his argument any more than I can prove that Brit Hume is a reliable authority on matters of scriptural truth. If his argument is circular in nature, it’s only because he’s requiring people to share his beliefs about the universe before he can convince them about his beliefs in the universe. But that’s not inherent in his argument’s structure, just it’s content.
Keith, neither Cineaste nor I find it convincing that an intelligent entity created the universe. It sounds like you’re saying that we can’t prove that you’re wrong to think otherwise. It’s not that our interpretation of the evidence is “correct”, as much as you just don’t have any evidence at all for your argument. All you have is a baseless assertion that an intelligent creator can (somehow) side-step the problem of recursive causality. Your claim is not convincing, and my inability to conclusively prove it impossible is not evidence to support it. You may disagree, but that an a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
I don’t even like coffee.
Purely analytical statements don’t prove empirical facts. The most obvious clue that Keith’s argument is bogus is that there is no reference to anything observable or testable in the real world. The “truth” of his beliefs resides entirely in his intuitions about how the universe operates. These sorts of arguments are typically hollow, because they rely on one person’s intuitions to prove that their other intuitions are sound. Unsurprisingly, not everyone finds them so compelling.
Hi Stewart:
I had attempted to post a reply to Cineaste but it didn’t work out. God apparently providentially screwed up my post, knowing that your response would be much better than mine. Thanks be to God:-)
You made the following statement to me (or directed toward my argument or some such thing) and I’d like to comment. You wrote:
Keith, neither Cineaste nor I find it convincing that an intelligent entity created the universe. It sounds like you’re saying that we can’t prove that you’re wrong to think otherwise. It’s not that our interpretation of the evidence is “correct”, as much as you just don’t have any evidence at all for your argument. All you have is a baseless assertion that an intelligent creator can (somehow) side-step the problem of recursive causality. Your claim is not convincing, and my inability to conclusively prove it impossible is not evidence to support it.
I think you have it 83% wrong. When I originally posted the theistic argument, I explained why I was offering it. I was presenting an argument that was not vulnerable to the “who created God?” retort. My argument succeeded because its first premise wasn’t that everything that exists needs a creator, just that a specific kind of thing needs a creator. Thus when the argument ends up with God as creator, the argument doesn’t raise the “who created God” question.
Now my argument is obviously not convincing to anyone who doesn’t believe its premises. If my goal were to convince you that God exists I’d have to find premises that you believe which entail God’s existence. But that was never my goal. On the other hand, if the premises seem true to me then I am logically compelled to accept the conclusion.
And I assure you I would never claim that your inability to prove my premises wrong is evidence that they are right.
I am not sure what you mean by “having evidence for an argument”. It is true that I don’t have evidence for the premises of the argument, but given those premises, the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God–conclusive evidence in fact. And there’s the point: the interpretation of evidence depends on premises that are not themselves supported by evidence. No matter what set of facts you offer in support of a claim, unless the person you are trying to convince accepts the premises your interpretation is built on they will not see the facts as evidence. Should they accept those premises? That’s not something decided by evidence any more than the axioms of a mathematical proof are themselves proved.
Purely analytical statements don’t prove empirical facts. The most obvious clue that Keith’s argument is bogus is that there is no reference to anything observable or testable in the real world.
Stewart, I have to disagree. My argument did too refer to something observable: the existence of the universe. If the fact that my argument included unobservable premises made the argument bogus, then all interpretation of evidence would be bogus.
The “truth” of his beliefs resides entirely in his intuitions about how the universe operates. These sorts of arguments are typically hollow, because they rely on one person’s intuitions to prove that their other intuitions are sound. Unsurprisingly, not everyone finds them so compelling.
Your above commentary is a little loaded, but that’s not really much of a deal. I’ll have to quibble with a couple of your points.
1. The truth of my beliefs doesn’t depend on any of my intuitions.The things I believe are either true or false independent of any intuitions I might have.
2. Whether or not my beliefs count as knowledge depends on how accurate are my intuitions on the matter. You seem to be saying that basing one’s beliefs on intuitions is inherently cognitively wrong. But the fact is: all of our beliefs are based ultimately on intuitions. Your belief that your experience isn’t just a massive hallucination, or that your memories have something to do with past experiences is based on intuitions that you have. There is no getting away from that.
And there is nothing extra beyond intuition that grounds your knowledge–any additional facts you know are themselves grounded on your intuitions. Let me offer an argument of sorts for this last claim:
1. Intuition is the sense that a claim is true.
2. If you don’t have an intuition that a claim is true, you could only believe the claim was true if it were based on some kind of proof.
3. You couldn’t believe the proof unless you believed the premises.
4. Ultimately you couldn’t believe the premises unless you had an intuition the premises were true.
The proof mentioned above is the evidence plus its interpretation. The basis for your interpretation of the evidence is the set of premises, premises that are grounded in your intuition. The foundation of this entire edifice is your intuition. Now my intuitions cannot ground your beliefs; only your intuitions can do that. The best an arguer can do is make his case and let the hearer listen. if the listener finds the argument compelling then fine. If the listener isn’t convinced but has his belief shaken, fine too. if the listener hears the argument but is unmoved. That’s also just fine.
your Friend
keith
Question #1. Is this argument in the modus ponens logical form.
Question #2. Is this argument circular reasoning.
There are only two possible answers for each question, yes and no. Stewart, you say “Cineaste, this example is circular…” Fine, no need to elaborate. That is what I want to hear from Keith’s lips. I want Keith to state the truth. That argument is a demonstration of modus ponens with circular reasoning. Now for your other point…
“…your complaint is that I haven’t offered any justification for the premises of my argument. I completely agree with you there.”
Even if I agreed with both premises and felt they were justified by evidence, this argument would still be circular!! It wouldn’t change the fact that the argument is it’s own source. No Stewart, my complaint is that Keith won’t admit this is circular reasoning. Why is Keith loath to admit this? Because to do so would be an admission that his original argument, which is the crux of this entire thread, is circular as well.
Keith has already ruled out anything natural as “sufficient cause” leaving only the “supernatural.” A “natural” first cause argument is implicitly “unintelligent” or “unguided.” Keith’s “supernatural” first cause argument is implicitly “intelligent” or “guided.” If it’s otherwise, please provide an example of an “unintelligent” “unguided” supernatural event. Stewart, I’ve placed in bold where Keith is presupposing his conclusion in the premises. Just as in the argument, “1. If the Bible tells me so then I know the Bible is true. 2. The Bible tells me so. 3. Therefore, I know the Bible is true” it has nothing to do with whether I agree with the premises. It has everything to do with circular reasoning; presupposing the conclusion. Keith thought to use the modus ponens as a defense that his argument could not be circular. I have demonstrated it can be both modus ponens and circular.
Cin
hi C:
The argument:
1. If the Bible tells me so then I know the Bible is true.
2. The Bible tells me so.
3. Therefore, I know the Bible is true.
Question #1. Is this argument in the modus ponens logical form.
Question #2. Is this argument circular reasoning.
There are only two possible answers for each question, yes and no. Stewart, you say “Cineaste, this example is circular…” Fine, no need to elaborate. That is what I want to hear from Keith’s lips. I want Keith to state the truth. That argument is a demonstration of modus ponens with circular reasoning. Now for your other point…
Cineaste you couldn’t be more mistaken. IF the argument is “modus ponens” (as you seem to agree it is) THEN it is not a circular argument. That’s just basic logic, not a controversial point. Your demonstration that modus ponens can be circular betrays a misunderstanding of modus ponens. (I comment on this immediately below.)
Now there IS a circular argument that is pretty close to the above argument, but it isn’t modus ponens. The first premise of this argument would be
1′: If the Bible says it’s true, then it’s true.. Notice the difference between 1′ and 1. 1′ means the same thing as “the Bible is true”., since the Bible being true means “what the Bible says can be trusted”. But your statement 1 says something different from “the Bible is true”; it says the Bible claiming to be true imparts to you the knowledge that the Bible is true. That’s different from the conclusion the knowledge that Bible is true has in fact been imparted to you and it’s pretty obviously false to boot.
So 1′ says the Bible is true and goes on to conclude that the Bible is true. That is circular.
Stewart, my complaint is that Keith won’t admit this is circular reasoning. Why is Keith loath to admit this? Because to do so would be an admission that his original argument, which is the crux of this entire thread, is circular as well.
