'Knowledge' of Existence

[Nihilist Virus]

You are so quick to show your biases. You are consistent that is for certain.

Is the Speed of Light Slowing Down?




Are you absolutely sure that the law of non-contradiction fails with the theory of Relativity?



Either A = A is true or it is false. How does this provide proof that A=A is false? If it is not true at all times it is false.



Provide proof that A=A is false.

Do you know what an axiomatic system is, and are you aware that there are more than one of them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. I don't understand what you mean by "absolute truths about truth" and I wouldn't describe the laws of logic with such confusing language.

Fair enough, I don't know what is really confusing but that is fine.

They're not descriptions of reality. They're the framework for descriptions of reality. This framework itself isn't a part of reality, it's a function of the mind, which itself is a product of the brain. The laws of logic transcend culture because the brain transcends culture. There's no culture out there that uses a different organ to think.

They are framework for thought. Isn't matter just part of reality? How do you in your worldview separate the two? While everyone uses the mind to think, we know very well that those thoughts differ radically sometimes. Not only do thoughts differ radically, but each person has a set of thoughts that if produced only by the chemical responses in the brain; how then do we rely on them to produce logically true and logical false statements about reality? How do we 'know' objective truth when that truth doesn't depend on our thoughts, our language or culture?

I just addressed most of this, but to answer the "we" part of your question, it is not quite the case that anyone "invented" the laws of logic. It's just that once animal brains became sufficiently complex, they began to produce distinct thoughts, and after a while some humans were able to identify three core premises from which all other thoughts were derived. Thus, the laws of logic/thought were formally codified. They weren't absolute truths waiting to be discovered, they weren't invented by anyone, they're just the set of axioms we're all using when we think logically. They're not falsifiable propositions, so calling them "true" or "truths" is somewhat redundant. We all take for granted that they're true, but the nature of these premises is such that there's no way to confirm them without first taking them for granted. It's more appropriate to call them axioms, which you may not have heard of before if your only exposure to formal logic is from apologetics. I would encourage you to go look up this term before you form your next reply.

I would say that it is more appropriate, if we are to call them something, to call them propositions. Propositions are truth bearers, but axioms works too. Whatever label you put on them they are the a priori principles of logical thought.

We don't take advantage of the LOL, we don't make a decision to use them. They are a priori to any thought we formulate. We don't take for granted that they are true, to determine any truth they have to be true.

So these principles that are necessary for any rational logical thought which are absolute objective truth were not such prior to man's brain function allowing him rational thought? Are you trying to claim that the objective truth of non-contradiction was not objective truth until man was complex enough to form thoughts? The LOL MUST be used to form logical thought. The thoughts didn't come and then the LOL came about. The LOL had to be used for thought to happen at all. You have the cart before the horse.

There is no way to describe reality without making a statement. A statement cannot be true without following the laws of logic. Therefore, all true statements about reality must follow the laws of logic. This is the only connection between logic and reality. The logical constraints apply to statements, not to reality.

Go ahead, try to say something about reality without making a statement.


"If existence exists, then it can't not exist" is a truism. It's redundant. "Existence exists" is already a negation of "Existence does not exist" as expressed by the law of non-contradiction. It doesn't say anything new or interesting.

What it says, is that the law of non-contradiction applies to all existence. It doesn't apply unless 'something' exists.

I'm asking you to use proper grammar when we're discussing the meaning of truth as a technical term, because it actually does make a difference. "True is true" is itself a statement, albeit another truism. But your original question was "Is truth true?" which needed clarification. If you mean to ask if statements that comport with reality are true, then the answer is by definition yes, but properly stated it should read "Is a truth true?" or "Are truths true?" Truth, when used as a singular noun, could refer to either a single true statement, in which case your grammar was poor, or it could refer to the label we apply to statements that comport with reality, in which case your question was incoherent.

You are probably right. I have pneumonia and I have to admit that it might be affecting my focus.

All of this is addressed elsewhere in this reply. Mankind didn't create the laws of logic any more than mankind created walking on two legs. It's a thing we do that helps us function. You have yet to demonstrate that any laws or the universe itself suggest the existence of a god.

You haven't shown yet that the LOL are products of humans. If what I say is true, it seems much more reasonable that the LOL originate in the nature of a perfect logical necessary mind which in turn must be used by humans for the ability to have rational and logical thought. The very first thought had to be structured with the LOL in order for any sense to be made.

No, but you included science in your list of things that point to God's existence, so I'm just curious as to what scientific study actually listed God's existence as a viable explanation for anything at all and how on Earth I missed it.

Science was first based on Christian Theology. Our first modern scientists worked on the premise that God made the universe uniform and intelligible. They believed that there was order and purpose in the universe. Modern Science methodology would never have gotten off the ground without those assumptions.

Have you looked up the term "axiom" yet? By "assume" the laws of logic, I mean we have to take them for granted as initial premises from which to derive all other conclusions. Any "a priori" knowledge is already based on those laws. So to say you came to know the laws of logic "a priori" is to say that you base the laws of logic on the laws of logic. You reasoned your way to reason. It doesn't work. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand. If you don't understand the terms I'm using, you can just ask me. Don't just throw words into your argument to sound smart. That's dishonest.

A priori: means before...before thought.

A priori: A priori knowledge. philosophy. A priori knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. Britannica.com

That is what I've said. The LOL have to be a priori to thought.

On your accusation that I 'throw' words into my argument to make me sound smart; I have no interest in wanting to sound smart. I want to convey to the best of my ability (whether that is minimal in your estimation or not) something that I feel is of the utmost importance to all people. I want everyone to think about things that they do take for granted. If I am right like I claim and you are wrong, it is urgently important to share my views and ask you to voice yours and see what really makes more sense. I am not about showing I am 'smarter' than you or anyone else. I am all about discussing views and determining truth because if you or others don't really care about truth what do you care about?

 

[gaara4158]

They are framework for thought. Isn't matter just part of reality? How do you in your worldview separate the two? While everyone uses the mind to think, we know very well that those thoughts differ radically sometimes. Not only do thoughts differ radically, but each person has a set of thoughts that if produced only by the chemical responses in the brain; how then do we rely on them to produce logically true and logical false statements about reality? How do we 'know' objective truth when that truth doesn't depend on our thoughts, our language or culture?

Well, now you’re asking what constitutes the best epistemology, not how the laws of logic came to be universally understood. It’s a good question that’s widely contested among philosophers, but I find the topic tedious to discuss in a setting of Christian apologetics where it’s guaranteed our epistemological starting points differ. I guess we can go there if you like, but it’s going to take over the main subject of this thread.

I would say that it is more appropriate, if we are to call them something, to call them propositions. Propositions are truth bearers, but axioms works too. Whatever label you put on them they are the a priori principles of logical thought.

Axioms are a type of proposition, so it’s not wrong to say they are propositions, it’s just more accurate to call the LOL axioms. And again, that’s not what a priori means. A priori knowledge is the result of logical deduction independent of any experience or observations. This is in contrast with a posteriori knowledge, which is contingent upon experience or observations. But the LOL are required before any deduction takes place, they themselves are not a priori knowledge. There’s another word for the types of propositions that must be taken for granted before any logical deduction can take place. And that word is axioms. Whoever told you otherwise has done you a disservice.

So these principles that are necessary for any rational logical thought which are absolute objective truth were not such prior to man's brain function allowing him rational thought? Are you trying to claim that the objective truth of non-contradiction was not objective truth until man was complex enough to form thoughts? The LOL MUST be used to form logical thought. The thoughts didn't come and then the LOL came about. The LOL had to be used for thought to happen at all. You have the cart before the horse.

Not really. I’m not the one suggesting true statements exist before anyone is around to make them. You’re looking at the LOL as though they exist on some special plane of reality. It’s not that deep. Any animal whose brain processes its environment as multiple distinct parts is doing the same thing we do when we think according to the laws of logic. The only difference is we’re clever enough to express succinctly the rules of what we’re doing when we’re thinking. It really is just how our brains operate, no different from how our legs operate allowing us to walk. Walking isn’t some grand transcendent thing that’s woven into reality, it’s just a thing we do to get things done. Logic is analogous to the process of putting one foot in front of the other. It’s the technical details behind the process of thinking.

What it says, is that the law of non-contradiction applies to all existence. It doesn't apply unless 'something' exists.

No, and it’s very important you recognize this: The law of non-contradiction does not apply to existence. It applies to statements about existence. You can’t make a meaningful statement that contradicts itself, but that has no bearning on what can manifest in reality. You have acknowledged that a difference exists between statements about reality, and reality itself, but this reply of yours demonstrates that you do not apply it in your own reasoning.

You haven't shown yet that the LOL are products of humans. If what I say is true, it seems much more reasonable that the LOL originate in the nature of a perfect logical necessary mind which in turn must be used by humans for the ability to have rational and logical thought. The very first thought had to be structured with the LOL in order for any sense to be made.

I’ve explained multiple times what the relationship between humans and logic has been. Your postulating of some disembodied mind to ground the laws of thought for the rest of us is completely absurd and unnecessary.

Science was first based on Christian Theology. Our first modern scientists worked on the premise that God made the universe uniform and intelligible. They believed that there was order and purpose in the universe. Modern Science methodology would never have gotten off the ground without those assumptions.

Sure, and astrophysics was first based on astrology, chemistry was first based on alchemy, and philosophy was first based on religion. Your point?

A priori: means before...before thought.

A priori: A priori knowledge. philosophy. A priori knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. Britannica.com

That is what I've said. The LOL have to be a priori to thought.

How did you ignore the very definition you provided? It’s a priori to experience, not a priori to thought. A priori knowledge is the sum of all conclusions you can make from an armchair. But you can’t make any conclusions without premises. The laws of logic are those premises. Axioms. They’re axioms. Please stop misusing technical terms in logic, in a discussion about logic.

On your accusation that I 'throw' words into my argument to make me sound smart; I have no interest in wanting to sound smart. I want to convey to the best of my ability (whether that is minimal in your estimation or not) something that I feel is of the utmost importance to all people. I want everyone to think about things that they do take for granted. If I am right like I claim and you are wrong, it is urgently important to share my views and ask you to voice yours and see what really makes more sense. I am not about showing I am 'smarter' than you or anyone else. I am all about discussing views and determining truth because if you or others don't really care about truth what do you care about?

