'Knowledge' of Existence

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Just so you know: ...it's basically a view that sees human beings, even as they may be classified in a tripartite way, as essentially physical bodies. So, spirit, soul, and body are all united together as physical things within a singular frame of flesh. And Christian materialists think, basically again, that everything in our universe is 'material' and not spirit. However, God is still seen as non-material.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just so you know: ...it's basically a view that sees human beings, even as they may be classified in a tripartite way, as essentially physical bodies. So, spirit, soul, and body are all united together as physical things within a singular frame of flesh. And Christian materialists think, basically again, that everything in our universe is 'material' and not spirit. However, God is still seen as non-material.

Interesting. hmmmm

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting. hmmmm

Yep. I'm not saying you need to believe it. I'm personally not committed one way or another to any particular view between Dualism and Materialism or Monism, but I do lean more toward the traditional Jewish view.

Body and Soul | My Jewish Learning

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. I'm not saying you need to believe it. I'm personally not committed one way or another to any particular view between Dualism and Materialism or Monism, but I do lean more toward the traditional Jewish view.

Body and Soul | My Jewish Learning

Do you think that the soul dies with the body?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think that the soul dies with the body?

I don't know what to think on that specifically. It could go either way. The important thing is, regardless, that God has the power to raise us, and whether that means He actually holds our unembodied souls until the resurrection or He allows us to sleep until the Resurrection, I'm not particular about it. I'm more concerned that we actually do get to carry on our existence, and more importantly, that it will be the Trinitarian God that we experience in that same eternal state.

So, that's the short of the long story for me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know what to think on that specifically. It could go either way. The important thing is, regardless, that God has the power to raise us, and whether that means He actually holds our unembodied souls until the resurrection or He allows us to sleep until the Resurrection, I'm not particular about it. I'm more concerned that we actually do get to carry on our existence, and more importantly, that it will be the Trinitarian God that we experience in that same eternal state.

So, that's the short of the long story for me.

I take it that you don't believe in the rapture?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I take it that you don't believe in the rapture?

Not in any Dispensationalist, "Left Behind" kind of way. No.

 

[Silmarien]

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

Well, at the end of the day, that really is what it comes down to. If you've got multiple positions that make sense equally, how do you adjudicate between them? Occam's Razor? But which one is simpler? Sometimes that's a matter of perception, and it may well be that the one you prefer is the one that's going to seem simpler.

I know which positions I think are false, but it's harder to figure out which of the live possibilities might be true. Not to mention the ones neither I nor anyone else has considered yet.

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.

Oh, I know. I got tired of going around and around in circles about naturalism a while ago, so these days I mostly just prefer to let people know just how many options are out there. Hence me sticking my nose in here.

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.

Just noticed this while looking through Oncedeceived responses, and I don't think it's quite right. I'd say the anthropic principle could defeat the argument that the earth had been specifically fine-tuned, because in a universe this large, there's always the chance that an unlikely world such as our own would come about, and of course we would end up on that particular world. So the fact that we did isn't very interesting.

For the anthropic principle to defeat the fine-tuning argument of the universe, though, we would need to import a multiverse theory, since that's the only way we could say that we were likely to show up in one universe, the only question is which one would win the jackpot. And while multiverse is an alternative to fine-tuning, it's not a defeater, since we don't know if it's true.

 

[gaara4158]

You base this on what exactly?

My entire argument is built to support this contention. I suspect that physical processes are sufficient to produce rational beings, even if I don't know how, because I have no way of detecting any other processes, and yet I experience rationality. Even if I fell on the doubting side of this argument, I would have absolutely no way to search for answers elsewhere, despite the popularity of dualism and idealism. Materialism is the only paradigm by which we can hope to find a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. All other paradigms, as far as I can tell, would need to be taken on faith. We could never discover the existence of a soul or an ubermind grounding all of reality empirically nor can we infer its existence logically. You're trying to infer the existence of one or both of these logically and I'm arguing that it doesn't work.

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.

Let me know when you find that article, because if we could truly demonstrate that someone knew what was going on in the room while instruments were showing zero brain activity, that would be an earth-shattering discovery. If it's peer-reviewed and been repeated, I'm prepared to take that into serious consideration. I have never seen anything like that, and in fact I have only heard of such experiments failing to demonstrate any awareness absent brain activity.
There are also scientific studies showing that people with brain damage do not recognize that their brain damage is preventing them from executing certain motor functions, insisting rather that they are too tired or not interested. This would go against the notion that people are always aware of the brain's impact on their decisions.

