Jump to content


Photo

Creation Vs 'materialistic' Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#41 Rhodri123

Rhodri123

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brynmawr

Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:00 PM

No problem…




Thanks for your understanding.


First – You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your assertions, thus rendering them to mere opinion (regardless of who makes them), as you are merely stating them (and “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum”) and not providing factual basis for them.



That paragraph was meant as an introduction. What followed was the case itself.


Second – Phenomena such as altruistic love, the Laws of “Mathematics” and “Logic” (etc…) were not INVENTED by man, they were DISCOVERED by man. Therefore they are not CONCEPTS, they are PHENOMENA; and yet they are METAPHYSICAL.


By ‘concept’ I mean they have been conceptualized. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to understand love and hate as concepts, especially from an atheist perspective.


Third – There is absolutely NO evidence that these Phenomena have not ALWAYS been as they are now. So, your “emergence” hypothesis has no foundation.

As I demonstrated, love and hate are EMOTIONS, reducible to physical processes and cultural values.
Yes there is indeed evidence. A cursory look at any two literary texts, from two discrete periods will tell you as such. There is no evidence, rather, to suppose they have remained the same throughout recorded history.


Fourth – If these phenomena could have “definitions imposed upon them”, they would be capricious in nature, and not be self-evident. And yet they ARE self-evident! For example: 1+2 can never equal 4! It is self-evidence that it will always be 3! And two tings cannot be contradictory AND the same, at the same time in the same sense. Again, man did not invent this like he did the rules of baseball, therefore you’re “imposition” fallacy is moot as well.


You mean *your*. And yes it does. Love is not self-evident. I think for the purpose of debate it would be better to separate ‘feelings’ such as love and hate from ‘laws’ such as mathematics and logic. Would you agree?
You misunderstand what I mean by imposed. I meant that they have been explicated and categorized through language. I did not mean that man forced them to behave in a certain way. Sorry, my fault for not explaining that.


Once again, neither you, nor your link provides anything but opinion on the subject. Nor does simply providing links with nothing more than more opinions, in anyway substantiate/validate these claims.

In order to substantiate your assertions, you MUST provide FACTUAL evidence (historic AND extant) to prove that altruistic love, or hate has somehow evolved (and that they have evolved from nothing for that matter).

Further, saying that you agree with “many scientists” is nothing more than “Argumentum ad Populum



My links did substantiate my claims. If you couldn't access the paper, I’m sorry. I’m afraid you can’t just dismiss them so cursorily without explaining why.

It is incontrovertible, though, that the concepts of altruistic love and happiness have changed over time. Look at two texts from different periods if you want proof. It’s obvious. Take The Odyssey or Iliad and compare it with Joyce’s Ulysses for example. Completely different, yet sharing a core, which I perceive as biological.
On extant definitions: take the definition of happiness in Hinduism:
http://www.gatewayfo...s/happiness.htm
And compare it to how you yourself would consider happiness. Different, no? Read any book on changing definitions of happiness throughout the ages. An interesting-looking book came out in the UK a few weeks ago; unfortunately I can't remember its name but its subject was how vastly the definition of happiness has changed throughout the history of Western Civilization. If this book comes out near you then it might be worth taking a look at. When I find the newspaper in which it was reviewed I'll let you know.


By evolving from nothing: well, the fact that a microbe cannot feel happiness, a dog can to some degree, and a human a more complicated version indicates evolution.
I was not using the ‘many scientists phrase’ to corroborate my opinion; I was introducing my point.



Quite simply actually… When you can touch, taste, smell, see, or in any other manner “Measure” ANY of the Laws of Mathematics, then you have the empirical scientific right to call them physical and not metaphysical. But the problem you’re going to run into right away is this: You can ONLY “touch, taste, smell, see, Measure” the effects of mathematics, NOT the laws themselves. Therefor your argument fails



It does not ‘fail’ in any way, shape or form. The laws of mathematics are explications of natural processes. Language, plus observation of natural phenomena, equals laws (over-simplification, I know, but not a bad starting point). God, or any other supernatural being, is not required. Your argument only holds ground if you assume they exist in some sort of noumenal space. I do not.


Exactly my point Rhodi… Thanks! The “EFFECTS” are measureable; and ONLY the effects. The laws themselves are not (unless you can do the impossible and provide how they are?).



Again, you’re not proving anything. Laws are forms of taxonomy, resulting from natural processes. ‘Laws’ can be reduced to language, arising from human minds, describing the enactment of physical processes. If the burden of proof is on me, however, I will concede the debate, as I cannot completely remove all spaces in which to locate the metaphysical.


Yep… Once again THANK YOU, you make my point once again! The EFFECTS may be observable, the hypothesis, model, theory or law IS NOT



Same again. Theory arises from human brains. Law describes that. No need for metaphysical in this either.I think the mistake you're making is conflating the concept law with its sense as a rule with an agency behind it.


First – The anthropic principle itself is metaphysical (it is a philosophical argument based upon many precise constraints that make life on earth possible, and not random), but therefore NOT something you can observe. The only phenomena you CAN observe are the effects of said principle! You keep using examples that prove my case, and destroy yours. Again, thank you




I know what it is; as i stated, I didn't want to go into it because it had little to do with this present argument. I was not using it in my argument. I was merely stating the fact that many physicists believe the universe derives from chance. I'm not really sure why I even wrote it to be honest. I apologize.


Once again, you could NOT be further from the truth. Therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide factual evidence that the Laws of Mathematics are random AND physical.
First – I would suggest that you look up the definition of Random (and its antonyms).