If this misuse of technical terms is not your own idea, then you’re parroting someone who’s misinformed you while *they* were trying to sound smart.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, now you’re asking what constitutes the best epistemology, not how the laws of logic came to be universally understood. It’s a good question that’s widely contested among philosophers, but I find the topic tedious to discuss in a setting of Christian apologetics where it’s guaranteed our epistemological starting points differ. I guess we can go there if you like, but it’s going to take over the main subject of this thread.

My point at least has been that human minds are not the originators of the truth of the Laws of Logic. That comes down to the epistemology at its base. The whole discussion is how unlikely it is under the naturalistic/humanistic worldview for the Laws of Logic to exist and not only that they exist but that they are necessary for rational thought. How is it just now that it has dawned on you that is what this is all about?

Axioms are a type of proposition, so it’s not wrong to say they are propositions, it’s just more accurate to call the LOL axioms. And again, that’s not what a priori means. A priori knowledge is the result of logical deduction independent of any experience or observations. This is in contrast with a posteriori knowledge, which is contingent upon experience or observations. But the LOL are required before any deduction takes place, they themselves are not a priori knowledge. There’s another word for the types of propositions that must be taken for granted before any logical deduction can take place. And that word is axioms. Whoever told you otherwise has done you a disservice.

I really don't care if you want to call them axioms and that seems more appropriate then fine, axioms it is. As far as a priori, I am not the only person that calls the LOL a priori and they are philosophers and logicians. I don't know why you find this a problem. Here are some quotes from a few of those philosophers and logicians that use a priori in the same way I do.

Such truth is necessary as opposed to contingent, not as opposed to voluntary. And the a priori is independent of experience not because it prescribes a form which the data of sense must fit, or anticipates some pre-established harmony of experience with the mind, but precisely because it prescribes nothing to experience. That is a prioriwhich is true, no matter what. What it anticipates is not the given, but our attitude toward it: it concerns the uncompelled initiative of mind or, as Josiah Royce would say, our categorical ways of acting.

The traditional example of the a priori par excellence, is the laws of logic. These can not be derived from experience since they must first be taken for granted in order to prove them. They make explicit our general modes of classification. And they impose upon experience no real limitation. Sometimes we are asked to tremble before the spectre of the "alogical," in order that we may there- after rejoice that we are saved from this by the dependence of reality upon mind. But the "alogical" is pure bogey, a word without a meaning. What kind of experience could defy the principle that everything must either be or not be, that nothing can both be and not be, or that if x is y and y is z, then x is z? If anything imaginable or unimaginable could violate such laws, then the ever-present fact of change would do it every day. CLARENCE IRVING LEWIS. HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Yet another sense in which it has been thought that truths like (1)-(3), and logical truths quite generally, “could” not be false or “must” be true is epistemic. It is an old observation, going at least as far back as Plato, that some truths count as intuitively known by us even in cases where we don't seem to have any empirical grounds for them. Truths that are knowable on non-empirical grounds are called a priori (an expression that begins to be used with this meaning around the time of Leibniz; see e.g. his “Primæ Veritates”, p. 518). The axioms and theorems of mathematics, the lexicographic and stipulative definitions, and also the paradigmatic logical truths, have been given as examples. If it is accepted that logical truths are a priori, it is natural to think that they must be true or could not be false at least partly in the strong sense that their negations are incompatible with what we are able to know non-empirically. Logical Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A priori in modern philosophy is a epistemological asset of judgements. Judgements a priori do not require experience (sense data, empirical data). Judgements in mathematics and logics do not require experience for their truth, so such judgements are indeed a priori and the science of logic is a priori too.
Ernst-Otto Onnasch, PhD Philosophy and Author of 9 books

Not really. I’m not the one suggesting true statements exist before anyone is around to make them. You’re looking at the LOL as though they exist on some special plane of reality. It’s not that deep. Any animal whose brain processes its environment as multiple distinct parts is doing the same thing we do when we think according to the laws of logic. The only difference is we’re clever enough to express succinctly the rules of what we’re doing when we’re thinking. It really is just how our brains operate, no different from how our legs operate allowing us to walk. Walking isn’t some grand transcendent thing that’s woven into reality, it’s just a thing we do to get things done. Logic is analogous to the process of putting one foot in front of the other. It’s the technical details behind the process of thinking.

Animals do the same thing we do according to the laws of logic? Perhaps you can demonstrate how any animal is doing the same thing we do with the laws of logic. To equate the LOL to walking is a categorical mistake. The LOL are not technical details behind anything, they are prior to any details at all.

No, and it’s very important you recognize this: The law of non-contradiction does not apply to existence. It applies to statements about existence. You can’t make a meaningful statement that contradicts itself, but that has no bearning on what can manifest in reality. You have acknowledged that a difference exists between statements about reality, and reality itself, but this reply of yours demonstrates that you do not apply it in your own reasoning.

True is true whether or not it is a verified truth. What you are missing is that there is this truth behind the statements whether we make them or not. Whether we exist or not. It is not dependent on language, culture, time or even on the human mind. We know that the LOL exist prior to us making statements about them. All the LOL depend on is that something exists that transcends even our own existence.

I’ve explained multiple times what the relationship between humans and logic has been. Your postulating of some disembodied mind to ground the laws of thought for the rest of us is completely absurd and unnecessary.

Actually, you have asserted what the relationship between humans and logic. You know that we have to have the LOL prior to thought if we are to be rational at all. You haven't demonstrated how that is possible other than assert that it evolved. Which is irrational, when we know that the LOL must be in place before any rational thought can happen.

Sure, and astrophysics was first based on astrology, chemistry was first based on alchemy, and philosophy was first based on religion. Your point?

I was answering your question, did you forget?

How did you ignore the very definition you provided? It’s a priori to experience, not a priori to thought. A priori knowledge is the sum of all conclusions you can make from an armchair. But you can’t make any conclusions without premises. The laws of logic are those premises. Axioms. They’re axioms. Please stop misusing technical terms in logic, in a discussion about logic.

See above.

If this misuse of technical terms is not your own idea, then you’re parroting someone who’s misinformed you while *they* were trying to sound smart.

Doesn't seem to be the case. It seems perhaps you haven't read many philosophers/logicians papers in regard to the subject. I'll point you to above once again.

 

[gaara4158]

My point at least has been that human minds are not the originators of the truth of the Laws of Logic. That comes down to the epistemology at its base. The whole discussion is how unlikely it is under the naturalistic/humanistic worldview for the Laws of Logic to exist and not only that they exist but that they are necessary for rational thought. How is it just now that it has dawned on you that is what this is all about?

The way you're conceptualizing truth and the laws of logic is problematic and perhaps even incoherent. You somehow find it unlikely that the laws of logic, the very principles upon which rational thought is based, should be necessary for rational thought. I have no idea how you came to that assessment unless to you, the laws of logic are something other than the three laws we've been discussing. It's trivial that the laws of logic are necessary for rational thought, because rational thought is already defined as thought that reasons according to the laws of logic. This is so trivial it counts as a priori knowledge. How on Earth are you finding this conclusion unlikely? Something is seriously wrong in your reasoning.

What the heart of this discussion would be about if we were going to delve into the realm of epistemology is how we're able to apprehend truth at all. We can go on discussing this indefinitely, as philosophers certainly have, but my shortened, simple answer is that our brains have been shaped over eons of evolution to apprehend reality insofar as it aids our survival and reproductive fitness. Our brain allows us to process our surroundings well enough to make decisions that don't get us removed from the gene pool until our offspring is viable. This won't get us to epistemic certainty on anything, but it does give us enough confidence in the conclusions we reach that we're able to function reliably. You're hung up on how the laws of logic could possibly come into use by purely naturalistic processes. I really don't find it surprising or unlikely that the brain developed the ability to process its environment as a set of discrete objects rather than a single monolith, and that's all the laws of logic really amount to.

Perhaps you find it surprising that the ability to process an environment should exist at all in a natural universe. That's fair enough, since as far as we can tell we're on the only planet in the universe with thinking beings. We appear to be an anomaly within the small patch of the universe that we've observed closely. But a surprising fact of reality does not give you license to postulate a convenient explanation (gods, a simulation, brain in a vat) for which there is no evidence, and our lack of a natural explanation for the surprising fact does not in itself count as evidence for a supernatural one. You cannot solve a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

I really don't care if you want to call them axioms and that seems more appropriate then fine, axioms it is. As far as a priori, I am not the only person that calls the LOL a priori and they are philosophers and logicians. I don't know why you find this a problem. Here are some quotes from a few of those philosophers and logicians that use a priori in the same way I do.

Well, I stand corrected on axioms not belonging in the category of a priori. Pride cometh before a fall. That's fine.
It's been a problem that you don't recognize the LOL as axioms because you've been hunting for some kind of justification or grounding for them when axioms aren't the kinds of propositions that have external justification or grounding. They are self-evident, fundamental starting points for all reasoning. They don't need to be derived from any supernatural force or grand being. They are just the formal expression of what your mind is doing when you think.

Animals do the same thing we do according to the laws of logic? Perhaps you can demonstrate how any animal is doing the same thing we do with the laws of logic. To equate the LOL to walking is a categorical mistake. The LOL are not technical details behind anything, they are prior to any details at all.

The laws of logic spell out the details of how your mind allows you to conceptualize reality as a set of discrete parts. It's clear that many animals also have this ability. The LOL are not required to exist prior to details existing, they are required prior to details being recognized. The laws of logic do set up the framework for the recognition of the details of anything, but that does not take them out of the category of details themselves.

True is true whether or not it is a verified truth. What you are missing is that there is this truth behind the statements whether we make them or not. Whether we exist or not. It is not dependent on language, culture, time or even on the human mind. We know that the LOL exist prior to us making statements about them. All the LOL depend on is that something exists that transcends even our own existence.

You're still missing the difference between truth and reality. Reality is what actually exists. Truth is the label given to accurate statements about reality. Meaningful statements must follow the laws of logic, and only meaningful statements can be true. So yes, reality exists whether anyone is around to observe it or not (this you expressed as "true is true whether or not it is a verified truth"), and yes, we must use the laws of logic to make true statements even about the laws of logic themselves. But no, it does not follow that the laws of logic depend on something that transcends our existence. You are confusing the permanence of reality, which we agree is a fact, with a permanence of truth, which as I explained isn't the same.