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.

The author of this article, Arjun Walia, is also the author of a number of conspiracy theory-based articles, including alien abductions, clandestine bases on the dark side of the moon, and vaccines causing autism: Arjun Walia – Collective Evolution This alone doesn't mean he's wrong, but I wouldn't hang my hat on this article. In any case, precognition would be an astounding discovery, but it wouldn't necessarily be a problem for materialism, only our understanding of time and perception. But remember that my bias toward materialism shouldn't matter; you supposedly have a deductive argument proving the necessity of an ubermind grounding all of reality, namely Yahweh. I haven't seen that yet.

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?

Unless you do not recognize a difference between statements about reality and reality itself, you already know the answer to this. The "laws of logic" are the shorthand title we give to the three principles we all accept when we process information. These principles are not the things to which they apply, even though the codification of these principles requires their application. All of this happens inside your head so that you can think something other than "but how do I know that?" This is what trips you up every time. You want to ask, how do I know the laws of logic are true if there's no guarantee my mind is equipped to detect truth at all? I'll tell you. It's because there are two types of propositions: analytic propositions, and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true by definition in that they are only made to elucidate the meaning of other concepts. Basically, whatever rules you make up in your head about what you're going to call true, those are true. You can make up whatever rules you want, and you can still be absolutely certain those rules are true because you're the one who decides what's true. The problem is, truth has no use to us unless we can somehow tie it to synthetic propositions, which are statements about reality. The laws of logic are the most basic analytical propositions with which most of us tie truth-statements to reality (there are some people who instead apply intuitionism, dialetheism, or fuzzy logic). All they do is establish a framework for identifying reality as discrete parts, like drawing a circle on a sheet of paper so that all empty space on that paper is either inside the circle or outside the circle. Is there anything platonic or transcendent about that? No, the truth comes from the definition of "inside" "outside" and "circle."

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

Did you read the article? It explained precisely why dualism wasn't a scientific construct, and it wasn't because of a lack of available evidence, it was because of a lack of empirical testability.

So reality? Exactly.

Not reality itself, but the essence of things that exist in reality. A rock's rock-ness comes from what it is, not from what some laws of logic demand we call it. The laws of logic demand we identify a rock as what it is because that's the only way we can hope to engage reality with truth-statements.

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.

How? How can the laws of logic, which apply only to statements, exist if there exist no statements? Yes, we can imagine a world with no beings but full of rocks and we would be obligated to describe it in logical terms, but that's us, not that world. The laws of logic apply to our statements, not those rocks. If you don't accept this, we can't go on.

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.

Here's another example of what I was talking about earlier. You're not recognizing the difference between analytical propositions, which are true as a matter of definition, and synthetic propositions, which are the type that must correctly refer to some aspect of reality. 2+2=4 isn't an aspect of reality, it is a matter of definition. We could decide that 2+2=3, but that would just mean we changed the definitions of some of those symbols. Truth does not transcend existence. Truth is a label attached to statements. Statements are contingent upon statement-makers. We are statement-makers. Truth absolutely, positively, by definition and necessity 100% cannot transcend the existence of statement-makers.

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.

If you're going to reduce Yahweh to the law of identity, I have been wasting far too much time with this.

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.

No. I don't have an answer, and the argument you're giving for God as an answer is not sufficiently convincing for the many reasons I have outlined thus far. I never said God isn't the answer, or can't be the answer, only that there's no reason to suppose it's him rather than a simulation, an illusion, an evil wizard, or any other fantastical explanation. You have not established his existence, so all your questions about what he should reasonably be capable of are completely moot.

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.

No, the opposite is the case. I understand that materialism is the only paradigm under which we can hope to find an evidence-based answer to the deep questions about consciousness and reality, so therefore I see no reason to entertain any other paradigm, even if materialism is itself problematic. I don't cling to it or claim that it is true, it's just the only option with any potential to be demonstrated as true.

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.