It is very irritating Cineaste that you imagine you can tell what my motivation is for not agreeing with your claim about circularity. I expect it irritates you whenever some Christian tells you the reason you don’t bow down to Christ is that your sinful pride prevents you from obeying the one to whom obedience is owed. The reason I won’t “admit” that the argument is circular is because I don’t think it is circular. In fact, I will indulge a little arrogance here: I know it’s not circular because I understand what a circular argument is.
And I am sorry to have to continue to notice that you will not show how any set of facts can act as evidence. I cannot read your mind but I have to say that the reason you gave for your reluctance gives the impression of being an excuse:-). You don’t need an excuse since the challenge is impossible to meet.
your friend
keith
It seems I will have to repost this… (I recommend reading the full article)
Circular reasoning (also called ‘begging the question’) is an informal fallacy of presumption. “These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion, but because the premises presume what they purport to be true. Begging the question attempts to hide the fact that a certain premise may not be true…” (P. J. Hurley, Logic, 3rd ed., Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, Ca., 1988, pg. 136). Later, Hurley writes under the heading “Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)”:
Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. If the reader or listener is deceived into thinking that the key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound, when in fact it may not be. Two requirements must be met for this fallacy to occur:
Thank you, Mr. Hurley, for this clarification. Now, notice what Mr. Hurley states: “it [the fallacy of begging the question, or circular reasoning] often involves using the conclusion to support the questionable premise.” Oh really? This is backwards, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the premises be asserted to support their conclusion rather than the other way around? Where have we seen this before? I can think of a couple examples.
Simple modus ponens format: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. The argument may be said to be valid, just as Mr. Hurley stipulated. Okay, fine. But is it true? Well, that’s where the problem comes in. Look at the phraseology. See the problems? Where do you suppose the problem lies? Correct, the problem lies in the first premise. Premise 1 errs in its presumption, a classic question-begging give-away. Premise 1 presumes that the Bible is a reliable and trustworthy source of claims. However, this is not established. It is presumed. Many people accept this form of argument as sound, however, not realizing that the argument is just another instance of circular reasoning. After all, if you substituted “Koran” in place of “Bible” in the above example, you still maintain the same validity (modus ponens), but with this change you would be establishing the ‘truth’ of a competing religion. Would you accept the argument then? Or, does this shift only highlight the erroneous presumption involved in the original example?
By his own statements (see above), CVT seems to believe that such arguments may be accepted into the realm of knowledge. Some will say, “So what?” A mind is a terrible thing to squander.
Now let’s look at another example of circular reasoning in progress:
How’s that one? Is this argument valid in form? Well, let’s see. It seems to follow the basic pattern of modus ponens: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. I have inserted these variables into the terms of the argument to show their position. Now, can you see how this argument is begging the question from the preceding? First, you might want to identify the troublesome phraseology. Does the argument achieve soundness? Where do you suppose is the troublesome phraseology that Hurley mentions? Perhaps some will think that there is no troublesome phraseology here, that the argument is completely sound and reliable. But does the conclusion necessarily follow from the premises? If I replace ‘God’ in the above syllogism with ‘tooth fairy’, does the argument achieve the same truth status? Or, let’s see if the same soundness is achieved if we alter the argument slightly in a different manner:
Premise 1: If we presuppose the non-existence of God (P), the we can be certain that such a being does not exist (Q).
Premise 2: We presuppose the non-existence of God (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, we can be certain that God does not exist (Q).
Same format, same distribution of terms, same model of validity. In fact, this argument is completely parallel with the former with some very minor exceptions. A few terms have been varied, but the logical process is basically identical [5]. Now, it is quite humorous to note that some folks will accept the first variation as true while rejecting the second variation as false. Why is that, do you suppose? Are both sound? Are there no premises of questionably true character in either case? Do the conclusions necessarily follow the premises? Perhaps, one will say, that there are no errant presumptions in the first variation (the “pro-god’s-existence” version), but that the second variation (the “con-god’s-existence” version) does presume erroneous facts. How can this be? Neither argument provides a justification for either of the premises that the other does not, so we must examine each argument as equals, not conferring the benefit of the doubt to either one over the other. Agreed? No? Yes? Not sure? I’m bored and I don’t want to think about this any more?
“The reason I won’t “admit” that the argument is circular is because I don’t think it is circular.”
It seems you are the only one. Stewart, Lawanda and I say circular. Why is that? You tell me then so I don’t fill in the blanks. Is it because you recognize circular reasoning and we don’t?
“And I am sorry to have to continue to notice that you will not show how any set of facts can act as evidence.”
I honestly think I can meet this challenge but this discussion came first. The challenge was your addition. And yes, I also think we can resolve the original argument if we are both rational. I just feel you are ignoring both me and the article I cited. For example…
Cin
I am sorry for interrupting again, but this:
If the Bible states that God exists
Is why, it seems, you are calling it circular.
The argument should be:
1. If the Bible is TRUE, then God exists.
2. The Bible is true.
3. God exists.
If the Bible is true – not if it says it is true!
Keith, you’re sort of using ultimate epistemological uncertainty to defend your own lack of evidence. The reason that mathematical axioms are useful is because most everyone agrees that they are true, even if they can’t be explicitly proven. The premises of your argument are some very specific assertions about the universe, and requirements of its creation. These assertions are not testable, because there is no physical evidence for the controversial aspects of them. Since we don’t agree on them, they are not a useful basis for an argument. Whether your argument is valid, given their hypothetical truth, is only relevant to the “who’s-better-at-formal-logic” argument that you and Cineaste seem to be having.
You seem to understand that no naturalist would find your argument convincing, but you are still putting it forward and implying that its a good argument. Since I think the premises are leaps-of-faith, I am certainly not inclined to grant any such thing. The structure of an argument with bad premises is entirely beside the point.
Hi Stewart:
I still disagree with about 83% of your comment. You said:
Keith, you’re sort of using ultimate epistemological uncertainty to defend your own lack of evidence.
I disagree with this statement. I am not defending my lack of evidence for my premises because IMO it needs no defense. All evidence interpretation requires unverified premises and mine is no different. Given the premise I used–one you don’t accept–the existence of the universe IS evidence for God. You say below that because my premises aren’t testable this makes the argument useless. I also disagree and below I’ll explain why.
The reason that mathematical axioms are useful is because most everyone agrees that they are true, even if they can’t be explicitly proven.
This all depends on what the purpose of the argument is. Suppose you think an axiom is true even though no one else agrees. An argument using that axiom would be useless to convince the axiom-skeptic but it wouldn’t be useless to convince you of theorems that follow.
The premises of your argument are some very specific assertions about the universe, and requirements of its creation. These assertions are not testable, because there is no physical evidence for the controversial aspects of them.
In fact, there cannot be physical evidence for them or against them. That’s why science is useless as a tool for studying them.
Since we don’t agree on them, they are not a useful basis for an argument.
Only if the goal of the argument was to convince you that God exists.
You seem to understand that no naturalist would find your argument convincing, but you are still putting it forward and implying that its a good argument. Since I think the premises are leaps-of-faith, I am certainly not inclined to grant any such thing. The structure of an argument with bad premises is entirely beside the point.
Whether or not the argument is good depends entirely on the purpose of the argument. “Goodness” is sort of a relative quality. The argument clearly isn’t convincing to a person who doesn’t share the premises, but I have to tell you that when I was an atheist the argument was good enough to get me thinking. The argument is logically valid, and I believe the argument is sound too, because by definition of soundness an argument is sound if it is logically valid and based on true premises. But the reason I gave the argument isn’t that I thought yuo ought to be convinced by it. I gave it as an example of an argument that didn’t raise the “who created God” question. You can question my premises, but “who created God?” is an invalid retort to the argument I offered.
your friend
keith
Hi Cin:
I won’t speculate why any person in particular might mistakenly believe an argument is circular. But it’s a fact that no modus ponens argument is circular. This is because modus ponens doesn’t assume the truth of the conclusion. Any argument that does assume the truth of its conclusion isn’t modus ponens.