Actually, you have asserted what the relationship between humans and logic. You know that we have to have the LOL prior to thought if we are to be rational at all. You haven't demonstrated how that is possible other than assert that it evolved. Which is irrational, when we know that the LOL must be in place before any rational thought can happen.

See above.

I was answering your question, did you forget?

I had asked you what scientific studies had concluded God was a viable explanation of an observed phenomenon, not which scientists used God as a premise underpinning the intelligibility of the universe. It’s fine to point out as a fact, but it does not help you make the case that science suggests the existence of God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The way you're conceptualizing truth and the laws of logic is problematic and perhaps even incoherent. You somehow find it unlikely that the laws of logic, the very principles upon which rational thought is based, should be necessary for rational thought. I have no idea how you came to that assessment unless to you, the laws of logic are something other than the three laws we've been discussing. It's trivial that the laws of logic are necessary for rational thought, because rational thought is already defined as thought that reasons according to the laws of logic. This is so trivial it counts as a priori knowledge. How on Earth are you finding this conclusion unlikely? Something is seriously wrong in your reasoning.

I was very clear as to the problem I was stating and it was not that I found it unlikely that the LOL should be necessary for rational thought but in fact, that was one of the points I was presenting against a naturalistic/humanistic worldview. You seem to be under the false assumption that having necessary truth in human thought is trivial, when it is paramount to the ability to have rational thought. You are claiming that human reasoning and the necessary truth that allows for rational reasoning are products of a physical brain which can not begin to explain mind to begin with but not only that, you expect it to explain truth. You claim my reasoning is incoherent, but in reality, if my mind or yours for that matter, were just physical matter absolute truth would be unlikely and we would have no standard from which to determine coherence or incoherence. If mind is just a physical mass of physical stuff, there is no reason to believe that truth is possible let alone likely. Survival does not create truth.

Now in case you get the wrong impression, I am not saying the brain is not necessary for mind.

What the heart of this discussion would be about if we were going to delve into the realm of epistemology is how we're able to apprehend truth at all.

Bingo.

We can go on discussing this indefinitely, as philosophers certainly have, but my shortened, simple answer is that our brains have been shaped over eons of evolution to apprehend reality insofar as it aids our survival and reproductive fitness. Our brain allows us to process our surroundings well enough to make decisions that don't get us removed from the gene pool until our offspring is viable. This won't get us to epistemic certainty on anything, but it does give us enough confidence in the conclusions we reach that we're able to function reliably.

Functioning reliably and adhering to the LOL are two distinctly different things. Survival doesn't even remotely bring us to truth. If we think a crooked stick looks like a snake and we always take flight, if a real snake comes into play we will survive but we come away with false assessment of the truth. Our senses do not conceptualize truth in that scenario and many many others that I can sit in my armchair and devise. Staying in the gene pool doesn't give us a standard of truth, it just simply means we survived by any means including false assessments to survive. We also know that having the ability to survive does nothing to explain how rules such as the LOL which are necessary for thought at all could evolve.

You're hung up on how the laws of logic could possibly come into use by purely naturalistic processes. I really don't find it surprising or unlikely that the brain developed the ability to process its environment as a set of discrete objects rather than a single monolith, and that's all the laws of logic really amount to.

The LOL are not just about A=A but applies to all subjects from a rock is a rock to the laws of physics. The LOL amount to truth. The truth about sets of truths. To have the ability to process the environment, the LOL MUST be used. That you don't find it surprising or unlikely is due to your worldview, even when that worldview is not consistent with human minds obeying LOL to reason at all. It is not consistent within the naturalistic worldview that human minds should obey Laws that are necessary to have rational thought, that there would be a standard of truth at all.

Perhaps you find it surprising that the ability to process an environment should exist at all in a natural universe. That's fair enough, since as far as we can tell we're on the only planet in the universe with thinking beings. We appear to be an anomaly within the small patch of the universe that we've observed closely. But a surprising fact of reality does not give you license to postulate a convenient explanation (gods, a simulation, brain in a vat) for which there is no evidence, and our lack of a natural explanation for the surprising fact does not in itself count as evidence for a supernatural one. You cannot solve a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

I do find it improbable, unlikely and inconsistent within a naturalistic worldview. However, it is not surprising in the Christian worldview. It is reasonable and consistent to our worldview that we humans were created with the ability to have rational logical thought, that those thoughts have a standard of truth which originates with the mind of God which is in itself logical and rational. That laws that we MUST obey from the ultimate law giver. This is not a convenient explanation but a consistent explanation that reflects the reality that we do have rational thought and MUST a priori use the LOL to have that ability. It is evidence that supports the worldview which I hold.

Well, I stand corrected on axioms not belonging in the category of a priori. Pride cometh before a fall. That's fine.

Thank you.

It's been a problem that you don't recognize the LOL as axioms because you've been hunting for some kind of justification or grounding for them when axioms aren't the kinds of propositions that have external justification or grounding. They are self-evident, fundamental starting points for all reasoning. They don't need to be derived from any supernatural force or grand being. They are just the formal expression of what your mind is doing when you think.

I don't have to hunt for anything. They are fundamental starting points for all reasoning. I disagree that they are just formal expression of what the mind is doing when you think. You go from knowing they are a priori to thought and then back to just what our mind does when thinking. Do you see the problem?

The laws of logic spell out the details of how your mind allows you to conceptualize reality as a set of discrete parts. It's clear that many animals also have this ability. The LOL are not required to exist prior to details existing, they are required prior to details being recognized. The laws of logic do set up the framework for the recognition of the details of anything, but that does not take them out of the category of details themselves.

Animals have the ability to do what exactly? You haven't demonstrated this point.

How do the LOL fit into the category of details? Explain?

You're still missing the difference between truth and reality. Reality is what actually exists. Truth is the label given to accurate statements about reality. Meaningful statements must follow the laws of logic, and only meaningful statements can be true. So yes, reality exists whether anyone is around to observe it or not (this you expressed as "true is true whether or not it is a verified truth"), and yes, we must use the laws of logic to make true statements even about the laws of logic themselves. But no, it does not follow that the laws of logic depend on something that transcends our existence. You are confusing the permanence of reality, which we agree is a fact, with a permanence of truth, which as I explained isn't the same.

You are the one confusing reality and truth. A rock has no truth. A tree has no truth. The objects themselves have no truth. A rock can't tell us that 1+1=2. So we know that we don't get truth from the objects themselves, and we don't get truth before we can recognize truth, and we can't recognize truth without the LOL. We can't make meaningful statements about the truths that the LOL hold without using the LOL a priori. So reality existing doesn't have truth in of itself but truth exists in reality and we have to use that truth to be able to make such statements about it. It has to transcend our own minds, otherwise we would not have the ability to USE our mind for intelligible thought. Existence comes built in with the LOL because something exists. The only time that the LOL would not apply is if nothing existed. Nothing at all.

See above.

See above.

I had asked you what scientific studies had concluded God was a viable explanation of an observed phenomenon, not which scientists used God as a premise underpinning the intelligibility of the universe. It’s fine to point out as a fact, but it does not help you make the case that science suggests the existence of God.

I meant that modern Science itself could not have happened without the premise that God made the universe uniform and intelligible.

 

[gaara4158]

I was very clear as to the problem I was stating and it was not that I found it unlikely that the LOL should be necessary for rational thought but in fact, that was one of the points I was presenting against a naturalistic/humanistic worldview. You seem to be under the false assumption that having necessary truth in human thought is trivial, when it is paramount to the ability to have rational thought. You are claiming that human reasoning and the necessary truth that allows for rational reasoning are products of a physical brain which can not begin to explain mind to begin with but not only that, you expect it to explain truth. You claim my reasoning is incoherent, but in reality, if my mind or yours for that matter, were just physical matter absolute truth would be unlikely and we would have no standard from which to determine coherence or incoherence. If mind is just a physical mass of physical stuff, there is no reason to believe that truth is possible let alone likely. Survival does not create truth.

Now in case you get the wrong impression, I am not saying the brain is not necessary for mind.

My position is that the laws of logic do not need to be justified or accounted for by anything outside the mere process of thinking, that the process of thinking doesn't need to be justified or accounted for by anything but a working brain, and that the working brain doesn't need to be accounted for by anything but natural processes. Therefore, it follows that natural processes can give rise to thoughts that follow the laws of logic. Your task has been to show where my position is flawed, but instead you have merely opted to contradict me, resulting in our barking the same exact things back and forth for weeks now.
When you say "necessary truth," you seem to mean that there are certain things that have to be true no matter what, and this can only be accounted for by the existence of some sort of truth-giver. This is an error. There are necessary truths, but these truths are only necessary within an epistemology. That is to say, the rules of any given epistemology must be labeled "true" for that epistemology to carry out its function of finding truths. So, the necessary truth that A=A doesn't mean that there's a rock out there that must, by fiat of this law, be a rock. On the contrary, A=A means that for any rock that I want to make statements about, I must first recognize it as that rock. Any true statement I make about a rock must come from the reality, or essence, of what that rock is. A=A isn't a law about what belongs on either side of an equation, it's a law about where the = sign belongs.
So yes, we do have some necessary truths, but their truth is a matter of closure (otherwise we would endlessly be asking "Is it true that A=A? Is it true that it's true that A=A? Its it true that it's true that it's true... etc.), not a claim about reality.

Functioning reliably and adhering to the LOL are two distinctly different things. Survival doesn't even remotely bring us to truth. If we think a crooked stick looks like a snake and we always take flight, if a real snake comes into play we will survive but we come away with false assessment of the truth. Our senses do not conceptualize truth in that scenario and many many others that I can sit in my armchair and devise. Staying in the gene pool doesn't give us a standard of truth, it just simply means we survived by any means including false assessments to survive. We also know that having the ability to survive does nothing to explain how rules such as the LOL which are necessary for thought at all could evolve.

Our capacity to make mistakes and err on the side of caution does not preclude our capacity to find truth, even if we can never be 100% certain about it. If you don't believe reality has anything to do with our ability to survive, I don't know what you think life has been contending with that caused it to evolve into what we are today. Of course we can't expect to have perfect apprehension of all things, especially those abstract concepts that don't directly matter to our survival. We should expect to see people with all sorts of goofy, malformed concepts of reality. As long as it doesn't kill them, there's nothing stopping them from continuing on in their delusional state. And isn't that exactly what we see in reality?