No, I am not claiming evolution of the gaps, because I am not pointing to mysteries and saying that only evolution could explain them. I am pointing to mysteries and openly admitting that they are mysteries. You are immediately jumping on those mysteries, as you do with your fine tuning argument just one sentence after accusing me of doing so, and claiming that God is the best logical explanation for them. All I'm saying is there's no reason it couldn't have a natural explanation. You're the one insisting it couldn't, based on your pre-existing bias against it. My not knowing how something happened naturally is, again, not evidence that it couldn't have. No evidence isn't a problem for me, it's a problem for you. You can say I have no evidence until you're blue in the face. It doesn't matter. Neither do you. And you're the one invoking the existence of something we've never detected.

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.

Your position suffers the exact same problems as the ones you recognize in simulation theory et al. You're tyring to exempt your position from these problems by sheer will and it doesn't work. My positions makes no such claims, only that the reality which I face seems to work a certain way. You make that claim too, you just turn around and base it on something for which you have no evidence.

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.

We don't need all that to cast doubt on God. It's a pretty pitifully-supported concept as it is. But we're not talking about subjective doubt here, we're talking about logical defeaters. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, you couldn't explain away by saying "That's just how God wanted things. Who are you to question it?" And indeed that's what we hear oftentimes when believers start to question their faith in light of horrific events. Therefore, the absence of logical defeaters for God's existence is not a strong argument for his existence.

 

[gaara4158]

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.

Well, it's an interesting move to show how one of your points, if true, doesn't even support your case, but I'll take it.

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?

You need to really explain how we tell the difference between design and nature, not just assume we can tell intuitively because "we design things." It's important you do so because otherwise you're just making an argument from intuition, which won't work.
I find it humorous that you claim all other places in our known universe are lifeless. There are an estimated thousands of species on our planet alone that have yet to be discovered, and you're so sure there's nothing else alive in the universe? That's incredibly arrogant, to say the least.
It is not a sign of supernatural interference that we find ourselves in a universe in which, by our calculations, it is entirely possible for life to develop on its own. It is also seemingly a sign against competent supernatural interference that we find ourselves inside such a narrow region of the universe wherein life is possible. It appears we got very lucky, but we haven't done the impossible. Even if we had, that wouldn't get us to a god, that would just get us to an unseen variable.

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.

Because all the separate elements of my position have been demonstrated to exist, and yours haven't. We know evolution happens, we know minds exist, we know matter exists. We don't know God exists. Demonstrate that your god exists, then we can pit your god-hypothesis against my evolution-hypothesis. Until then, I'm just going to keep telling you your hypothesis is worthless. It has no explanatory power.

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.

Fine tuning is at best a mystery for which God is not a solution until it is shown that he exists. Meanwhile, as I said, dozens of other explanations have been proposed by theoretical physicists, none of which include Yahweh. And the anthropic principle still stands, as I explained above.

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?

I hope what I have written above has clarified this for you. I don't want to keep responding redundantly to paragraphs discussing more or less the same thing, but I don't want you to think I'm cutting corners.

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?

The things you keep telling me I have no evidence of a natural solution for. Those gaps.

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.

Sure it's remarkable in the sense that we are impressed by it. But "too surprising" is entirely subjective, and just another example of a gap you're creating to shove God into. Even if it were too surprising to find what we find, that's not evidence for God. That's evidence that we don't know everything.

In conclusion, the most important things I'd like you to meditate on is the nature of analytic propositions, the difference between design and nature, and how you can make an argument based on my lack of answers that isn't a god of the gaps argument. If not, we're not going to get anywhere.

 

[gaara4158]

Just noticed this while looking through Oncedeceived responses, and I don't think it's quite right. I'd say the anthropic principle could defeat the argument that the earth had been specifically fine-tuned, because in a universe this large, there's always the chance that an unlikely world such as our own would come about, and of course we would end up on that particular world. So the fact that we did isn't very interesting.

For the anthropic principle to defeat the fine-tuning argument of the universe, though, we would need to import a multiverse theory, since that's the only way we could say that we were likely to show up in one universe, the only question is which one would win the jackpot. And while multiverse is an alternative to fine-tuning, it's not a defeater, since we don't know if it's true.