Now I have a guess as to why a person might see circularity in the Bible argument you and Lawanda were talking about. Consider the argument:
1. If the Bible claims to be reliable then it is reliable.
2. The Bible claims to be reliable.
3. Therefore the Bible is reliable
Hurley asked this question in his article: why think that premise 1 is true. My suspicion is that those who see circularity in the argument believe that the reason the theistic-arguer believes his premise 1 is that he already believes the Bible is reliable. So you see his argument as having an unstated premise:
0. The Bible is reliable
1. If the Bible claims to be reliable then it is reliable [this follows from premise 0].
2. The Bible claims to be reliable.
3. Therefore the Bible is reliable
That argument is circular because its first (but unstated) premise is the same as the conclusion. But without premise 0, the argument isn’t circular. the only problem is that it is based on a premise that hasn’t been verified. You seem to claim that it is possible to create an argument based only on premises that have been verified and that one can verify a premise with evidence without having to rely on either (a) an unverified premise or (b) brute assertion that the premise is true. This is the crux of our disagreement, not what label we ought to apply to an argument. That’s just semantics.
Keith has already ruled out anything natural as “sufficient cause” leaving only the “supernatural.” A “natural” first cause argument is implicitly “unintelligent” or “unguided.” Keith’s “supernatural” first cause argument is implicitly “intelligent” or “guided.” If it’s otherwise, please provide an example of an “unintelligent” “unguided” supernatural event.
A couple of points:
1. After Stewart pointed it out, I agreed that a natural cause could be a sufficient cause of another natural event. This doesn’t conflict with my first premise since my first premise is that every physical cause has a sufficient cause. It doesn’t claim the cause can’t be a physical cause.
2. The above premise doesn’t imply the existence of supernature since it is consistent with there being an infinite chain of natural causes. Still my first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of supernature.
3. The other premise of my argument doesn’t imply the existence of supernature either. The other premise was that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. this premise could be true without supernature if it is possible that not every natural cause has a natural cause (thus allowing the first cause to be natural).
4. Therefore neither premise assumes the existence of supernature.
The proper response for you would be to challenge the premises of my argument, not to label them. Say you don’t believe them, ask me to provide support for them, that’s all legitimate. But labelling them and insisting that I must agree with your label otherwise the discussion stops seems silly.
You wrote also this:
I honestly think I can meet [keith’s] challenge but this discussion came first. The challenge was your addition. And yes, I also think we can resolve the original argument if we are both rational. I just feel you are ignoring both me and the article I cited.
I’m not sure the present discussion is going to advance past the semantics stage. I believe I have addressed Hurley’s points, I know I have tried to address your points as well as Hurley’s I’m not ignoring anything. But suppose we just agree that I am somehow unable to see that your labelling is correct. So let’s move on to my challenge. Pick a scientific claim, state the facts you count as evidence and explain how they actually support the scientific claim.
your friend
Keith
Dear Keith,
I feel like the Canadians in this conversation.
Your Friend,
Cineaste
P.S. I’ll have a proper response to your post tomorrow. I just thought you might appreciate some humor in the meantime :) Adios
Hi Cin:
Thanks for the link; it was funny.
your friend
Keith
I agree with this:The argument is logically valid, and I believe the argument is sound too, because by definition of soundness an argument is sound if it is logically valid and based on true premises.
And I never knew it before!
I have to say, Keith and Cineaste, that I really appreciated this thread. I learned a lot! Thank you both!
Keith,
“The proper response for you would be to challenge the premises of my argument, not to label them. Say you don’t believe them, ask me to provide support for them, that’s all legitimate.”
You know I already did this, repeatedly. I presented numerous scientific theories detailing how the universe could have begun through natural means or that the process itself is eternal. You rejected them all, essentially saying “Magic Man did it” was a far more plausible explanation. :P
“I agreed that a natural cause could be a sufficient cause of another natural event… my first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of supernature.” -Keith
Contradicts…
“Why do I think the existing physical processes require a creator? Only because that necessity seems clearly true to me.” -Keith
On the one hand you say a natural cause is “sufficient reason for the existence of all natural phenomena and laws of physics” and on the other hand you claim the necessity of a creator. Is it possible the creator of the universe is “natural” or would He have to be “supernatural?” Is this before or after your concession to Stewart?
“But it’s a fact that no modus ponens argument is circular. This is because modus ponens doesn’t assume the truth of the conclusion. Any argument that does assume the truth of its conclusion isn’t modus ponens.”
Keith, any argument involving the supernatural, as this does, is circular because it MUST presuppose the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural MUST BE presumed. That’s why it’s called Faith.
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q).
Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
Keith, the definition of modus ponens is: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. If the above is not modus ponens, then what is it? This is an example of modus ponens.
Your conclusion, “6. Taking these premises together, the universe must at the bottom of it all be the result of an intelligent creative agent” also presumes the existence of God. It wouldn’t be “faith” if it were otherwise.
—————————————————————
It seems to me if anything supernatural is included in the premises of an argument which concludes with the existence of the supernatural, then that argument implicitly becomes unsound. Why? Because the supernatural must be presumed and presupposed. Belief in the supernatural (Fairies, Gods, Ghosts, Demons, etc) is a matter of faith, not fact. No empirical evidence exists to validate the truth of supernatural existence. So, there is no evidence from which to judge the validity of the premises.
If your argument contains only natural phenomenon in it’s premises, then implicitly those premises are irrelevant to the supernatural. Natural premises can never lead to a supernatural conclusion. Why? Because the supernatural is not governed by natural law. And so, an argument with natural premises can never arrive at a supernatural conclusion. Such an argument can never be valid because the conclusion implicitly can’t follow from the premises.
Only arguments with natural premises with natural conclusions can be both valid and sound.
Friend Keith, my head hurts after coming up with this but could you please try to prove me wrong?
Cin
P.S. I’ll take your challenge now. Let’s establish the rules. If the challenge amounts to the equivalent of me making 2 plus 2 equal 3 then lets just forget it :)
Hi C:
“The proper response for you would be to challenge the premises of my argument, not to label them. Say you don’t believe them, ask me to provide support for them, that’s all legitimate.”
You know I already did this, repeatedly. I presented numerous scientific theories detailing how the universe could have begun through natural means or that the process itself is eternal. You rejected them all, essentially saying “Magic Man did it” was a far more plausible explanation. :P
A couple of thingss:
1. I was just talking here about the whole circularity charge; I wasn’t saying that you hadn’t made other objections to the theistic argument. There were other arguments that were not about the existence of God, ones yuo called circular. What I said about challenging premises applies to those as well.
2. But I thought you said you accepted the premises every physical process must have a sufficient cause and I don’t remember you challenging the premise there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
“I agreed that a natural cause could be a sufficient cause of another natural event… my first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of supernature.” -Keith
Contradicts…
“Why do I think the existing physical processes require a creator? Only because that necessity seems clearly true to me.” -Keith
I think I meant to say the existing physical processes require a cause, contrasting that with the idea that the existing physical process could just happen to exist.
“But it’s a fact that no modus ponens argument is circular. This is because modus ponens doesn’t assume the truth of the conclusion. Any argument that does assume the truth of its conclusion isn’t modus ponens.”
Keith, any argument involving the supernatural, as this does, is circular because it MUST presuppose the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural MUST BE presumed. That’s why it’s called Faith.
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q).
Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
“Simple modus ponens format: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. The argument may be said to be valid, just as Mr. Hurley stipulated. Okay, fine. But is it true? Well, that’s where the problem comes in. Look at the phraseology. See the problems? Where do you suppose the problem lies? Correct, the problem lies in the first premise. Premise 1 errs in its presumption, a classic question-begging give-away. Premise 1 presumes that the Bible is a reliable and trustworthy source of claims. However, this is not established. It is presumed.…
In the above yuo correctly point out that premise ((1) hasn’t been established, it has been presumed. Using the terminology from mathematics, it is taken as an axiom, from which theorems (like God exists) are proved. YOU call that “question begging”. Well, in that argument THE question is whether God exists, so the argument doesn’t beg THE question. But like every argument ever it begs A question: are the premises of the argument true? You seem to think it is possible to construct an argument based on only premises that have been verified. That’s where my challenge comes in; I want to see you try to do just that. I’ll propose some ground rules below.
Many people accept this form of argument as sound, however, not realizing that the argument is just another instance of circular reasoning. After all, if you substituted “Koran” in place of “Bible” in the above example, you still maintain the same validity (modus ponens), but with this change you would be establishing the ‘truth’ of a competing religion.