It is not consistent within the naturalistic worldview that human minds should obey Laws that are necessary to have rational thought, that there would be a standard of truth at all.

This is what you need to expand upon. What problem do you see with a nontheistic worldview that automatically accepts a set of meta-truths (truths about truths), the LOL, in order to set the rules for the apprehension of other truths? Why can a standard of truth only be set by a god? Why not reality itself?

I do find it improbable, unlikely and inconsistent within a naturalistic worldview. However, it is not surprising in the Christian worldview. It is reasonable and consistent to our worldview that we humans were created with the ability to have rational logical thought, that those thoughts have a standard of truth which originates with the mind of God which is in itself logical and rational. That laws that we MUST obey from the ultimate law giver. This is not a convenient explanation but a consistent explanation that reflects the reality that we do have rational thought and MUST a priori use the LOL to have that ability. It is evidence that supports the worldview which I hold.

You cannot use your claim as evidence for your claim. Sure, if you assume outright that God exists and has created you and this reality such that you can understand it, you would not be surprised to find that you understand this reality. Unfortunately, this is also the case for simulation theory, brain-in-a-vat theory, and Paganism. Equally unfortunately, these theories don't actually do anything to establish greater confidence in our ability to apprehend truth than a nontheistic worldview. You might believe that God is the cosmic truth-giver which allows you to accept the laws of logic as necessary truths, but that would only mean that you are reasoning according to God's rules, which may or may not have anything to do with reality. You could believe that God gives us logic to apprehend reality, but again that reasoning would be guided by God, about whose reliability you can make absolutely no evaluation on your own because he grounds the very foundation on which you think. You see, this puts you in the same boat as the nontheist, who has to accept the LOL as true but has no real way to evaluate them without putting them into practice in the first place. So, what evidence do you have that this god of yours exists?

I don't have to hunt for anything. They are fundamental starting points for all reasoning. I disagree that they are just formal expression of what the mind is doing when you think. You go from knowing they are a priori to thought and then back to just what our mind does when thinking. Do you see the problem?

Our mind applies the laws of logic when thinking. That's what thinking is. They must be accepted as true before any meaningful thoughts can occur. It is not meaningful to say that the laws of logic are true before any thinking has occurred, because the very acceptance of the laws of logic constitutes a thought. They must emerge simultaneously. Where is the problem?

Animals have the ability to do what exactly? You haven't demonstrated this point.

How do the LOL fit into the category of details? Explain?

Animals have the ability to think, which means they can process their environment as a set of discrete things. They may not have the sophisticated metacognition to express the laws of logic formally, but they apply them in their use of language, tools, and other interactions with their environment. Here are some good articles: Metacognition in animals
Animal Cognition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

To spell out the laws of logic is to provide the details of the rules by which all rational thoughts are formed. How are they not able to be called details?

You are the one confusing reality and truth. A rock has no truth. A tree has no truth. The objects themselves have no truth. A rock can't tell us that 1+1=2. So we know that we don't get truth from the objects themselves, and we don't get truth before we can recognize truth, and we can't recognize truth without the LOL. We can't make meaningful statements about the truths that the LOL hold without using the LOL a priori. So reality existing doesn't have truth in of itself but truth exists in reality and we have to use that truth to be able to make such statements about it.

Yes!

It has to transcend our own minds, otherwise we would not have the ability to USE our mind for intelligible thought. Existence comes built in with the LOL because something exists. The only time that the LOL would not apply is if nothing existed. Nothing at all.

You seem to be suggesting that the laws of logic exist in some plane all on their own as a fundamental part of reality, not tied to minds interested in making meaningful expressions. How?? Explain.

I meant that modern Science itself could not have happened without the premise that God made the universe uniform and intelligible.

Hence I retorted that there are plenty of disciplines that started out based on less than accurate assumptions. You've completely sidestepped my question. What part of science supports the existence of God? So far you've only claimed that long ago some people thought God's existence supported science. That's not the same thing. Thus far you have not substantiated any of the things you say support the existence of God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My position is that the laws of logic do not need to be justified or accounted for by anything outside the mere process of thinking, that the process of thinking doesn't need to be justified or accounted for by anything but a working brain, and that the working brain doesn't need to be accounted for by anything but natural processes. Therefore, it follows that natural processes can give rise to thoughts that follow the laws of logic. Your task has been to show where my position is flawed, but instead you have merely opted to contradict me, resulting in our barking the same exact things back and forth for weeks now.

You can take the position that the LOL need not be justified or accounted for, you can take that position on about any piece of reality you wish but that doesn't mean it is true. It doesn't follow that natural processes can give rise to thoughts that follow the LOL, it doesn't even provide a reasonable explanation for non-intelligent matter to give rise to intelligence. Your worldview contradicts itself so it is not necessary for me to do so. There is no explanation in the naturalistic worldview to expect, let alone insure, that human minds are intelligent and obey LOL that are necessary to form any rational thought. You seem to think that the brain and mind are the same but in reality it isn't. Consciousness is different than the bodily organ we call brain.

When you say "necessary truth," you seem to mean that there are certain things that have to be true no matter what, and this can only be accounted for by the existence of some sort of truth-giver. This is an error. There are necessary truths, but these truths are only necessary within an epistemology. That is to say, the rules of any given epistemology must be labeled "true" for that epistemology to carry out its function of finding truths. So, the necessary truth that A=A doesn't mean that there's a rock out there that must, by fiat of this law, be a rock. On the contrary, A=A means that for any rock that I want to make statements about, I must first recognize it as that rock. Any true statement I make about a rock must come from the reality, or essence, of what that rock is. A=A isn't a law about what belongs on either side of an equation, it's a law about where the = sign belongs.
So yes, we do have some necessary truths, but their truth is a matter of closure (otherwise we would endlessly be asking "Is it true that A=A? Is it true that it's true that A=A? Its it true that it's true that it's true... etc.), not a claim about reality.

Necessary in that one MUST use the LOL, necessary in that we can't escape from using them, and necessary in that they are the standard for truth and falsity. There is no reason to believe that evolution of the brain can account for necessary standards of truth and falsity that we can't opt out of. We don't accept them, we can not not accept them.

Our capacity to make mistakes and err on the side of caution does not preclude our capacity to find truth, even if we can never be 100% certain about it. If you don't believe reality has anything to do with our ability to survive, I don't know what you think life has been contending with that caused it to evolve into what we are today. Of course we can't expect to have perfect apprehension of all things, especially those abstract concepts that don't directly matter to our survival. We should expect to see people with all sorts of goofy, malformed concepts of reality. As long as it doesn't kill them, there's nothing stopping them from continuing on in their delusional state. And isn't that exactly what we see in reality?

We see ALL humans obeying necessary LOL whether or not they have goofy, malformed concepts of reality or not. The LOL are true, 100% true. We have to be that certain of them to determine truth at all. So we see every human being following the same few Laws that allow us the ability of rational thought. Evolution can not produce necessary truth, there is nothing within that worldview that can explain how such LOL which are necessary and completely true exist.

This is what you need to expand upon. What problem do you see with a nontheistic worldview that automatically accepts a set of meta-truths (truths about truths), the LOL, in order to set the rules for the apprehension of other truths? Why can a standard of truth only be set by a god? Why not reality itself?

What of evolution gives a standard of truth? If evolution is an unguided, random, purposeless non-intelligent process where does this standard arise? A standard that must be obeyed, is 100% certain and is necessary for any rational thought?

You cannot use your claim as evidence for your claim. Sure, if you assume outright that God exists and has created you and this reality such that you can understand it, you would not be surprised to find that you understand this reality. Unfortunately, this is also the case for simulation theory, brain-in-a-vat theory, and Paganism.

Simulation theory, by whom or what? Brain-in-a-vat, same thing...what is behind that? Paganism, many many minds has the same problem as does thinking the LOL are conventions.

Equally unfortunately, these theories don't actually do anything to establish greater confidence in our ability to apprehend truth than a nontheistic worldview.

I believe the Christian worldview does most spectacularly. A necessary mind that grounds rationality.

You might believe that God is the cosmic truth-giver which allows you to accept the laws of logic as necessary truths, but that would only mean that you are reasoning according to God's rules, which may or may not have anything to do with reality. You could believe that God gives us logic to apprehend reality, but again that reasoning would be guided by God, about whose reliability you can make absolutely no evaluation on your own because he grounds the very foundation on which you think. You see, this puts you in the same boat as the nontheist, who has to accept the LOL as true but has no real way to evaluate them without putting them into practice in the first place. So, what evidence do you have that this god of yours exists?

You misunderstand the premise. These are not God's rules per se, they are the rational logical nature of God and we are created in his image. We as created in his image have the ability to obey logical standards of God Himself.

The LOL are supportive evidence that God exists. Order and uniformity in the universe are supportive evidence of God's existence. It is an accumulative mass of facts of reality that support that God exists.

Our mind applies the laws of logic when thinking. That's what thinking is. They must be accepted as true before any meaningful thoughts can occur. It is not meaningful to say that the laws of logic are true before any thinking has occurred, because the very acceptance of the laws of logic constitutes a thought. They must emerge simultaneously. Where is the problem?

Evolution holds no standard for truth, no certainty of truth and no reasonable explanation for unintelligent matter becoming intelligent matter.

Animals have the ability to think, which means they can process their environment as a set of discrete things. They may not have the sophisticated metacognition to express the laws of logic formally, but they apply them in their use of language, tools, and other interactions with their environment. Here are some good articles: Metacognition in animals
Animal Cognition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yet, they are not rational beings with the same ability as human beings.

To spell out the laws of logic is to provide the details of the rules by which all rational thoughts are formed. How are they not able to be called details?

Its not all that relevant.

You seem to be suggesting that the laws of logic exist in some plane all on their own as a fundamental part of reality, not tied to minds interested in making meaningful expressions. How?? Explain.

They are not dependent upon human minds. Human minds are not necessary for the LOL to exist.

Hence I retorted that there are plenty of disciplines that started out based on less than accurate assumptions. You've completely sidestepped my question. What part of science supports the existence of God? So far you've only claimed that long ago some people thought God's existence supported science. That's not the same thing. Thus far you have not substantiated any of the things you say support the existence of God.

I explained what I meant, I didn't claim that science supports the existence of God but the findings of Science certainly do.