Well, I don’t think it’s necessary to establish that our showing up in any universe was likely, although I have seen some theoretical physicists claim that the equations by which we understand physics output a 1:1 probability of this happening. It’s ok to consider this an unlikely event. We only call this state of affairs a “jackpot” because we’re here to see it, but there’s no telling what kind of life may have evolved under different conditions. Multiverse theories and string theories are popular among theoretical physicists, but we don’t need to appeal to them to reject a god-hypothesis, because no matter how capable you consider God to be, he has no support for his existence apart from being defined as that which has finely tuned our universe.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, I don’t think it’s necessary to establish that our showing up in any universe was likely, although I have seen some theoretical physicists claim that the equations by which we understand physics output a 1:1 probability of this happening. It’s ok to consider this an unlikely event. We only call this state of affairs a “jackpot” because we’re here to see it, but there’s no telling what kind of life may have evolved under different conditions. Multiverse theories and string theories are popular among theoretical physicists, but we don’t need to appeal to them to reject a god-hypothesis, because no matter how capable you consider God to be, he has no support for his existence apart from being defined as that which has finely tuned our universe.

If your argument is that there's no reason to say that fine-tuning points to God, because our universe could have just as easily been engineered by extra-dimensional energy beings or whatever other science fiction entity we can dream up, then I agree. Fine-tuning has the same weakness as the Kalam: even if it points to something, the only information it gives us about that something is that it created the universe. This is why design arguments almost always fail.

The response that we don't actually know how finely tuned the universe really is works as a defeater too, I would say. If the chances are 1:1, then the universe is simply not fine tuned and the argument fails. I dislike theistic arguments that rely heavily on modern scientific findings for precisely this reason: our understanding is incomplete and so the premises of any argument that draws too much from modern cosmology are going to be suspect. They're of some use if you're already a theist, but certainly not great grounds for embracing theism in the first place.

It's specifically the anthropic principle that I don't think works as a response. If we had evidence that a different sort of life could have developed under other circumstances--something not carbon based--then you would have a counterargument. We are what we are because the universe simply happened to function in the right way to give rise to us, but if the universe had been different, then lifeforms would have ultimately been different as well. But we would need evidence of non-carbon based life forms to give this counterargument any genuine bite.

I'm not trying to convince you that the fine-tuning argument works, since I certainly wouldn't accept it myself, but I don't think this particular response to it (the anthropic principle) is at all compelling. When the response to a theistic argument is even more hypothetical than the theistic argument itself, we've basically descended into sophistry, so I'm going to object. That doesn't mean that there aren't bigger problems out there for fine-tuning, though.

 

[cvanwey]

I happily admit I do not have the first clue what, who, or other, sparked the existence we think we know of today. But I also have fairly confidently concluded that the Bible does not appear to represent a sound representation to such claimed origins.

This thread is interesting. However, if Christians had tangible proof of Yahweh's existence, terms like 'atheist' would be practically non-existent. Many such arguments presented would not be necessary (LOL included). Yes, many may not comply or agree with the tenets or commands from such a known agent, (as also dictated from the Bible); but little to no one would or could rationally deny the existence of such an agent/being.

Moving forward, I implore someone to actually respond to the prior video presented. Though I also have many additional observations, in addition to this video, I feel this video seems to represent at least many of the same concerns many other doubters of the Christian faith have broached at one time or another.

But before I post this video, yet again, I ask.... Are any Christian posters here actually going to eventually attempt to tie all such arguments to Yahweh?

 

[Silmarien]

However, if Christians had tangible proof of Yahweh's existence, terms like 'atheist' would be practically non-existent.

How do you figure? There's tangible "proof" of the existence of matter, and still a term for people who deny it: idealist. There's tangible "proof" of the existence of other minds, and still a term for people who deny them: solipsist.

(I'm not responding to the video. Not my religious paradigm, so all I could say would be "stop being a literalist.")

 

[cvanwey]

How do you figure? There's tangible "proof" of the existence of matter, and still a term for people who deny it: idealist. There's tangible "proof" of the existence of other minds, and still a term for people who deny them: solipsist.

(I'm not responding to the video. Not my religious paradigm, so all I could say would be "stop being a literalist.")

Yes, and terms like 'solipsist' are practically non-existent by many. Meaning, most don't know what this term is, and many need to look it up when such a term is brought forth to them. Furthermore, a very small group, in comparison, share such positions of 'solipsism', in direct comparison to the term 'atheist'. I doubt such clarification or definition would be needed by most for the term 'atheist'.