There is a non sequitor in the above. That an argument of the same form as the Bible argument could be produced for the Q’uran doesn’t make the argument circular. A circular argument is logically invalid, not logically valid as you admit both arguments are. And the fact that a parallel argument could be made for the Q’uran doesn’t make the Bible argument unsound (or the Q’uran argument unsound). Either argument would be unsound if it’s premises were false–that’s what it takes for an argument to be unsound. On the other hand, if one isn’t justified in believing the premises are true then one isn’t justified in accepting the argument as sound. So again it comes down to this: are you right that we ought only accept premises that have been verified. So again, the challenge.
Would you accept the argument then? Or, does this shift only highlight the erroneous presumption involved in the original example?”
I would not accept the Q’uranic argument because I don’t believe its first premise. SInce I do believe the first premise of the biblical argument, I would see the argument as sound. But for me, the biblical argument for God is unconvincing because if I didn’t already believe in God I wouldn’t believe the Bible was trustworthy when it says God exists–I wouldn’t believe the first premise.
Keith, the definition of modus ponens is: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. If the above is not modus ponens, then what is it? This is an example of modus ponens.
Correct. Both the Q’uranic and the Biblcial arguments are modus ponens and thus are valid.
Your conclusion, “6. Taking these premises together, the universe must at the bottom of it all be the result of an intelligent creative agent” also presumes the existence of God. It wouldn’t be “faith” if it were otherwise.
My conclusion presumes God exists? My conclusion is God exists. But none of the individual premises presume the existence of God.
—————————————————————
It seems to me if anything supernatural is included in the premises of an argument which concludes with the existence of the supernatural, then that argument implicitly becomes unsound. Why? Because the supernatural must be presumed and presupposed. Belief in the supernatural (Fairies, Gods, Ghosts, Demons, etc) is a matter of faith, not fact. No empirical evidence exists to validate the truth of supernatural existence. So, there is no evidence from which to judge the validity of the premises.
A fact is whatever corresponds to reality. To say that the supernatural isn’t fact is to say that in fact there is no supernatural. There is no possible empirical evidence to establish the non-existence of the supernatural.
If your argument contains only natural phenomenon in it’s premises, then implicitly those premises are irrelevant to the supernatural. Natural premises can never lead to a supernatural conclusion. Why? Because the supernatural is not governed by natural law. And so, an argument with natural premises can never arrive at a supernatural conclusion. Such an argument can never be valid because the conclusion implicitly can’t follow from the premises.
It seems to me your reasoning would apply to all kinds of things, not just the supernatural. In fact, I think this will become clear when we get into the challenge. I am looking forward to it.
Only arguments with natural premises with natural conclusions can be both valid and sound.
This seems like a brute assertion to me.
Friend Keith, my head hurts after coming up with this but could you please try to prove me wrong?
Well, I dunno about that, but I have offered responses to your post at least. But let’s move on to the challenge.
P.S. I’ll take your challenge now. Let’s establish the rules. If the challenge amounts to the equivalent of me making 2 plus 2 equal 3 then lets just forget it :)
I can’t promise you that:-). But here’s the challenge:
1. Chose any scientific theory.
2. Describe the experiments that you say support the theory.
3. Explain how the results of those experiments support the theory.
I will ask you questions about your responses. I’ll be playing the role of an intelligent person. You will sincerely.
That’s it.
your friend
Keith
I’ll leave it to readers to determine if this argument is circular or not. It’s obvious to me it is. You have already agreed it is modus ponens format.
“But for me, the biblical argument for God is unconvincing because if I didn’t already believe in God I wouldn’t believe the Bible was trustworthy when it says God exists–I wouldn’t believe the first premise.”
Yes, it all seems rather circular :)
“What I said about challenging premises applies to those as well.”
What was your argument? That, “it’s a fact that no modus ponens argument is circular?” I disagree. The demonstration above presupposes God’s existence. Inclusion of the supernatural invalidates an otherwise valid form. It begs THE question.
“But I thought you said you accepted the premises every physical process must have a sufficient cause and I don’t remember you challenging the premise there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.”
We are talking about your “theistic” argument now? My answer is that “sufficient cause” is natural. I think deriving a supernatural conclusion from premises grounded in the natural is invalid. Does this accurately describe your “theistic” argument?
“I think I meant to say the existing physical processes require a cause, contrasting that with the idea that the existing physical process could just happen to exist.”
Ware that you don’t contradict yourself again. This “cause” is not supernatural is it? It’s natural.
“To say that the supernatural isn’t fact is to say that in fact there is no supernatural.”
No. This does not follow. I can rightly say I don’t believe in fairies. That does not mean they don’t exist. I can say the same for your interpretation of God.
“There is no possible empirical evidence to establish the non-existence of the supernatural.”
That’s precisely why the inclusion of anything supernatural in an argument invalidates it. There is no standard, no reference for supernatural claims. There is no empirical evidence for or against them. Not even an inference is possible. It’s pure faith.
————————————————————–
I don’t want to enter this challenge blindly. Please, clearly state your objective beforehand. Also, scientific theories are not facts. They are inferences. Will I be able to utilize inference in this challenge? Also, in the interest of brevity, if you can, please do not respond to my comments above the dotted line. We’ve covered that enough I think.
Cin
Hi Cin:
To honor your request I will not address (most of) what you wrote above dotted line. But I do have a question about part of it, the first part. You wrote:
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q). Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P). Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
I’ll leave it to readers to determine if this argument is circular or not. It’s obvious to me it is. You have already agreed it is modus ponens format.
But I don’t see how this is circular. The first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of God–it’s logically posisble for the IF/THEN to be true even if God doesn’t exist. Neither does the second premise. So where is the presupposition that God exists? Is it (according to you) that the only reason to believe premise (1) is if you already believe God exists, so accepting the premise itself is presupposing the existence of God?
About the challenge: I thought I was clear about my goal: I aim to show that one necessarily assumes some unverified premises when one says that a set of facts supports some claim. I expect that this will become apparent when you try to show the evidential support for a scientific theory of your choice. You go on to ask me:
Please, clearly state your objective beforehand. Also, scientific theories are not facts. They are inferences. Will I be able to utilize inference in this challenge?
Sure as long as your inferences don’t depend on any unverified premises. I think this will prove to be impossible.
your friend
keith
Hi Cin:
To honor your request I will not address (most of) what you wrote above dotted line. But I do have a question about part of it, the first part. You wrote:
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q). Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P). Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
I’ll leave it to readers to determine if this argument is circular or not. It’s obvious to me it is. You have already agreed it is modus ponens format.
But I don’t see how this is circular. The first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of God–it’s logically posisble for the IF/THEN to be true even if God doesn’t exist. Neither does the second premise. So where is the presupposition that God exists? Is it (according to you) that the only reason to believe premise (1) is if you already believe God exists, so accepting the premise itself is presupposing the existence of God?
About the challenge: I thought I was clear about my goal: I aim to show that one necessarily assumes some unverified premises when one says that a set of facts supports some claim. I expect that this will become apparent when you try to show the evidential support for a scientific theory of your choice. You go on to ask me:
Please, clearly state your objective beforehand. Also, scientific theories are not facts. They are inferences. Will I be able to utilize inference in this challenge?
Sure as long as your inferences don’t depend on any unverified premises. I think this will prove to be impossible.
your friend
keith
“The first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of God–it’s logically possible for the IF/THEN to be true even if God doesn’t exist.”
It doesn’t matter. In either case it’s a matter of faith. That is what makes this argument F.U.B.A.R. circular. You said yourself, “There is no possible empirical evidence to establish the non-existence of the supernatural.” I agreed and went a step further: “That’s precisely why the inclusion of anything supernatural in an argument invalidates it. There is no standard, no reference for supernatural claims. There is no empirical evidence for or against them. Not even an inference is possible. It’s pure faith.
“So where is the presupposition that God exists?”
It occurs here, “then God exists (Q).” Begging the question, aka “Fallacy of many questions”, occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself. Inclusion of the supernatural in the premises is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself. The result, circular reasoning in what would otherwise be a valid form.
“I aim to show that one necessarily assumes some unverified premises when one says that a set of facts supports some claim.”
Can you clarify what you mean by “unverified?” For example, having never met you in person, I can infer that you have a heart. I would have to meet you and take an x-ray to physically establish this as fact, though I would accuse you of quibbling at that point.
Hi Cin:
First, the circular reasoning issue:
The argument you say is circular:
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q).
Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
You seem to be saying that in premise 1, the premise is “If the Bible states God exists…”. How is that a premise at all; it seems to me that it is just a fragment of an idea. Since you use the same letter (P) to refer to the phrase “The Bible states that God exists”, you seem to be saying that the phrase “IF the Bible says that God exists…” means the same thing as the complete sentence “The Bible [does in fact] say that God exists”, Is that what you meant?