 

[gaara4158]

You can take the position that the LOL need not be justified or accounted for, you can take that position on about any piece of reality you wish but that doesn't mean it is true. It doesn't follow that natural processes can give rise to thoughts that follow the LOL, it doesn't even provide a reasonable explanation for non-intelligent matter to give rise to intelligence.

It follows directly from the premises. If the laws of logic are accounted for by the activity of thinking, and thinking is accounted for by brain function, and brain function is accounted for by natural processes, then the LOL are accounted for by natural processes. I believe it to be likely true based on what I understand about each of these things.

Your worldview contradicts itself so it is not necessary for me to do so. There is no explanation in the naturalistic worldview to expect, let alone insure, that human minds are intelligent and obey LOL that are necessary to form any rational thought. You seem to think that the brain and mind are the same but in reality it isn't. Consciousness is different than the bodily organ we call brain.

You can say my worldview is contradictory, but no more so than yours. I believe the brain evolving in reality over time gives us a good enough grasp on reality - an ability to make statements that are true enough - to achieve pretty much whatever we want. We send rockets into space using nothing but naturalistic assumptions. What more do you want?
You are right that the brain is not the same thing as consciousness. What I am convinced of is that there is nothing besides the brain required to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. I am convinced because brain activity is the only thing we see directly correlated with observed signs of consciousness, and we do not observe signs of consciousness absent brain activity. I could be wrong, but there is no contradiction inherent to this position. You would need to provide evidence if you want to support a case that I am wrong.

Necessary in that one MUST use the LOL, necessary in that we can't escape from using them, and necessary in that they are the standard for truth and falsity. There is no reason to believe that evolution of the brain can account for necessary standards of truth and falsity that we can't opt out of. We don't accept them, we can not not accept them.

Oh, I disagree. We can violate the laws of logic, we just can’t do so while being rational. Where do you think logical fallacies come from? The fact that we can’t be not-ourselves comes from the reality of what we are, not the laws of logic. The laws of logic are just a codification of this fact.

We see ALL humans obeying necessary LOL whether or not they have goofy, malformed concepts of reality or not. The LOL are true, 100% true. We have to be that certain of them to determine truth at all. So we see every human being following the same few Laws that allow us the ability of rational thought. Evolution can not produce necessary truth, there is nothing within that worldview that can explain how such LOL which are necessary and completely true exist.

This is a feature of the reality, or essence, of what thinking is. To think is to process information in discrete (meaning non-overlapping) bits, and to do so it is required that one apply the three principles that constitute the LOL. You haven’t provided any evidence that this isn’t possible under naturalistic assumptions.

What of evolution gives a standard of truth? If evolution is an unguided, random, purposeless non-intelligent process where does this standard arise? A standard that must be obeyed, is 100% certain and is necessary for any rational thought?

Truth is derived from reality. The standard for what is true is what corresponds with reality. Evolution results in mechanisms that give us a limited means of discerning what is true about reality. God is either involved in this process or not, but you cannot point to an uncertainty in the process (and unless you believe you’re infallible there will always be uncertainties) and claim that’s where God comes in. You also can’t point to what you see as a certainty in the process and claim that God is required for this certainty. You still have to support a case for God’s existence, and you have to do so before you can propose that he is a viable solution to our uncertainty. After you’ve done all that, you still have to demonstrate how postulating a god (or god’s nature) resolves this uncertainty better than mere acceptance of reality at face value.

Simulation theory, by whom or what? Brain-in-a-vat, same thing...what is behind that? Paganism, many many minds has the same problem as does thinking the LOL are conventions.

God by whom? God’s nature by whom or what? The point is none of these things, your god included, solve the problem inherent in thinking the LOL are conventions. You still end up completely baseless in asserting that your justification for the LOL is at all trustworthy. The strength of my position is that it makes fewer assumptions than these.

I believe the Christian worldview does most spectacularly. A necessary mind that grounds rationality.

I know you think that. I’m doing my best to demonstrate that you are severely mistaken. I think you’ve got it backwards. A rationally intelligible universe grounds the ability of a rational mind to find truths.

You misunderstand the premise. These are not God's rules per se, they are the rational logical nature of God and we are created in his image. We as created in his image have the ability to obey logical standards of God Himself.

That doesn’t actually make a difference. If it’s God’s nature grounding it all, then the uncertainty comes down to whether God’s nature is a reliable basis of truth-finding principles. You can say you’re sure of it, it’s been revealed to you, it’s self-evident, or it’s worked for you so far, but all of that is already based on the assumption that your conclusion is true. That puts you at absolutely no advantage over the naturalist who merely assumes he can derive truth to a reasonable degree from empirical observations and logical deductions.

The LOL are supportive evidence that God exists. Order and uniformity in the universe are supportive evidence of God's existence. It is an accumulative mass of facts of reality that support that God exists.

You have not provided a single fact to support this assertion.

Evolution holds no standard for truth, no certainty of truth and no reasonable explanation for unintelligent matter becoming intelligent matter.

Evolution is not an epistemology. Unless you deny that being able to discern truth is an evolutionary advantage, I don’t see how you can say evolution shouldn’t be expected to develop minds with the ability to find truths.

Yet, they are not rational beings with the same ability as human beings.

Yet they are more rational than, say, insects or bacteria. The point is there is a sliding spectrum of intellectual capacity in the animal kingdom and this includes varying degrees of rational thinking ability. This works against your case that evolution can’t produce animals with rational abilities. You do accept evolution, right?

They are not dependent upon human minds. Human minds are not necessary for the LOL to exist.

I meant explain why you believe that, not merely restate what you believe.

I explained what I meant, I didn't claim that science supports the existence of God but the findings of Science certainly do.

Which findings?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It follows directly from the premises. If the laws of logic are accounted for by the activity of thinking, and thinking is accounted for by brain function, and brain function is accounted for by natural processes, then the LOL are accounted for by natural processes. I believe it to be likely true based on what I understand about each of these things.

The LOL are not accounted for by the activity of thinking, you start incorrectly from the very beginning. To think coherently necessarily can't happen without the LOL. You then equate brain function for mind and there is no location of "mind" in the brain. We have no evidence that mind is accounted for by natural process so your conclusion that LOL are accounted for by natural processes is incorrect.

You can say my worldview is contradictory, but no more so than yours. I believe the brain evolving in reality over time gives us a good enough grasp on reality - an ability to make statements that are true enough - to achieve pretty much whatever we want. We send rockets into space using nothing but naturalistic assumptions. What more do you want?

I disagree. As I've shown above you have no evidence for anything that you have presented. Having a good enough grasp on reality and being true enough does not bring us to the certainty of the LOL and their absolute truth.

You are right that the brain is not the same thing as consciousness. What I am convinced of is that there is nothing besides the brain required to explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

You might be convinced but there are a great number of people who are not. There is no evidence that supports that consciousness is located in the brain. In fact, there are studies that tend to support that it isn't.

I am convinced because brain activity is the only thing we see directly correlated with observed signs of consciousness, and we do not observe signs of consciousness absent brain activity. I could be wrong, but there is no contradiction inherent to this position. You would need to provide evidence if you want to support a case that I am wrong.

That isn't actually true. There has been studies in which those who have no brain activity have been shown to know what was going on and being said at that time. The contradiction is in that all the points you have used to support your position are not correct. Mindless matter contradicts mind being matter. Absolute truth contradicts good enough reliability. Mind obeying Laws that we can't not obey contradicts our minds making those laws.

Oh, I disagree. We can violate the laws of logic, we just can’t do so while being rational. Where do you think logical fallacies come from? The fact that we can’t be not-ourselves comes from the reality of what we are, not the laws of logic. The laws of logic are just a codification of this fact.

This is absolutely wrong. We can not violate the LOL, we can violate the formal argumentation of logic; however, we can never violate the LOL.

This is a feature of the reality, or essence, of what thinking is. To think is to process information in discrete (meaning non-overlapping) bits, and to do so it is required that one apply the three principles that constitute the LOL. You haven’t provided any evidence that this isn’t possible under naturalistic assumptions.

See the first paragraph.

Truth is derived from reality. The standard for what is true is what corresponds with reality.

The standard of truth are the LOL themselves which co-exist with reality.

Evolution results in mechanisms that give us a limited means of discerning what is true about reality. God is either involved in this process or not, but you cannot point to an uncertainty in the process (and unless you believe you’re infallible there will always be uncertainties) and claim that’s where God comes in.

You are accusing me of God of the gaps which is untrue. It isn't about what we don't know, it is about what we do know.

You also can’t point to what you see as a certainty in the process and claim that God is required for this certainty. You still have to support a case for God’s existence, and you have to do so before you can propose that he is a viable solution to our uncertainty. After you’ve done all that, you still have to demonstrate how postulating a god (or god’s nature) resolves this uncertainty than mere acceptance of reality at face value.

There isn't uncertainty. The LOL are 100% truth, absolutely and universally. To doubt that calls into doubt everything you know, what you think you know, or the act of even knowing. God's nature as presented in Scripture according to the Christian worldview is that God is all knowing. You really aren't facing reality at face value, you are postulating a contradictory worldview, where uniformity is found for 'no reason', where intelligence is found from non-intelligent mindless matter, where Laws exist but no Law giver exists. A universe where purpose abounds where purpose should not be found. Realty doesn't reflect an unguided, non-purposed, random universe at all.

God by whom? God’s nature by whom or what? The point is none of these things, your god included, solve the problem inherent in thinking the LOL are conventions. You still end up completely baseless in asserting that your justification for the LOL is at all trustworthy. The strength of my position is that it makes fewer assumptions.

That is absolutely absurd. If the LOL were based upon a sometimes very faulty perception and no truth based foundation, we would not have absolute truth of any kind let alone the necessary laws we must obey to think coherently. To claim that your position is stronger because of fewer assumptions is completely laughable. You have no evidence to support that mindless matter became mind, you have no evidence to support that evolutionary processes can attain absolute truth and no supportive evidence that the LOL are mere convention of mankind. That is plenty of assumptions. However it is not the assumptions that make your position weak, but that reality doesn't reflect your assumptions. There is no account given for the very order that the universe shows in your naturalistic worldview. There is no reason for a uniform and orderly universe that has laws that govern it and human beings. There is no reason to find intelligence arising from an unguided, non- purpose, non-intelligent matter.