Sure, you are correct that many smaller cells exist; 'denying' and 'confirming' all sorts of claims, or the direct denial of claims (founded and unfounded).

And sure, one could state to stop being a 'literalist' now, in regards to the Bible; but only after alternative discovery to the contrary

But my point is simple... I don't know if the universe always was, changed form, or was 'created'? And furthermore, if it was created, created by who/what?

But all such argumentation posted in this thread, thus far, has no closer directed us to the Abrahamic God, verses many other alternatives.

Can someone please advise accordingly, by watching the posted video and explaining how such observation leads to Yahweh specifically as the creator of the universe? Also, please actually provide compelling evidence to all skeptics, doubters, and atheists that the Christian God does at least actually exist?

500+ posts in and I have yet to see as such...

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, and terms like 'solipsist' are practically non-existent by many. Meaning, most don't know what this term is, and many need to look it up when such a term is brought forth to them. Furthermore, a very small group, in comparison, share such positions of 'solipsism', in direct comparison to the term 'atheist'. I doubt such clarification or definition would be needed by most for the term 'atheist'.

Sure, you are correct that many smaller cells exist; 'denying' and 'confirming' all sorts of claims, or the direct denial of claims (founded and unfounded).

If people don't know what solipsism is, we have a real problem with education in this country.

But what's your point, exactly? Atheism is a modern phenomenon--in other periods of human history, it would have been unheard of. Does this mean that tangible proof existed 500 years ago but no longer does?

There are entire paradigms that deny that the physical is real, despite tangible evidence to the contrary. One major world religion does this, so your focus on tangible proof making a difference seems a bit misplaced.

And sure, one could state to stop being a 'literalist' now, in regards to the Bible; but only after alternative discovery to the contrary

The alternative discovery of what? Literature? Metaphor? Most people only need a class or two for that. If you want to go all the way to ancient Hebrew literary conventions, that gets a bit trickier, but you can obviously still study it.

 

[cvanwey]

But what's your point, exactly?

My point is I want demonstration for knowledge of existence. My point is asking how does the claimed and asserted God of the Bible lead to the origin of our known reality; when the Bible seems to be in stark contrast to later discovery, in many ways.

I feel you addressed a very minor point from my prior post. The meat of my response is what I would like addressing.

I get what you are saying... But you seem to be addressing the wrong content. I do not wish to exhaust trivial observations. As stated prior... yes, you are correct. Many cells exist whom believe/disbelieve many things (founded and unfounded).

I don't see why you are making such a consorted effort to argue that if knowledge of Yahweh was more universally known, the term 'atheist' would be practically non-existent. If you don't agree with that statement, fine.

If you do not wish to address the video, or give evidence for knowledge of existence, then that's fine as well. Just await others to respond accordingly, whom feel they do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not in any Dispensationalist, "Left Behind" kind of way. No.

Sometime we'll have to discuss your "kind of way".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, at the end of the day, that really is what it comes down to. If you've got multiple positions that make sense equally, how do you adjudicate between them? Occam's Razor? But which one is simpler? Sometimes that's a matter of perception, and it may well be that the one you prefer is the one that's going to seem simpler.

I think what I see in your position is more a journey in progress, I too was at that point in my life. So I do understand.

I know which positions I think are false, but it's harder to figure out which of the live possibilities might be true. Not to mention the ones neither I nor anyone else has considered yet.

Yes, I finally just asked.

Oh, I know. I got tired of going around and around in circles about naturalism a while ago, so these days I mostly just prefer to let people know just how many options are out there. Hence me sticking my nose in here.

It does get tiresome. I feel that many naturalists/materialists have no real desire for truth but are just about the sport.

Just noticed this while looking through Oncedeceived responses, and I don't think it's quite right. I'd say the anthropic principle could defeat the argument that the earth had been specifically fine-tuned, because in a universe this large, there's always the chance that an unlikely world such as our own would come about, and of course we would end up on that particular world. So the fact that we did isn't very interesting.

I find it surprising that you don't find it interesting. When you think about all the necessary elements and how they rest on such minuscule ranges as well as the fact that if the universe's fine tuned ranges that allow a planet like ours which allows complex life to exist are interwoven for that life; it seems to be one of the most interesting phenomena to be explored.