Now about the challenge, you asked:
Can you clarify what you mean by “unverified?” For example, having never met you in person, I can infer that you have a heart. I would have to meet you and take an x-ray to physically establish this as fact, though I would accuse you of quibbling at that point.
For the purpose of this discussion I would say you could count as fact anything that you could measure or actually observe in a laboratory, with money being no object. So for the heart thing, it’d be OK for you to just say that yuo did an X-ray on me and describe what you saw.
your friend
Keith
Hi Keith,
I was away this weekend so I haven’t had the chance to respond till now. I think I have explained as much as I can to you why modus ponens arguments like this are circular…
Premise 1: If the Bible states that God exists (P), then God exists (Q).
Premise 2: The Bible states that God exists (P).
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (Q).
I think anyone who reads this thread can look at the argument above and determine for themselves if it’s circular or not.
Now for your challenge. Would you say this argument, also in modus ponens, is the truth?
1. If line A is parallel to line B, then they do not intersect.
2. Line A is parallel to line B.
3. Therefore, line A and line B do not intersect.
Hi Cin:
You wrote:
Now for your challenge. Would you say this argument, also in modus ponens, is the truth?
1. If line A is parallel to line B, then they do not intersect.
2. Line A is parallel to line B.
3. Therefore, line A and line B do not intersect.
Well, I don’t see how this counts as my challenge, since my challenge asked you to present a scientific theory and demonstrate how evidence can suport this theory. But to answer your question…
Yes I would say it’s true. This is because I consider the meanings of the words “parallel” and “line” to include the usual Euclidean properties. If two “lines’ intersect they are not lines, that’s how I’d use the word “lines”. Often mathematicians talk about non-euclidean geometries. One example uses the word “line” to refer to Great Circles on a sphere and an example of a pair of two “parallel” lines would be the Meridians on the globe of the earth. Those “lines” intersect at two places and the reason they intersect is that they are not really lines because they are curved. That’s how I see it. So the above argument is valid, but the first premise is false unless you are using the word “line” to mean something different from when Euclid used it.
your friend
keith
“I thought I was clear about my goal: I aim to show that one necessarily assumes some unverified premises when one says that a set of facts supports some claim.”
1. Pick any scientific theory or claim or whatever at all.
1. If line A is parallel to line B, then they do not intersect.
2. Line A is parallel to line B.
3. Therefore, line A and line B do not intersect.
Is this what you had in mind?
Hi Cin:
That’s not really what I had in mind because it isn’t a scientific theory; it’s math. Math is a tool used by scientists, but it isn’t science itself.
maybe you could pick something like evolution for the challenge. I accept evolution so it might be the perfect tool for examining the epistemological issue–we won’t get side tracked into the whole Creationism v. Evolution thing that way.
your friend
keith
your friend
Ke
“That’s not really what I had in mind because it isn’t a scientific theory; it’s math.”
Well, I hope that you are not just trying to show me that theories are theories.
“…maybe you could pick something like evolution for the challenge.”
Okay, how do you want me to phrase evolution in a valid argument?
Hi Cin:
What I was trying to do is point out that mathematics is different from science. Look, I know the difference between theory as it is used by scientists a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena such Einstein’s theory of relativity (from dictionary.com) and how it is used by lay people.
How should you express evolution as a valid argument? For the challenge, that’s up to you.
your friend
Keith
Keith,
“How should you express evolution as a valid argument? For the challenge, that’s up to you.”
It’s modus ponens and not at all circular right? :) Just kidding Keith.
Okay, how about this?
Source: A Counterclockwise Paley (2002) by Kyle J. Gerkin
Cin
Hi Cin:
Your argument is listed below. I have to ask you what support you have for some of the premises below, and how the facts you cite do support the premises.
1. Organized complexity is the product of conscious design or natural selection.
2. Intelligence is an example of organized complexity.
What facts do you have to support this premise? I ask because it seems to me that what is produced by an intelligence is often organized complexity, but intelligence would be the ability to produce organized complexity, not organized complexity itself.
3. Thus, intelligence is the product of conscious design or natural selection.
4. Intelligent beings are capable of designing intelligence (i.e. computer artificial intelligence programmed by humans).
5. However, only one mechanism has been discovered that can produce intelligence without requiring the existence of a prior intelligence. That mechanism is evolution through natural selection.
What facts do you have to support the premise that natural selection is able to produce intelligence?
6. Thus, the first intelligence evolved.
7. Evolution requires:
A. Self replication (heredity) with slightly imperfect copying fidelity (mutation).
B. An environment that can favor one replicator over another (competition).
C. Time for (a) and (b) to manifest themselves.
8. None of the conditions in (7) were present before the existence of the universe.
9. Thus, intelligence did not exist prior to the universe.
10. Therefore, the universe did not have an intelligent creator.
Here the conclusion is NOT “evolution is true”, yuor conclusion is that the universe doesn’t have an intelligent creator. I was kind of expecting you to show how a scientific claim is justified by evidence, but I guess this is good enough. I have asked about a couple of your premises, so specifically I would ask you to verify those premises. if you cannot then you are using unverified premises which was my point.
your friend
keith
Keith,
“…if you cannot then you are using unverified premises which was my point.”
{Rolls Eyes} Keith, these are inferences. I thought you said induction was fine? “For the purpose of this discussion I would say you could count as fact anything that you could measure or actually observe in a laboratory” So, empirical inference.
So…
“What facts do you have to support this premise? (2. Intelligence is an example of organized complexity.)”
Well, I’d say the fact our brains are not simple but complex. That’s why brain surgeons get paid so well. I’d also say it’s a fact our brains are ordered (structured) rather than unordered (unstructured). I’d also say it’s a fact humans are intelligent, comparatively speaking, to other animals.
“What facts do you have to support the premise that natural selection is able to produce intelligence?”
The fact I am speaking to you. If you believe in evolution, one can infer that natural selection is able to produce intelligence.
Really Keith, this is exactly the kind of objection I anticipated you raising. I’ve already addressed my concern when I asked you, “Can you clarify what you mean by “unverified?” For example, having never met you in person, I can infer that you have a heart. I would have to meet you and take an x-ray to physically establish this as fact, though I would accuse you of quibbling at that point.”
Keith by asking for “facts” you are essentially asking for the actual X-Rays of your heart. My inference that you do indeed have a heart, despite the fact I can’t “prove” it having never met you should be adequate. As I said, if it’s otherwise, I say you are simply quibbling.
Thanks for the challenge.
Cin
P.S. The {Rolls Eyes} comment is just to indicate I’ve already anticipated your objections. It’s not a comment on the validity of your objections.
Thanks Keith,
Cin
“I was kind of expecting you to show how a scientific claim is justified by evidence…”
Well, “The Origin of Species” is a perfect example of this. You wanted evolution specifically so why reinvent the wheel? Darwin does what you ask much better than I.
Hi Cin;
I think you didn’t get the point of some of my questions.
1. What facts do you have to support this premise? (2. Intelligence is an example of organized complexity.)”
Well, I’d say the fact our brains are not simple but complex. That’s why brain surgeons get paid so well. I’d also say it’s a fact our brains are ordered (structured) rather than unordered (unstructured). I’d also say it’s a fact humans are intelligent, comparatively speaking, to other animals.
I agree to all those facts, that wasn’t my question. I had a couple of issues, actually.
A. The brain is complex to be sure, but the brain isn’t intelligence. Intelligence is the property of being to to do smart things (he he he), perhaps create complexity. But that’s not really my question.
B. I would agree that a particular example organized complexity–the brain–displays intelligence, but what do you have to support the idea that intelligence requires organized complexity?
“What facts do you have to support the premise that natural selection is able to produce intelligence?”
The fact I am speaking to you. If you believe in evolution, one can infer that natural selection is able to produce intelligence.
But it doesn’t really matter if I believe in evolution; what evidence do you have that evolution is what produced human intelligence?
Really Keith, this is exactly the kind of objection I anticipated you raising. I’ve already addressed my concern when I asked you, “Can you clarify what you mean by “unverified?” For example, having never met you in person, I can infer that you have a heart. I would have to meet you and take an x-ray to physically establish this as fact, though I would accuse you of quibbling at that point.”