In the Christian worldview, the reason for a uniform and orderly universe is that God designed it with a mathematical structure with purpose and intelligence. The reason that we understand the universe is that God created us in His image with the ability to apply mathematics to learn about the universe. The universe shows purpose in all aspects of reality, it shows design in all aspects of reality, it shows an intent in a goal of life on earth. What we see in reality is what we SHOULD see if our position is true. The universe, earth itself and life all have the ear marks of design and intent, goals and purpose.

I know you think that. I’m doing my best to demonstrate that you are severely mistaken. I think you’ve got it backwards. A rationally intelligible universe grounds the ability of a rational mind to find truths.

Why? Why in your naturalistic worldview would the universe be intelligible to mindless matter which somehow becomes intelligent matter which somehow can relate to a universe that never intended them to exist?

That doesn’t actually make a difference. If it’s God’s nature grounding it all, then the uncertainty comes down to whether God’s nature is a reliable basis of truth-finding principles. You can say you’re sure of it, it’s been revealed to you, it’s self-evident, or it’s worked for you so far, but all of that is already based on the assumption that your conclusion is true. That puts you at absolutely no advantage over the naturalist who merely assumes he can derive truth to a from empirical observations and logical deductions.

I'd like you to really think about his for a moment. I would like you to look at it from my position for just a moment and allow yourself to actually step outside of your own position and hear what I am saying. The universe is structured by mathematical concepts, the laws that govern it are amazing just in themselves. The universe from its very beginning appears to be intent on life. If the constants were not just the way they were the universe would not exist, if they were any different life would not exist. The necessary elements that brought about life is set from the beginning of its existence. If the earth was not where it is, no life. There has never been any time where we have seen non-living matter become living. We have the LOL that are necessary for coherent thought. So not only do we see conceptual makeup of the universe but conceptual Laws that human beings have to obey. This is what we should see if our universe was created and designed according to the Christian worldview.

You have not provided a single fact to support this assertion.

They are the supportive evidence for the Christian worldview.

Evolution is not an epistemology. Unless you deny that having an epistemology that allows you to discern truth to a reasonable degree of certainty is an evolutionary advantage, I don’t see how you can say evolution shouldn’t be expected to develop minds with the ability to find truths.

Strange as even scientists with a atheist position find it unexpected. Remember we don't find the LOL they allow us to think coherently in the first place.

Yet they are more rational than, say, insects or bacteria. The point is there is a sliding spectrum of intellectual capacity in the animal kingdom and this includes varying degrees of rational thinking ability. This works against your case that evolution can’t produce animals with rational abilities. You do accept evolution, right?

That is not what I said. I said that they do not share the rational cognition that humans have. I don't believe that an unguided, purposeless, random, process produced life let alone intelligent life. I believe in evolutionary process but I don't believe it is an unguided, purposeless, random process.

I meant explain why you believe that, not merely restate what you believe.

Because our minds are dependent upon them.

Which findings?[/QUOTE]The mathematical structure and fine tuning of the universe for a few.

 

[gaara4158]

The LOL are not accounted for by the activity of thinking, you start incorrectly from the very beginning. To think coherently necessarily can't happen without the LOL. You then equate brain function for mind and there is no location of "mind" in the brain. We have no evidence that mind is accounted for by natural process so your conclusion that LOL are accounted for by natural processes is incorrect.

You have repeated many times that "To think coherently necessarily can't happen without the LOL." I have responded to this specific argument of yours each time by saying that's a tautology and therefore not an argument for the transcendence of the LOL. What point is it you think you're making? Yes, we all know that thinking rationally requires the use of the laws of logic. That does not mean the laws of logic had to have existed prior to the development of any thinking minds. My contention is that the laws of logic developed simultaneously with minds as they evolved to become more and more rational. In other words, I believe the laws of logic are natural.

You do not believe minds evolved because you are a dualist. You believe some source other than the brain - or any other material - is at least partially responsible for the qualia of experience. You can believe that, but just know that you are placing yourself squarely on one side of a debate that is far from settled in philosophy. I lean towards materialism because based on what little I know about neuroscience, there isn't much left of "you" when everything tied to brain function is taken away. As I already acknowledged, I might be wrong, but you don't know that. No one does. You merely disagree. You would need to prove dualism - and to date, no one has - in order to use dualism as evidence for God.

I disagree. As I've shown above you have no evidence for anything that you have presented. Having a good enough grasp on reality and being true enough does not bring us to the certainty of the LOL and their absolute truth.

All I'm presenting is how your reasoning doesn't get us to the likely existence of a god. Right now for some reason we're discussing materialism vs. dualism, which we're not going to be able to resolve here on CF.
In any case, the certainty of the laws of logic isn't the same type of certain-enough confidence we can have in statements about reality. The laws of logic aren't statements about reality, they're statements about statements. The certainty of the laws of logic, and all other analytic propositions, is derived from the intent of their usage in the first place. Of course the laws of logic are true, they're the definition of how all meaningful statements must be formatted! Without them no meaning can be derived from any statement. That doesn't make them platonic or transcendent, that just makes them essential to the formulation of meaningful ideas.

You might be convinced but there are a great number of people who are not. There is no evidence that supports that consciousness is located in the brain. In fact, there are studies that tend to support that it isn't.

There are neuroscientists on both sides of the materialism vs. dualism debate, sure. But there are plenty of studies conclusively indicating direct correlation of certain elements of consciousness with specific areas of the brain. From MCBI:

In response to the logical problems associated with reductive physicalism, a small (but growing) number of neuroscientists have chosen to champion the position of Cartesian dualism (see Schwartz and Begly, 2003; Beauregard and O’Leary, 2007; Geftner, 2008). Dualists draw empirical support for their position from a number of behavioral and clinical studies, the results of which have been interpreted by some as being evidence for “minds changing brains” (reviewed in Schwartz and Begly, 2003; Beauregard and O’Leary, 2007). As compelling and intuitive as this argument might superficially seem, this notion is logically flawed because it presupposes that the non-physical mind exists without any empirical evidence to support this assertion. And this is the crux of the problem with dualism—if the non-corporeal mind exists (which for all we know, it may), evidence for its existence does not appear to be tangible or accessible using standard empirical methodologies. As such, arguments for Cartesian dualism are inherently faith based and are, therefore, incongruent with the scientific method. Instead of being trapped by Chalmers’ “hard problem” (as those in the materialist camp are), the dualists are logically pinned by their assumption of a non-corporeal mental “substance;” the existence of which cannot be empirically confirmed or denied. Because dualism is fundamentally a faith based argument, it cannot serve as a foundation upon which to construct a scientific understanding of qualia or the mind.

-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592728/

Dualism is not a scientific construct. It might very well be true, but it cannot draw support from science.

This is absolutely wrong. We can not violate the LOL, we can violate the formal argumentation of logic; however, we can never violate the LOL.

That's the same thing I said, only I added that the fact that we can't be not-ourselves comes from the reality of what we are, not the laws of logic. Do you have any response to that?

The standard of truth are the LOL themselves which co-exist with reality.

Wrong. They co-exist with sufficiently rational beings. If truth is that which comports with reality, then there are two things a true statement must be: first, it must be meaningful. Only logically coherent statements can be meaningful, therefore the true statement must be logically coherent. Second, the content of the statement must either correctly describe some part of reality or elucidate the meaning of another concept. The laws of logic are the latter kind of true statement. No rational beings, no laws of logic.

You are accusing me of God of the gaps which is untrue. It isn't about what we don't know, it is about what we do know.

No, it's about one unsupported claim you're using as a springboard to support another unsupported claim.

There isn't uncertainty. The LOL are 100% truth, absolutely and universally. To doubt that calls into doubt everything you know, what you think you know, or the act of even knowing. God's nature as presented in Scripture according to the Christian worldview is that God is all knowing. You really aren't facing reality at face value, you are postulating a contradictory worldview, where uniformity is found for 'no reason', where intelligence is found from non-intelligent mindless matter, where Laws exist but no Law giver exists. A universe where purpose abounds where purpose should not be found. Realty doesn't reflect an unguided, non-purposed, random universe at all.

On the contrary, you're claiming I have uncertainties inherent to my position, which you incorrectly listed as contradictions, which you are convinced you have the solution to. How is it that the universe is apparently uniform? I don't know. How is it that intelligence can arise from non-intelligent matter? I don't know. How is it that laws exist without any law-giver? Well, that one's an equivocation of two different uses of the word "law,' but even if it wasn't, I don't have to have an answer of my own to reject yours. How is it that we find purpose for ourselves in a universe devoid of inherent purpose? We create it. For the record, I've never claimed that the universe was random.
As you can see, you really are using a god of the gaps fallacy, even if you don't wish to recognize it as such. I, on the other hand, readily acknowledge what I do not know and am open to evidence of solutions for these problems. I really hope you can see now that the mere existence of these gaps in my knowledge does not constitute evidence for your god. You still have to provide evidence for your god.

That is absolutely absurd. If the LOL were based upon a sometimes very faulty perception and no truth based foundation, we would not have absolute truth of any kind let alone the necessary laws we must obey to think coherently. To claim that your position is stronger because of fewer assumptions is completely laughable. You have no evidence to support that mindless matter became mind, you have no evidence to support that evolutionary processes can attain absolute truth and no supportive evidence that the LOL are mere convention of mankind. That is plenty of assumptions. However it is not the assumptions that make your position weak, but that reality doesn't reflect your assumptions. There is no account given for the very order that the universe shows in your naturalistic worldview. There is no reason for a uniform and orderly universe that has laws that govern it and human beings. There is no reason to find intelligence arising from an unguided, non- purpose, non-intelligent matter.

See above, and then see above that. The LOL aren't based on perception at all, they are analytic propositions, as I explained. Our perceptions could reflect the exact opposite of reality and we could still use logic correctly. You can laugh all you want, but all you're doing is pointing to gaps in my knowledge and thinking that means you're in a better position because your assumption of a god, for which you have absolutely no evidence, would explain it. Again, so would simulation theory, so would paganism, and so would brain-in-a-vat theory. Instead of appealing to any of these unknown solutions, I instead stick to the reality with which I'm faced, admit that I don't know everything, and do my best to figure it out without invoking solutions for which I have absolutely no evidence. So yes, your protestations notwithstanding, I am in the stronger position.