For the anthropic principle to defeat the fine-tuning argument of the universe, though, we would need to import a multiverse theory, since that's the only way we could say that we were likely to show up in one universe, the only question is which one would win the jackpot. And while multiverse is an alternative to fine-tuning, it's not a defeater, since we don't know if it's true.

Not only is it not a defeater considering the jackpot scenario, but it just moves the fine tuning back one level. The multi-verse generator would have to be just as fine tuned for a fine tuned universe as ours to exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My entire argument is built to support this contention. I suspect that physical processes are sufficient to produce rational beings, even if I don't know how, because I have no way of detecting any other processes, and yet I experience rationality. Even if I fell on the doubting side of this argument, I would have absolutely no way to search for answers elsewhere, despite the popularity of dualism and idealism. Materialism is the only paradigm by which we can hope to find a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. All other paradigms, as far as I can tell, would need to be taken on faith. We could never discover the existence of a soul or an ubermind grounding all of reality empirically nor can we infer its existence logically. You're trying to infer the existence of one or both of these logically and I'm arguing that it doesn't work.

I want to thank you for responding to my two posts, I also want to thank you for being cordial in doing so. I didn't have a chance to respond as quickly as I would have liked, we have busy weekends around here.

You are claiming that all other paradigms must be taken on faith, but then you make the faith claim that you suspect that physical processes are sufficient to produce rational beings even if you don't know how. You experience rationality so rationality produced by physical processes are sufficient. This is circular. Rationality proves rationality arises by physical processes. You are also begging the question. You then go on and say that materialism is the only way to find a solution for consciousness, when consciousness can not be shown to be a material element. Thoughts are conceptual.

I have to ask, do you think that the Laws of Logic are absolute, necessary and universal laws that we must obey to have rational thought?

Let me know when you find that article, because if we could truly demonstrate that someone knew what was going on in the room while instruments were showing zero brain activity, that would be an earth-shattering discovery. If it's peer-reviewed and been repeated, I'm prepared to take that into serious consideration. I have never seen anything like that, and in fact I have only heard of such experiments failing to demonstrate any awareness absent brain activity.
There are also scientific studies showing that people with brain damage do not recognize that their brain damage is preventing them from executing certain motor functions, insisting rather that they are too tired or not interested. This would go against the notion that people are always aware of the brain's impact on their decisions.

I will spend some time today looking for it.

The author of this article, Arjun Walia, is also the author of a number of conspiracy theory-based articles, including alien abductions, clandestine bases on the dark side of the moon, and vaccines causing autism: Arjun Walia – Collective Evolution This alone doesn't mean he's wrong, but I wouldn't hang my hat on this article. In any case, precognition would be an astounding discovery, but it wouldn't necessarily be a problem for materialism, only our understanding of time and perception. But remember that my bias toward materialism shouldn't matter; you supposedly have a deductive argument proving the necessity of an ubermind grounding all of reality, namely Yahweh. I haven't seen that yet.

I wasn't aware of his other 'work'. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The point of this discussion is that the Laws of Logic are accounted for in the Christian worldview and they are not in the materialistic/atheist worldview. The Christian worldview is more cohesive and coherent and comports to reality and the universe better than an atheistic/materialistic worldview.

Unless you do not recognize a difference between statements about reality and reality itself, you already know the answer to this. The "laws of logic" are the shorthand title we give to the three principles we all accept when we process information.

Can you not not accept them?

These principles are not the things to which they apply, even though the codification of these principles requires their application. All of this happens inside your head so that you can think something other than "but how do I know that?" This is what trips you up every time. You want to ask, how do I know the laws of logic are true if there's no guarantee my mind is equipped to detect truth at all? I'll tell you. It's because there are two types of propositions: analytic propositions, and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true by definition in that they are only made to elucidate the meaning of other concepts. Basically, whatever rules you make up in your head about what you're going to call true, those are true. You can make up whatever rules you want, and you can still be absolutely certain those rules are true because you're the one who decides what's true. The problem is, truth has no use to us unless we can somehow tie it to synthetic propositions, which are statements about reality. The laws of logic are the most basic analytical propositions with which most of us tie truth-statements to reality (there are some people who instead apply intuitionism, dialetheism, or fuzzy logic). All they do is establish a framework for identifying reality as discrete parts, like drawing a circle on a sheet of paper so that all empty space on that paper is either inside the circle or outside the circle. Is there anything platonic or transcendent about that? No, the truth comes from the definition of "inside" "outside" and "circle."