Keith by asking for “facts” you are essentially asking for the actual X-Rays of your heart. My inference that you do indeed have a heart, despite the fact I can’t “prove” it having never met you should be adequate. As I said, if it’s otherwise, I say you are simply quibbling.
Thanks for the challenge.
I must disagree that my objections are the kind you suggested. Using the heart as an example, I already told you you didn’t need to actually X-ray ,me—since you could X-ray me if you met me face to face and had an X-ray machine, you can simply say you’ve done so and describe the results. I am not quibbling here. The point is that scientists draw inferences from actual observations; all I am doing is asking you to specify what those actual observations might be, and to explain how they support the thing you suggest. If you cannot do so, then how can you say that you understand what science has verified?
Your friend
Keith
“The point is that scientists draw inferences from actual observations; all I am doing is asking you to specify what those actual observations might be, and to explain how they support the thing you suggest.”
Well then, if this is the case, then I refer you to Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Like I said, Darwin explains evolution better than I. I am playing along with you but I don’t see where we disagree. You have allowed that science is based on inference from observation. That’s the point I wanted to make. Do you want me to explain the scientific method to you? I’m sure you already know it. This “challenge” is starting to feel like a pointless game.
“I agree to all those facts, that wasn’t my question.”
You need to be clear. What exactly are you asking? Why are you asking? Do you have a point? It would help if you made it. Does it have something to do with the supernatural? Inquiry minds want to know.
“But it doesn’t really matter if I believe in evolution; what evidence do you have that evolution is what produced human intelligence?”
Actually, it does matter. If you don’t accept evolution then of course, you can’t accept this premise.
Keith, I have to ask. Are you just messing around?
Cin
Falwell cartoon break!
http://russellsteapot.com/comics/
Hi Cin:
You wrote:
Well then, if this is the case, then I refer you to Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Like I said, Darwin explains evolution better than I. I am playing along with you but I don’t see where we disagree. You have allowed that science is based on inference from observation. That’s the point I wanted to make. Do you want me to explain the scientific method to you? I’m sure you already know it. This “challenge” is starting to feel like a pointless game.
I’m sorry I haven’t been clear enough here. I have indeed agreed that drawing inferences from observation is valid; the point of my challenge was to examine the underlying structure and presuppositions that go into that kind of inductive reasoning. My expectation was that you’d actually pick some scientific claim, cite the evidence for it, and explain how those observations lead to the inference. When you did that I claim we’d see exactly what presuppositions you used and more importantly we’d see that necessarily the inference depends ultimately on some unverifiable premises. This means that being based on unverifed premises doesn’t automatically disqualify an inference from being valid. You seemed to equate being based on unverified premises with “circular reasoning”, but given that necessarily all scientific inference is based on some unverifiable premises, your claim implies that science itself is “circular reasoning”. We can of course use any term we want to label the kind of reasoning science uses–we could call it Billy Jim if we want to–but since the phrase “circular reasoning” has such negative connotations (:-) I’d prefer to use something else.
we can leave the anti-science rhetoric to the post modernists:-)
your friend
Keith
Keith,
It might be easier to see what you mean if you provided your own demonstration. Gravity might actually be a much better example for your point. Science does not know what gravity actually is. Yet, gravity can be measured in all sorts of ways and it’s effects easily felt. So, the premises used in any argument to answer the question “What is gravity?” would necessarily include the “unverified.” Scientists know a lot about “how” gravity works but not much about the “why” gravity works. Then again, I turn to science for the “how” and philosophy for the “why.” I think religion and superstition try to answer “why” but I find their supernatural grounding questionable. However, I do think the teachings of Jesus on the mount is a good guide for how people should behave ethically if they can’t figure it out for themselves.
Cin
Hi Keith,
You seemed to equate being based on unverified premises with "circular reasoning…"
Nope, the circular reasoning in your argument is from presupposing the existence of something that not even an inference based on observation can be made.
"…but given that necessarily all scientific inference is based on some unverifiable premises, your claim implies that science itself is "circular reasoning"."
You are crediting me with claims I have never made. :( As you said yourself, "The point is that scientists draw inferences from actual observations." One can not say the same about faith. That's why science is NOT circular reasoning but faith based arguments seem to be since they must presuppose the supernatural. There is no place for the supernatural in either science or a logical argument. Thanks for the discussion.
Your friend,
Cineaste
Hi Cin:
Our argument about circular reasoning seems to be going in a circle. I say the argument I gave for God does NOT assume the existence of God, you say it does. Since the circle will never end, we can jump off right now.
So how about my "sunrise challenge". What is your response?
your friend
Keith
Oops, Cin, I hadn’t yet given the “sunrise challenge”. let me rectify things.
Hi Cin:
I actually don’t think gravity is a good example because what scientific theories about gravity do–Newton’s theory for example, or Einstein’s–is describe the way objects move in the vicinity of other objects. The “theory” part is really just a succinct description of a pattern. It’s amazing, astounding, stupendous–miraculous even–that we can describe the movement of so many different things separated by such large distances with really simple math. But I don’t think the example illustrates that much.
So consider this really simple example: the sun rise. We are virtually certain the sun will rise tomorrow at very close to the time it rose today. The challenge is this: state what facts support this claim and explain how it is they support it.
About Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. I agree with part of the spirit of what you say–or at least what I think you think based on what you say:-). I am guessing you think that it’d be morally better to do what Jesus taught on the Mount because you actually see that he was right about it, and would be a lesser thing–but good nonetheless–if you followed it just on faith.
I would perhaps say it differently. I’d say that what Jesus taught on the Mount was that it’s the deep intentions in your heart that determine the moral value of your behavior. If you are angry with your brother, that is the same “juice” that makes murder wrong; lust in your heart for someone, that’s the same “juice” that makes adultery wrong. Here’s what that juice is: seeing other people as the “other”. Other people are pawns to make us happy, sin tells us; they don’t matter for themselves.
From this idea it follows that we are wrong to judge others based on what we see from the outside looking in; one could only validly judge another person if one could see inside his heart, and since we have the same “juice” as they, we have NO justification for thinking we are better than they. We are also wrong to fight back with violence, because to do so is to NOT love our enemies, it is to see our enemies as “others”.
To obey the Sermon requires you to love, and I would suggest it isn’t possible to do this without understanding it’s the right thing to do. Maybe you agree with all that. Cool (or of you don’t agree, that doesn’t mean you aren’t cool?, but what you don’t share with me is the belief that Christ can help us to eventually get it.
your friend
keith
Keith,
"I say the argument I gave for God does NOT assume the existence of God, you say it does."
If your argument includes the supernatural anywhere, by definition, it must be presupposed. By definition, one can't infer the supernatural (Gods, Ghosts, Leprechauns, etc) from observation. If one could, these would then be empirical and natural, not supernatural. Including matters of pure faith in an otherwise logical argument, invalidates it.
Like this…
"So how about my "sunrise challenge". What is your response?"
My apologies. Please, reiterate and I will respond in good faith. :)
Cin
If your argument includes the supernatural anywhere, by definition, it must be presupposed.
So does my example fail this test? I have modified it since your first response.
1. Life can not come from non-life using natural processes (good assumption based on all scientific observations we have of the universe to this time)
2. There is life on earth
3. Therefore, all life on earth must have originated from an originating, non-natural (supernatural) source
You might argue that we don't have enough data, but the fact is, based on the data we do have, this is a reasonable conclusion. Your claim that life could have been seeded from somewhere else is a deus ex machina (pun intended) solution, not a scientific one.
And previously, you said my third point does not follow. I absolutely think that it does – your real beef is with my first point, but that proves my previous point, which is that the whole construct depends on the validity of the first assumption. If you assume point 1 to be true (and you may have lots of data to support such an assumption, though it be an assumption and not a fact), your argument is somewhat circular.
Hi Cin:
I am not up for another round on the merry-go-round wrt the supposed circularity of my theistic argument. How about the sunrise challenge; up for it? I had forgotten to post it but I rectified that above.
your friend
keith
Hi Keith, I'm going to address Seeker's posts first if you don't mind.
First a correction Seeker. I misspoke. I meant, "If your argument includes the supernatural anywhere in the premises, by definition, it must be presupposed." The conclusion needs to be in the premises in order to be a presupposition and circular.
"Your claim that life could have been seeded from somewhere else is a deus ex machina (pun intended) solution, not a scientific one."