In the Christian worldview, the reason for a uniform and orderly universe is that God designed it with a mathematical structure with purpose and intelligence. The reason that we understand the universe is that God created us in His image with the ability to apply mathematics to learn about the universe. The universe shows purpose in all aspects of reality, it shows design in all aspects of reality, it shows an intent in a goal of life on earth. What we see in reality is what we SHOULD see if our position is true. The universe, earth itself and life all have the ear marks of design and intent, goals and purpose.

Can you name one thing you couldn't rationalize under the assumption that your position is true? I can't imagine what it would be. God, being entirely mysterious and almighty, could be the explanation for literally any observation imaginable. It's unfalsifiable. So of course what you see now is among what you would expect given your position is true. Anything would be. Not a very strong position.

Also, the universe does not show purpose in any aspect of reality except in those creatures which create purpose for themselves. It shows no intent or goal of life on Earth. In fact, if anything, it shows the intent or goal of exterminating all life of Earth. Catastrophic earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, blizzards and the like are a weekly occurrence. And let's not even get into how lifeless and hostile outer space appears to be. And here's a question I'd like you to really think about: what exactly are the earmarks of design? How can you tell the difference between something designed and something non-designed?

Why? Why in your naturalistic worldview would the universe be intelligible to mindless matter which somehow becomes intelligent matter which somehow can relate to a universe that never intended them to exist?

I don't have an answer to that, I'm not a hard naturalist, and I don't accept answers that invoke the existence of something for which there is no evidence. First you have to prove your god exists, then you can argue that this is his doing.

I'd like you to really think about his for a moment. I would like you to look at it from my position for just a moment and allow yourself to actually step outside of your own position and hear what I am saying. The universe is structured by mathematical concepts, the laws that govern it are amazing just in themselves. The universe from its very beginning appears to be intent on life. If the constants were not just the way they were the universe would not exist, if they were any different life would not exist. The necessary elements that brought about life is set from the beginning of its existence. If the earth was not where it is, no life. There has never been any time where we have seen non-living matter become living. We have the LOL that are necessary for coherent thought. So not only do we see conceptual makeup of the universe but conceptual Laws that human beings have to obey. This is what we should see if our universe was created and designed according to the Christian worldview.

You are completely sidestepping the problem I've brought up with your grounding of the laws of logic in God's Nature are now bringing up a brand new argument, the argument from fine tuning. The argument from fine tuning is defeated by the anthropic principle, stating that it is wholly unremarkable that we should find ourselves in exactly the type of universe whose conditions would allow life to occur naturally. A much stronger argument would be one that provides evidence that we live in a universe that can't produce life. It would be far more remarkable to find ourselves too distant from the sun to receive sufficient warmth, but inexplicably surviving anyway. There are dozens of proposed explanations for why the universal constants are what they are, none of which are less plausible than yours and many with greater explanatory power.

They are the supportive evidence for the Christian worldview.

No they simply aren't. They are gaps which you propose to shove God into, lack of evidence notwithstanding.

Strange as even scientists with a atheist position find it unexpected. Remember we don't find the LOL they allow us to think coherently in the first place.

No, what they say is that there is no guarantee that evolution should produce any particular ability in life. Just that what is naturally selected will by necessity be beneficial. And because rational ability is demonstrably beneficial, it is no surprise that evolution has produced rational beings. Remarkable, sure, as a great many lifeforms produced by evolution are, but not surprising.

That is not what I said. I said that they do not share the rational cognition that humans have. I don't believe that an unguided, purposeless, random, process produced life let alone intelligent life. I believe in evolutionary process but I don't believe it is an unguided, purposeless, random process.

Evolution is not random. Natural selection is not random.

Because our minds are dependent upon them.

Our minds did not arise from the laws of logic.

The mathematical structure and fine tuning of the universe for a few.

Those two are the same argument, defeated above.

 

[Silmarien]

There are neuroscientists on both sides of the materialism vs. dualism debate, sure. But there are plenty of studies conclusively indicating direct correlation of certain elements of consciousness with specific areas of the brain. From MCBI:

If you want to really throw her for a loop, toss out both materialism and dualism, champion idealism, and then argue for Hinduism over Christian theism.

(Just a pleasant reminder to all involved that there's more out there than reductive materialism and substance dualism. Heck, there are Christian materialists.)

 

[gaara4158]

If you want to really throw her for a loop, toss out both materialism and dualism, champion idealism, and then argue for Hinduism over Christian theism.

(Just a pleasant reminder to all involved that there's more out there than reductive materialism and substance dualism. Heck, there are Christian materialists.)

If I had that in my wheelhouse I’d definitely integrate it into my argumentation lol. For now that’s something to look into!

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have repeated many times that "To think coherently necessarily can't happen without the LOL." I have responded to this specific argument of yours each time by saying that's a tautology and therefore not an argument for the transcendence of the LOL. What point is it you think you're making? Yes, we all know that thinking rationally requires the use of the laws of logic. That does not mean the laws of logic had to have existed prior to the development of any thinking minds. My contention is that the laws of logic developed simultaneously with minds as they evolved to become more and more rational. In other words, I believe the laws of logic are natural.

You base this on what exactly?

You do not believe minds evolved because you are a dualist. You believe some source other than the brain - or any other material - is at least partially responsible for the qualia of experience. You can believe that, but just know that you are placing yourself squarely on one side of a debate that is far from settled in philosophy. I lean towards materialism because based on what little I know about neuroscience, there isn't much left of "you" when everything tied to brain function is taken away. As I already acknowledged, I might be wrong, but you don't know that. No one does. You merely disagree. You would need to prove dualism - and to date, no one has - in order to use dualism as evidence for God.

I have an article somewhere, I'm looking but haven't found it, that is written by a neurosurgeon who has researched finding locations in the brain for different activities highlighted when someone 'thinks'. What he has found is that when he stimulates the area the person will raise a finger for instance but they know that he is doing it and not them. Every time, with every patient, they know they are not doing the action themselves. The other example I gave before, brain activity can be zero and patients can tell what happened, what was said during the time that no brain activity was shown. The more we find about brain activity the more we don't find about awareness.

Precognition is another:
Precognition: Is it Scientifically Plausible? - State of Mind

Damage to the brain and a lack of function shows that the brain is a necessary piece of consciousness, just as a tv or radio is to the signal they receive, which is limited as an analogy.

Now this doesn't prove duelism, but your bias towards materialism isn't as supported as one would think. We can 'show' what region of the brain activates a certain behavior and 'see' the thought processing but we can never 'see' what the person is seeing in their mind.

All I'm presenting is how your reasoning doesn't get us to the likely existence of a god. Right now for some reason we're discussing materialism vs. dualism, which we're not going to be able to resolve here on CF.
In any case, the certainty of the laws of logic isn't the same type of certain-enough confidence we can have in statements about reality. The laws of logic aren't statements about reality, they're statements about statements. The certainty of the laws of logic, and all other analytic propositions, is derived from the intent of their usage in the first place. Of course the laws of logic are true, they're the definition of how all meaningful statements must be formatted! Without them no meaning can be derived from any statement. That doesn't make them platonic or transcendent, that just makes them essential to the formulation of meaningful ideas.

If not reality then of what are they about? Statements about statements of what? Reality. Without existence there would be no reality to make statements about. How do you know they are not platonic or transcendent? How do the LOL and mind simultaneously happen together?

There are neuroscientists on both sides of the materialism vs. dualism debate, sure. But there are plenty of studies conclusively indicating direct correlation of certain elements of consciousness with specific areas of the brain. From MCBI:


-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592728/

And those studies that show the areas of the brain that are indicating correlation have studies which are also indicating that the person knows that they are not the ones activating those areas.

Dualism is not a scientific construct. It might very well be true, but it cannot draw support from science.

As I've provided, there are scientific studies that show that to be a false statement.

That's the same thing I said, only I added that the fact that we can't be not-ourselves comes from the reality of what we are, not the laws of logic. Do you have any response to that?

So reality? Exactly.

Wrong. They co-exist with sufficiently rational beings. If truth is that which comports with reality, then there are two things a true statement must be: first, it must be meaningful. Only logically coherent statements can be meaningful, therefore the true statement must be logically coherent. Second, the content of the statement must either correctly describe some part of reality or elucidate the meaning of another concept. The laws of logic are the latter kind of true statement. No rational beings, no laws of logic.

Truth or the LOL co-exist with reality. What you are assuming is that the LOL no longer apply if there are not rational beings but we can imagine that a rock is still a rock and not a tree whether we were here to make that statement or not. They do apply to reality or existence whether or not we are here to state that truth. Another problem with your position is why our thoughts should comport with reality now, things change and have changed immensely throughout the ages but human beings thoughts comport with reality no matter what kind of changes we face. Human beings thoughts change and some are differing now as well as in our earliest history, why should we think that the LOL should be absolute universally when humans have separate thoughts about everything all the time? Why would 2 + 2 always equal 4 when it could easily been decided that 2 + 2 equals 3? We know that 2+2=4 whether we are here to add them or not. That is a mathematical concept that is true universally. IF we did not exist, would 2+2=4 still be true? Truth still exists even if we don't. Truth transcends our existence. It has to.

No, it's about one unsupported claim you're using as a springboard to support another unsupported claim.

The LOL being absolutely true, objectively true supports the premise that evolutionary processes can not explain the a priori nature of the LOL and supports the premise that the LOL exist and are not dependent upon human minds. The LOL are concepts/thoughts that contain truth which are products of mind, if they are not dependent upon human minds, but are of mind, there must be a mind that they are dependent upon. In the Christian worldview, that mind exists in Yahweh. I am that I am. The law of Identity.

On the contrary, you're claiming I have uncertainties inherent to my position, which you incorrectly listed as contradictions, which you are convinced you have the solution to. How is it that the universe is apparently uniform? I don't know. How is it that intelligence can arise from non-intelligent matter? I don't know. How is it that laws exist without any law-giver? Well, that one's an equivocation of two different uses of the word "law,' but even if it wasn't, I don't have to have an answer of my own to reject yours. How is it that we find purpose for ourselves in a universe devoid of inherent purpose? We create it. For the record, I've never claimed that the universe was random.