Can anyone make up new rules and do away with the LOL?

Did you read the article? It explained precisely why dualism wasn't a scientific construct, and it wasn't because of a lack of available evidence, it was because of a lack of empirical testability.

What empirical testability do you use to determine that the LOL are evolutionary in nature? What empirical testability do you use to determine consciousness is a product of evolutionary processes?

Not reality itself, but the essence of things that exist in reality. A rock's rock-ness comes from what it is, not from what some laws of logic demand we call it. The laws of logic demand we identify a rock as what it is because that's the only way we can hope to engage reality with truth-statements.

I agree, I just don't believe that we get absolute truth by way of the human mind's evolution. Absolute truth doesn't have a reality within a process that is devoid of absolute's and especially absolute truth. Survival is not concerned with absolute truth, survival happens when anything goes as long as we survive.

How? How can the laws of logic, which apply only to statements, exist if there exist no statements? Yes, we can imagine a world with no beings but full of rocks and we would be obligated to describe it in logical terms, but that's us, not that world. The laws of logic apply to our statements, not those rocks. If you don't accept this, we can't go on.

It's not the rocks that give us the absolute truth but it is necessary for something to exist for the truths of that existence to exist. The LOL exist even when we don't because the LOL are truth about that which exists. If we didn't exist we couldn't obviously make statements about anything including the LOL. The point is that the LOL existed prior to us existing, because the truth of the statements that we would make were already absolutely true. They had to be true then as well as when we could make statements about them. I know you believe that we were the ones that brought about the LOL but that doesn't make sense when you know that those truths had to be true even before we were able to make those statements.

Here's another example of what I was talking about earlier. You're not recognizing the difference between analytical propositions, which are true as a matter of definition, and synthetic propositions, which are the type that must correctly refer to some aspect of reality. 2+2=4 isn't an aspect of reality, it is a matter of definition. We could decide that 2+2=3, but that would just mean we changed the definitions of some of those symbols. Truth does not transcend existence. Truth is a label attached to statements. Statements are contingent upon statement-makers. We are statement-makers. Truth absolutely, positively, by definition and necessity 100% cannot transcend the existence of statement-makers.

I agree. You just believe we are the statement makers and that we are the necessary element to truth. However, what you are not understanding is that we are not the origin of the absolute truth that we make statements about. The LOL exist with existence, existence exists without us prior to us being in existence; absolute truth exists with existence, absolute truth exists prior to us being in existence. So it comes down to the very beginning of our universe...existence and the absolute truth that exists due to that existence which doesn't depend upon us but on the mind that created the universe with the absolute truth grounded in the nature of the necessary mind that the LOL are grounded in.

If you're going to reduce Yahweh to the law of identity, I have been wasting far too much time with this.

I am bringing in the Christian worldview. God says, "I am that I am". God knows that God is God and is not not God. God's nature is what grounds the LOL as the correct way of thinking. There is a reason that we as created in the image of God think God's thoughts after Him. He is the necessary mind for absolute, invariant, and universal truth.

No. I don't have an answer, and the argument you're giving for God as an answer is not sufficiently convincing for the many reasons I have outlined thus far. I never said God isn't the answer, or can't be the answer, only that there's no reason to suppose it's him rather than a simulation, an illusion, an evil wizard, or any other fantastical explanation. You have not established his existence, so all your questions about what he should reasonably be capable of are completely moot.

My point again, the Christian worldview can account for the LOL in a cohesive and coherent way which reflects more adequately the reality of the universe than a purely materialistic/naturalistic atheistic worldview. It is more reasonable to hold that the LOL which are absolute, invariant and universal truth are grounded in the necessary Being of God. What we know of the LOL and the reality of the universe reflect the intelligence and structure that would be present in a universe created and designed by God.

No, the opposite is the case. I understand that materialism is the only paradigm under which we can hope to find an evidence-based answer to the deep questions about consciousness and reality, so therefore I see no reason to entertain any other paradigm, even if materialism is itself problematic. I don't cling to it or claim that it is true, it's just the only option with any potential to be demonstrated as true.