It's scientific. Check out this Christian Science Monitor article, How comets may have 'seeded' life on Earth You can find more scientific articles about this by doing a Google search. I thought you would trust the CS Monitor more though.
Also, I disagree with your first premise. Here is the Wiki entry "Origin of life." It's good as an overview only. Another point is that if life didn't originate from natural process, by process of elimination that leaves only a supernatural intervention. That makes the supernatural implicit in your first premise, though unstated. This results in circular reasoning, in my opinion (in deference to Keith).
———————————————————–
Keith,
"I am guessing you think that it'd be morally better to do what Jesus taught on the Mount because you actually see that he was right about it, and would be a lesser thing–but good nonetheless–if you followed it just on faith."
Yes :)
"From this idea it follows that we are wrong to judge others based on what we see from the outside looking in; one could only validly judge another person if one could see inside his heart, and since we have the same "juice" as they, we have NO justification for thinking we are better than they. We are also wrong to fight back with violence, because to do so is to NOT love our enemies, it is to see our enemies as "others"."
I do agree with the sentiment. I think it is "good" but from my perspective it's not realistic in every situation. I do very much respect the pacifist perspective because it takes courage and strength to travel that road, especially when Jesus lived. It's much easier to hit someone back when they hit you rather than control yourself. It's really a test of will and those who can do it have great moral integrity. I just think that there are times when violence is called for. It's my hope that someday, no situation will call for violence. I really do hope that the Meek shall inherit the Earth. This is something I don't think Seeker understands about Christianity. I don't think he'll accept it coming from an atheists lips either.
"So consider this really simple example: the sun rise. We are virtually certain the sun will rise tomorrow at very close to the time it rose today. The challenge is this: state what facts support this claim and explain how it is they support it."
Okay. The facts supporting sunrise are, one can calculate based upon the day of the year, when the sun will rise. Also, one can infer from the fact that the sun has risen many times in the past that the sun will rise again. It's an established pattern. I use similar reasoning in my faith that gravity won't stop working when I go to sleep tonight and that I won't float away into space. I have similar faith that my girlfriend will still be in love with me tomorrow, because of inferences I make through my observations. This is faith based on evidence which is not the same as the faith of those who believe in the Greek Pantheon, for example.
Hi C:
You wrote: Okay. The facts supporting sunrise are, one can calculate based upon the day of the year, when the sun will rise. Also, one can infer from the fact that the sun has risen many times in the past that the sun will rise again. It's an established pattern.
You have listed the facts from which you infer that the sun will rise tomorrow. Now for the trickier part: how does this conclusion follow from those facts. is it that the we know that whatever pattern occurred in the past will most likely occur in the future? is that the principle you use?
your friend
keith
PS. You suggest that non-violence isn't realistic, although you like the sentiment. In what way is it not realistic?
"…is it that the we know that whatever pattern occurred in the past will most likely occur in the future? is that the principle you use?"
Established pattern (The Law of Large Numbers) is only part of the inference. Another is that I have an idea of how sunrises work. The Earth rotates at a constant rate and orbits the sun at a constant rate. The Earth has an axis and so tilts at an angle. This angle and distance varies the sunlight depending upon the time of year, i.e. the point of where the Earth is in it's elliptical orbit: seasons. I remember recreating this as a kid with a lamp and tennis ball. One can infer that if this is how the cycle of day and night works, then the sun must rise again.
"PS. You suggest that non-violence isn't realistic, although you like the sentiment. In what way is it not realistic?"
My little brother is a police officer. If he was not willing to defend himself, he would soon be dead.
Hi Cin:
You wrote:
Established pattern (The Law of Large Numbers) is only part of the inference.
Being a math dude, I have a pretty good understanding of the law of large numbers. In a standard deck of cards, 25% of the cards are hearts. Suppose you choose a card AT RANDOM, check the suit, replace the card, and repeat that 13 times. Most likely the percentage of hearts you drew would not be 25%; you might easily draw 5 hearts, or 2 hearts or some other number. What the law of large numbers says is that IF the number of repetitions gets very large, the percentage of hearts drawn would be very close to 25%. The more repetitions the closer your percentage would be to 25%.
But if you weren't always drawing out of the same deck, the result might not come out like that. If sometimes you were using a standard deck and sometimes you were using a deck that was loaded with hearts, the law of large numbers wouldn't apply. For you to apply the law of large numbers you have to assume that you were using the same standard deck or that even if you were using different decks they were all standard decks. in other words, you have to assume that each draw was relevantly similar.
But to say that whatever happened in the past is probably what would happen in the future presupposes that the future is relevantly similar to the past. without that assumption observing the sunrise is like drawing from a different deck–the law of large numbers wouldn't apply.
So the question becomes: what justifies the assumption that the future is relevantly like the past? Maybe your stuff below is yuor justification. I'll address that below.
Another is that I have an idea of how sunrises work. The Earth rotates at a constant rate and orbits the sun at a constant rate. The Earth has an axis and so tilts at an angle. This angle and distance varies the sunlight depending upon the time of year, i.e. the point of where the Earth is in it's elliptical orbit: seasons. I remember recreating this as a kid with a lamp and tennis ball. One can infer that if this is how the cycle of day and night works, then the sun must rise again.
The assumption here is that the model you describe accurately reflects the way the sun/earth system really works. Among other things, it assumes that in the future earth will continue to move the way it moved in the past. In other words, this argument really isn't different from your law of large numbers argument above. So the challenge is: show why we are justified in assuming the future will be relevantly similar to the past when it comes to the way the earth moves?
You address my question about the non-violence being unrealistic. You said:
My little brother is a police officer. If he was not willing to defend himself, he would soon be dead.</i.
Your brother has a difficult job. My son is pursuing a career in law enforcement as well and I will be praying that he doesn't lose his life, and I'll pray right this second for your brother as well. I know you don't believe my prayer will have any practical effect, but I hope you appreciate the thought anyway. I mean well:-)
Anyway, the kind of radical non-violence I was talking about here doesn't assume that acting non-violently won't cost you–maybe even your life. It doesn't make the unrealistic assumption that necessarily my acting non-violently will inspire the murderer to lay down his gun; there is no claim that when we are called to self-sacrifice we won't have to sacrifice. I suppose some people could say your brother and my son are unrealistic because they are willing to sacrifice their safety to protect the weak. I wouldn't use the word that way though.
your friend
Keith
PS: I'll be able to post some Thursday, but on Friday I am having Rotator Cuff surgery so I'll be out of commission awhile. I'd ask for your prayers but since you are an atheist maybe you'll take an ice cold beverage of some sort and toast my doctor for me:-)
your friend
Keith
Keith,
“But to say that whatever happened in the past is probably what would happen in the future presupposes that the future is relevantly similar to the past.”
Exactly! And, when a million sunrises have been recorded by human history, it’s a safe bet we are drawing from the same deck. Thats why it’s an inference; an example of inductive reasoning. Remember, no quibbling. However, it is an inference based upon observation. This is different than faith in Zeus, Odin, Allah, or the Christian God which is not an inference based on observation at all. While my faith the sun will come up is based upon observation, faith in Gods is based on well, faith.
I did some research to support my claim…
Source: Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience/Decision Making and Reasoning
“So the challenge is: show why we are justified in assuming the future will be relevantly similar to the past when it comes to the way the earth moves?”
No. To use my metaphor, you are now asking me to stop inferring and to show you x-rays to prove you have a heart. This is what you said you wouldn’t do. At this point, I think you are merely quibbling. Your challenge had degraded into, “Show me that gravity works in Beijing even though you have never been there.”
“I’ll pray right this second for your brother as well. I know you don’t believe my prayer will have any practical effect, but I hope you appreciate the thought anyway. I mean well:-)”
I’ll take it as if you wished him well instead of praying for him. He is an atheist as well and has little patience for black cats, broken mirrors, prayers etc. You are right though, it’s the thought that counts not the mode of delivery.
“PS: I’ll be able to post some Thursday, but on Friday I am having Rotator Cuff surgery so I’ll be out of commission awhile. I’d ask for your prayers but since you are an atheist maybe you’ll take an ice cold beverage of some sort and toast my doctor for me:-)”
Keith, I hope the surgery goes well and you have a speedy recovery.
Cin
Hi C:
First, I am not quibbling:-) I am critically examining the process of inductive reasoning. To continue:
"But to say that whatever happened in the past is probably what would happen in the future presupposes that the future is relevantly similar to the past."