I don't know but what you know is that God isn't the answer...how do you know that God is not the answer? Is it not a logical conclusion that if God is all=knowing that He is logical and intelligent. Is it not a logical conclusion that God could create intelligent beings due to His own intelligence? Is it not a logical conclusion that God could create laws to govern the universe which He created that was structured by mathematical principles and logic from His own rational nature? Is it not logical to conclude that the purpose and appearance of design that we actually see in the universe and in life itself is actually design. Is it not logical to conclude that the universe which is fine tuned to allow complex life to occur is really fine tuned to allow complex life to appear. Is it not logical to conclude that the earth itself is fine tuned for life because it was meant to allow life. What we see is that the universe appears to be designed, what we see is that life could only appear on a fine tuned planet, what we see is that life is intelligent and that intelligence begets intelligence and has never that we know of come from non-intelligent matter. So this is not God of the gaps but reality and what we actually know of the reality of the universe.

As you can see, you really are using a god of the gaps fallacy, even if you don't wish to recognize it as such.

So this is not God of the gaps but reality and what we actually know of the reality of the universe.


Continue on next post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I, on the other hand, readily acknowledge what I do not know and am open to evidence of solutions for these problems. I really hope you can see now that the mere existence of these gaps in my knowledge does not constitute evidence for your god. You still have to provide evidence for your god.

You do acknowledge what you do not know but then without knowing claim that God isn't the answer. What I've shown is there is reason and logic behind the conclusion that reality supports the Christian worldview. Reality doesn't support naturalism and you hold on to your materialistic worldview hoping against hope that a natural answer will surface, that is hanging on to your bias in the face of the unknown and without reason for what we see in reality.

See above, and then see above that. The LOL aren't based on perception at all, they are analytic propositions, as I explained. Our perceptions could reflect the exact opposite of reality and we could still use logic correctly. You can laugh all you want, but all you're doing is pointing to gaps in my knowledge and thinking that means you're in a better position because your assumption of a god, for which you have absolutely no evidence, would explain it.

What you are doing is claiming evolution of gaps for your lack of knowledge. The scientific evidence of the fine tuning of the universe and the earth supports just that, it is fine tuned for complex life. That is not lacking knowledge but knowledge that supports the Christian worldview. You have no evidence that the universe isn't just as it appears which appears to be designed for complex life. You have no evidence that intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter, you have no evidence that the LOL are grounded in a evolutionary process that is based on survival rather than truth. No evidence. Your position has no evidence to support it but mine does.

Again, so would simulation theory, so would paganism, and so would brain-in-a-vat theory. Instead of appealing to any of these unknown solutions, I instead stick to the reality with which I'm faced, admit that I don't know everything, and do my best to figure it out without invoking solutions for which I have absolutely no evidence. So yes, your protestations notwithstanding, I am in the stronger position.

Simulation theory...by whom? What other evidence would apply if this were the case? Brain-in-a-vat, again what evidence could be used to support it? Paganism, many minds, no absolute objective LOL. You are invoking solutions from which you have no evidence! You assert that your position is stronger but when it is all spelled out, you can see that isn't the case.

Can you name one thing you couldn't rationalize under the assumption that your position is true? I can't imagine what it would be. God, being entirely mysterious and almighty, could be the explanation for literally any observation imaginable. It's unfalsifiable. So of course what you see now is among what you would expect given your position is true. Anything would be. Not a very strong position.

You don't think that if we could show intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter would cast doubt on God? You don't think that a universe that didn't have a beginning wouldn't cast doubt on God? You don't think that life coming from non-living matter would cast doubt on God? I think it most certainly would for people who have not experienced God in their life. If I didn't know that God exists as the Christian God I would most certainly feel that those would be good reasons to doubt His existence. If there were not Laws that govern the universe and laws that we have to obey to think coherently I would not think there was a good reason to think God, if I didn't know. There was a time when I didn't know God existed. I had doubts but there are more reasons to believe that God exists than reasons to believe He doesn't.

Also, the universe does not show purpose in any aspect of reality except in those creatures which create purpose for themselves. It shows no intent or goal of life on Earth.

Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

How do you know, it appears to do just that.

In fact, if anything, it shows the intent or goal of exterminating all life of Earth. Catastrophic earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, blizzards and the like are a weekly occurrence. And let's not even get into how lifeless and hostile outer space appears to be. And here's a question I'd like you to really think about: what exactly are the earmarks of design? How can you tell the difference between something designed and something non-designed?

It appears to be designed. We know what design looks like, we design things. As far as catastrophic events, so? All other places in our known universe are lifeless. I find it humorous that people claim this to be a sign that we were not in some way destined to be here due to all this and in the same breath sometimes they will claim that it is no surprise or remarkable that we find complex life here because well....we are here. Which is it? Not remarkable or remarkable that we are?

I don't have an answer to that, I'm not a hard naturalist, and I don't accept answers that invoke the existence of something for which there is no evidence. First you have to prove your god exists, then you can argue that this is his doing.

Why? Why do I first have to prove God exists? You don't have to prove that intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter and has no evidence that it does. You don't have to prove that the LOL are evolved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is just extraordinary to claim that intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter. Science rarely "proves" anything, what it does is finds facts and they support or falsify premises. Facts are evidence for or against a hypothesis. I have shown that there are known facts that support the Christian worldview. It is a cohesive and coherent worldview that aligns with known facts about reality.

You are completely sidestepping the problem I've brought up with your grounding of the laws of logic in God's Nature are now bringing up a brand new argument, the argument from fine tuning.

I was trying to illuminate the reasons behind the Christian worldview.

The argument from fine tuning is defeated by the anthropic principle, stating that it is wholly unremarkable that we should find ourselves in exactly the type of universe whose conditions would allow life to occur naturally. A much stronger argument would be one that provides evidence that we live in a universe that can't produce life.

Fine tuning is not defeated by the anthropic principle, it is not that I am saying that it is remarkable that we should find ourselves here or that the conditions would be what they are to allow it after the fact, I am showing that it appears to be designed to do so. Why would all the parameters be so exact as to be on the edge of knife which allow complex life to exist?

What you are saying is " I assume that life could only arise from naturalistic processes, so I prove that life arose from naturalistic processes. It really doesn't defeat anything.


We do seem to live in a universe that doesn't produce life except in one place that we know of. I guess that doesn't seem remarkable to you but it seems pretty remarkable to me. Life is rare, perhaps so rare that we are the only life forms in the universe.

It would be far more remarkable to find ourselves too distant from the sun to receive sufficient warmth, but inexplicably surviving anyway. There are dozens of proposed explanations for why the universal constants are what they are, none of which are less plausible than yours and many with greater explanatory power.

Ah, just like I said, in the same breath..it is not remarkable at all that we find the universe is as it is to create complex life and then next we think it would be remarkable if we didn't have the universe the way it is and all the hurricanes, floods and the like. I don't think there are dozens of proposed explanations for why the universal constants are the way they are, the multiverse hypothesis was developed just for that reason.


How is anything greater in explaining fine tuning than design?

No they simply aren't. They are gaps which you propose to shove God into, lack of evidence notwithstanding.

There are no gaps I am filling. What gaps? We know what the parameters are and what they have to be for life to exist, even for the universe to exist. We know that the LOL MUST be obeyed for coherent rational thought. We know that intelligence begets intelligence and is the only evidence we have. So what gaps?

No, what they say is that there is no guarantee that evolution should produce any particular ability in life. Just that what is naturally selected will by necessity be beneficial. And because rational ability is demonstrably beneficial, it is no surprise that evolution has produced rational beings. Remarkable, sure, as a great many lifeforms produced by evolution are, but not surprising.

Beneficial for survival, not for truth. To just get to a cell is remarkable and is too surprising to believe that non-living matter suddenly became living matter, add to that rationality and Laws that must be obeyed; you are seriously misrepresenting what is considered remarkable.

Evolution is not random. Natural selection is not random.

Yes, evolution is random, natural selection is not. The genetic variation that natural selection works on are random.

Our minds did not arise from the laws of logic.

I didn't claim there did.

Those two are the same argument, defeated above.

They are not defeated.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you want to really throw her for a loop, toss out both materialism and dualism, champion idealism, and then argue for Hinduism over Christian theism.

(Just a pleasant reminder to all involved that there's more out there than reductive materialism and substance dualism. Heck, there are Christian materialists.)

Yes, there are many worldviews, I am defending the Christian worldview. I don't know what Christian materialists actually means.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I apologize for the length of the post. I didn't realize it was so long until I tried to post it.

 

[Silmarien]

If I had that in my wheelhouse I’d definitely integrate it into my argumentation lol. For now that’s something to look into!

Haha, whatever it takes to knock you out of that materialistic paradigm.

I've forfeited the right to go after Christians with Indian philosophy, but there's no reason other people can't do it!

Yes, there are many worldviews, I am defending the Christian worldview. I don't know what Christian materialists actually means.

It means Christians who accept a materialistic theory of mind. (Usually non-reductive instead of reductive.) It usually ties into the idea that in Judaism, we tend to see a unity of mind, body, and soul as one single thing instead of a dualistic composite, and that Christianity's vision of the afterlife traditionally involves bodily resurrection instead of some spiritual heaven. We don't need to be dualists, and there are some valid reasons not to be.

This is probably my position (though I'm still fond of idealism). Atheistic materialism doesn't make much sense to me, but if you ground the material in a robust theism, then why can't matter be animate and aware?

 

[gaara4158]

I apologize for the length of the post. I didn't realize it was so long until I tried to post it.

Don’t worry, I’ll get through it all eventually. Just give me a few days lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

Haha, whatever it takes to knock you out of that materialistic paradigm.

I've forfeited the right to go after Christians with Indian philosophy, but there's no reason other people can't do it!



It means Christians who accept a materialistic theory of mind. (Usually non-reductive instead of reductive.) It usually ties into the idea that in Judaism, we tend to see a unity of mind, body, and soul as one single thing instead of a dualistic composite, and that Christianity's vision of the afterlife traditionally involves bodily resurrection instead of some spiritual heaven. We don't need to be dualists, and there are some valid reasons not to be.

This is probably my position (though I'm still fond of idealism). Atheistic materialism doesn't make much sense to me, but if you ground the material in a robust theism, then why can't matter be animate and aware?

Fondness of a position is something I haven't considered before.

When discussing intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter I am referring to a naturalistic worldview. I don't happen to believe that evolution is an unguided or unintelligent process lacking purpose or goals.