Again, how do you empirically test that the LOL are evolutionary in nature? How do you empirically test that consciousness is evolutionary in nature? It is necessary to utilize each in determining anything. Without the LOL which do not have a good foundation in materialism you can't determine truth. If we only have materialism we can't know for sure there is truth and that means all of science and human endeavor for truth has a foundation based on just what we are hardwired to think about as true. Nothing could be known to be true.

No, I am not claiming evolution of the gaps, because I am not pointing to mysteries and saying that only evolution could explain them. I am pointing to mysteries and openly admitting that they are mysteries.

No, you are claiming that evolution is sufficient to explain the mystery, even if you don't know how...that is evolution of the gaps.

You are immediately jumping on those mysteries, as you do with your fine tuning argument just one sentence after accusing me of doing so, and claiming that God is the best logical explanation for them.

We KNOW what is necessary for the universe to come into existence, we KNOW what it takes to make stars, we KNOW what it takes to allow life. We KNOW what the ranges are for those requirements and that it is incredibly unlikely that those ranges just happened by random chance even if we put forth the hypothetical multi-verse explanation. So those are known elements or phenomena that point to design. They appear to be fixed in such a way as to create a universe and allow for complex life. This is what we would expect to find (predict) if the universe was indeed designed.

All I'm saying is there's no reason it couldn't have a natural explanation. You're the one insisting it couldn't, based on your pre-existing bias against it. My not knowing how something happened naturally is, again, not evidence that it couldn't have. No evidence isn't a problem for me, it's a problem for you. You can say I have no evidence until you're blue in the face. It doesn't matter. Neither do you. And you're the one invoking the existence of something we've never detected.

We both have presuppositions. I am not saying that a natural explanation is out of the realm of possibility, God designed using mathematical structure to create the Universe and all complex life. However, materialistic explanations are rarely sufficient on their own without the order and uniformity, intelligence and design that God used to create the universe. WE can learn about our universe due to the LOL that we must obey to do so. We can understand evolutionary processes due to the order in our universe and the LOL that allow us to determine anything.

Your position suffers the exact same problems as the ones you recognize in simulation theory et al. You're tyring to exempt your position from these problems by sheer will and it doesn't work. My positions makes no such claims, only that the reality which I face seems to work a certain way. You make that claim too, you just turn around and base it on something for which you have no evidence.

You make many claims that are not based on evidence. You claim that somehow the LOL simultaneously arose with our minds...what evidence do you base this on? It isn't empirically tested, it isn't scientifically garnered. You base it on your presuppositions that evolution happens so it had to happen. The evidence which supports my position is based on an Intelligent Being that has the necessary mind for the LOL, the ability to create a universe based on Intelligence by way of mathematical structure and reality reflects that intelligence by the appearance of design. God explains due to His intelligence, the Laws that govern the universe and the laws that mankind must obey to understand anything at all. Evolution is a process devoid of intelligence. It is unguided and has no purpose other than survival. The universe does not reflect this in reality.

We don't need all that to cast doubt on God. It's a pretty pitifully-supported concept as it is.

I disagree and I think the universe itself reflects the intelligence that was necessary for the universe and life to exist in the first place.

But we're not talking about subjective doubt here, we're talking about logical defeaters. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, you couldn't explain away by saying "That's just how God wanted things. Who are you to question it?" And indeed that's what we hear oftentimes when believers start to question their faith in light of horrific events. Therefore, the absence of logical defeaters for God's existence is not a strong argument for his existence.

I hope you realize that if we are right as we claim, (which we are ), defeating our own human minds to defend our position is as varying as there are human minds; but there will be a time (again if we are right and we are)you will face a God that created the absolute, invariant, and universal LOL and you will know that all your "defeaters" are useless. I know that doesn't probably affect you now, but it will and you will think about how you might have defeated this Christian or that Christian in your discussions but it will be worthless when faced with the God of Creation. This God was intelligent and powerful enough to create a universe with a mathematical structure that we only scratch the surface of with our own human minds. Like I said, right now that might be viewed as foolish to you but I know that I wouldn't want to face God and try to defend myself using the very LOL that He provided and try to convince Him that His existence was absence of logical defeaters.