Exactly! And, when a million sunrises have been recorded by human history, it's a safe bet we are drawing from the same deck. Thats why it's an inference; an example of inductive reasoning.
So in other words, you derive your support for the claim that the future is relevantly like the past because of all the past events you've observed? How does that not depend on assuming that the future is relevantly similar to the past? Are you saying that because in the past your predictions of another morning sunrise turned out right therefore we ought to expect the same in the future? Again, how does that not presuppose the future is relevantly like the past?
Note I am not saying inductive reasoning is invalid–I make the same judgment you do wrt sunrises for the same reason. But (just as prominent philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell pointed out) the inductive principle isn't something that can be verified without circular reasoning. We believe we can make valid inductions because it just seems right that we can. This is no different in principle from my believing that the universe wouldn't exist unless there exists an intelligent creative source for it.
Oh yeah; and thanks for the nice wishes about my surgery. We'll keep this discussion going for as long as you are interested or I have more than one available limb for typing.
your friend
keith
Another point is that if life didn't originate from natural process, by process of elimination that leaves only a supernatural intervention. That makes the supernatural implicit in your first premise, though unstated.
Perhaps creation by an intelligent being could be considered non-natural and not necessarily supernatural.
Anyway, I find this construct objectionable for one reason – the first statement is always an assumption of fact, which in a sense can always be constructed to reach a particular conclusion. Therefore, while this construct may be useful, it is entirely dependent on the voracity of the first ASSUMPTION, and therefore proves little.
"Anyway, I find this construct objectionable for one reason – the first statement is always an assumption of fact."
Exactly so, yet some assumptions are better than others. If I assume the sun will rise tomorrow, that's a better assumption than the existence of Zeus. So, it makes for far stronger premises and hence, stronger arguments.
Keith,
“So in other words, you derive your support for the claim that the future is relevantly like the past because of all the past events you’ve observed?”
The “representativeness of the observations” and quality of evidence that supports another sunrise is quite good. Unlike presupposing the supernatural, these contribute to the strength of my inference that the sun will rise again. And, how do I know if the sun rises in Chicago that it will also rise in your town? Induction. Inference.
“How does that not depend on assuming that the future is relevantly similar to the past?”
I am assuming that future sunrises will be relatively similar to past ones. This is what makes this assumption one which is based on observable evidence and not blind faith.
“Are you saying that because in the past your predictions of another morning sunrise turned out right therefore we ought to expect the same in the future?”
Yes, given the strength of the evidence. It’s not exactly like going to the dentist and having a good experience and then expecting all future ones to be similar. That is a much more suspect assumption. Much more suspect still, is a presupposition made without any evidence at all such as belief in Gods and fairies.
“Again, how does that not presuppose the future is relevantly like the past?”
I’m counting on presupposing a future sunrise. Is presupposing a future sunrise based on blind faith or is it based upon strong observable evidence? Is a presupposition that the sun will rise more valid than say, a presupposition that Zeus exists? I think so.
“But (just as prominent philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell pointed out) the inductive principle isn’t something that can be verified without circular reasoning.”
Wasn’t it David Hume who first proposed this in his problem of induction or Descartes with undetermination? Anyway, in think you’re aware that Bertrand Russell was an atheist himself. How do I deal with the problem of induction? As I have stated above, but maybe Richard Carrier articulates this better than I…
“We’ll keep this discussion going for as long as you are interested or I have more than one available limb for typing.”
I am enjoying our talk :) I love epistemology. I’ll grant the problem of induction, which is what I think you are trying to get at. Again though, I did some searches to see if anyone responded to Hume like I did and, like Carrier, I found BonJour who says the same thing as I do.
If I guessed wrong with the problem of induction, please let me know what you are trying to prove with your sunrise challenge. I am responding in good faith.
Cin
Exactly so, yet some assumptions are better than others. If I assume the sun will rise tomorrow, that's a better assumption than the existence of Zeus. So, it makes for far stronger premises and hence, stronger arguments.
I don't disagree at all, but the fact that this construct proves nothing means it adds nothing, except maybe some clarity in what you are assuming in the first place.
And my assumption that life has never arisen from non-life, either in the labs or observed in nature, is a pretty good assumption.
BTW, my statement above is a FACT. I guess the assumption part would be: therefore, life must have arisen from a non-natural source. Either that, our you assume we just don't have enough data. I guess you could make that excuse about evolution or creationism ;)
Which means we should try to falsify one or the other. I believe that evolution has been falsified in many arenas – o wait, they just change it to exclude that data.
"And my assumption that life has never arisen from non-life, either in the labs or observed in nature, is a pretty good assumption… BTW, my statement above is a FACT."
Oh, I agree Seeker. This video proves it! "Our whole whole industry depends on this fact!"
"…non-natural source."
Translation: supernatural source. Just keeping you honest Seeker :)
Are you saying that life from non life has been observed or achieved in a lab? I am saying that these have never been observed, and THAT claim is a fact. But my conclusion that a supernatural creator made life is my CONCLUSION based on using your vaunted construct ;)
Keith, here is more about BonJour's convergence.
Source: Truth and Science
Hi Cin:
I think your position was most efficiently stated when you responded to my "same deck/different deck" treatise:-) on the law of large numbers. You said:
Exactly! And, when a million sunrises have been recorded by human history, it's a safe bet we are drawing from the same deck. Thats why it's an inference; an example of inductive reasoning.
Actually, there are some assumptions you have to make to evaluating the bet as a safe one, but since I don't want to get into Baye's Theorem I'll leave that for some other time. That a million times in the past the sun rose might make it safe to assume that we were drawing from the same deck, you have to assume the future draws are also from the deck to translate your confidence to tomorrow's sunrise. You seem to be saying that induction is what justifies the assumption, but it's not that induction justifies the assumption, it's that induction is the assumption. Without the prior assumption that induction is valid, you cannot go from evidence to inference.
So here is the point: science–being based on induction–must accept that inductive reasoning is valid, and because making inferences from evidence depends on induction, you cannot verify the inductive assumption. In other words, science necessarily depends on something unverified. This means you cannot use the principle of if X is unverified it's irrational to believe it–not if you belieev in science you can't.
your friend
keith
Keith,
"In other words, science necessarily depends on something unverified. This means you cannot use the principle of if X is unverified it's irrational to believe it–not if you belieev in science you can't."
Is this different or the same as the Hume's problem of induction? If it is, I've already addressed it. If it's not, what's the difference again?
Cin
Hi Cin:
IMO none of the answers you offered answered Hume's problem of induction. It doesn't work to say that because things worked like that a more and more times in the past therefore it is more and more likely that it will act that way in the future, not unless you assume the future will probably be like the past. The guys you quoted imagined that they had found a way around Hume's point, but really all they did was repeat the inductive principle, they didn't justify it.
your friend
keith
Hi Keith, we will have to disagree again here. Convergence makes more sense to me than what you are saying. Basically, I think the sun rising tomorrow morning is a better assumption than the existence of the supernatural. You seem to be saying that they are equally valid assumptions because one can't tell the future from what's happened in past observations. Even David Hume was a huge fan of inductive reasoning. Have you had your surgery yet? How did it go?
Cin
Hi Cin:
Tomorrow morning is my surgery and I will be a One Srmed Man for awhile (see the old TV show, the Fugitive:-), so I won't be able to continue this.
About the induction thing: I am as big a fan of induction as Hume or even Bertrand Russell. All of us use induction every day. All I am saying is that we cannot verify that induction is ever valid. Thus science, which depends on induction depends on an unverified principle. In that sense trusting induction is an example of faith. You think induction is more likely than the supernatural; I believe in both. In fact, I believe the only reason we can trust induction is because God brings it about that the universe is understandable and predictable–that induction often works is to my way of seeing it a reason to believe in God.
Anyway, it's been an enjoyable discussion. I hope things go well with you. I'll be looking forward to catching back up with all of you guys here in a few weeks.
Que Dios te bendiga:-)
keith
Hi, Keith. Please check this comic out by clicking the link.
Jesus and Mo on Faith.
"In that sense trusting induction is an example of faith."
As barmaid says, you're "equivocating" Keith. You make it sound like faith in the supernatural and science are equally valid points of view: as if belief in Zeus is just as valid as the belief the sun will rise tomorrow. It's just not true. One is clearly a better assumption than the other.
Cin