Second – I would suggest that you somehow attempt to reconcile how something as rigidly inflexible and deliberate in its foundation of truth as the Laws of mathematics could possibly come about from something as chaotic as randomness. Keeping in mind that these laws were discovered not invented; that they are not capricious; they are true EVERYWHERE; and there is absolutely NO evidence that they are not as they ALWAYS have been.



I am well versed in the definition of random, thank you. On a quantum level, the ‘laws’ that govern the universe do indeed appear to be random.
The laws of mathematics emerge from this randomness at the level of Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry. Neither of these phenomena applies at quantum level. So actually your statement about them being true everywhere is utterly incorrect.


No offence taken, as I know for a fact that you haven’t provided an iota of evidence where I have offered any ‘false analogy’ of any sort. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to provide how it is so (since you leveled the accusations).



Your analogy was false because it was irrelevant. Thoughts obviously cannot be painted, but neither can dark matter. The factors that lead to thoughts can be measured. A thought is a composite result of a thousand processes. To ‘measure’ it would require a thousand measurements. To reduce something so complex to a request to ‘paint it green’ is oversimplification to an incredible degree. As I previously stated, I was not trying to obviate the metaphysical. I was merely showing how it can be redundant when describing thought.
http://engineering.m...oughts-measured -This is the kind of thing to which I’m referring.
http://www.edeycaldw...hysical-things/
http://www.quora.com...-it-be-measured.
Again, if I have to provide evidence of complete thought measurement, I will concede, because my philosophical position is limited by current advances. As yours is not, this is not a problem for you.



You did not reply to the links I sent. They were actually pretty relevant in this case. The more prominent our understanding of the unconscious becomes, the less we require the notion of the metaphysical consciousness. (Again, note I state it will be required less, not rendered completely redundant)


Firstly – I did read your post, and I factually supported ALL of my assertions in post # 30. You really should re-read said post before you levy anymore accusations.

Secondly – Argumentum ad Futuris IS hope, not proof. It is argument by anticipation, not demonstration; regardless of whether or not you attempt to use the “positive assertion” claim. A claim is a claim!

Example of the Argumentum ad Futuris fallacy:

"Missing links may yet be found to support evolution."

"Scientists may soon find a natural cause for the origin of life."
"Archeology will one day disprove the Bible."

You are once again prevaricating on your assertions by attempting to claim that you didn’t make a “positive claim”. But, once again a claim is a claim. Further, you are attempting to use your less that “positive claim” to support your “positive claim” that the Laws of Mathematics, Laws of Logic, Altruistic Love, or Thought are physical rather than metaphysical.




I’m aware of what Argumentum ad Futuris is. I didn’t commit it. What I said was that scientific materialism cannot fully explain consciousness, yet that does not currently invalidate it as an ontological model. I did not express hope that it would. If you reread my post, what I said was just because it can’t today explain all facets of consciousness, it doesn’t immediately follow that it will not. This is not a logical fallacy. Saying that it cannot be proven as it is not yet proven, is an argument from ignorance. I don’t believe there’s much point quibbling over this, however; it isn’t relevant to the debate and should not be treated as such. Additionally, Archaeology has disproved some facets of the Bible, so that is not Argumentum ad Futuris. In case you meant disprove the Bible to a debilitating extent, in which case I apologize and completely concur.


Once again, you attempt to reconcile a thought, with physical phenomena. But, until (and only until) you can catch one and paint it green (or any such color), you totally fail in your attempt to provide thought as physical. And until you do, you do nothing more than equivocate on the definition. Which begs the question: Are you going to continue to equivocate on the definition? Or are you going to provide where a thought can possibly be physical.




Again, false analogy. If it is susceptible to vicissitude within the material realm, then it must by definition be SOMEWHAT physical. For example, playing devil’s advocate, I could not spit on your soul. As an aside, what do you think of the Noetic Scientists’ soul-weighing experiments?


Actually, I have provided over-and-over when your attempts have failed



No you have not.


Further, NO you have not “conducted my response in accordance with the outlined rules”, as you have continually equivocated on definitions and terms (i.e. conversion by definition”) amongst other things. Further, you asserted that I “misrepresented” you claims, when in fact, I addressed each claim individually, with concise and succinct dialogue. I might suggest that you provide the actual examples where I misrepresented you!



Again, I believe you did. For the sake of decency, though, sorry.
I have not equivocated on definitions or terms once. I believe we unanimously possess the same beliefs regarding what constitutes a thought and physical. Where I believed you have erred is not what constitutes ‘thought’ and ‘physical’, but how one might prove that a ‘thought’ may be physical

#42 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:19 PM

Rhodri, I must apologize that I have not had the time to respond to your post. I've had some family emergencies to handle. It's late and I just tuned in and, and I'm tired. But I would like to respond to one issue you raised.

You posted: "I do indeed believe that logical absolutes exist. It is my opinion, however, that they are concepts used to describe physical processes/phenomena, and are therefore explicable within a materialist framework. I do not believe they exist ‘in themselves’, as it were. They are constructs explaining natural laws, not reflections of the mind of God."

First, laws of logic are conceptional in nature. They really don't describe aspects of the universe. Rather they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions. Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe, then we might expect different regions of the physical universe to have different laws of logic, since different regions of the universe are described differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere. They are absolute, invariant, and universal. Third, we would have no way of knowing (and therefore no reason to expect) that the laws of logic would be absolute in the future as they were in the past, since no one has experienced the universe's future.

If we can affirm that there is just one thing true about the mind that is not true of the brain, and vice versa, then the argument for physicalism--that there is only brain and body--would crumble. But there is not simply one thing; there are several. Laws of logic, rational thought, information, laws of mathematics, moral laws are all non-physical and exist separate from the brain which is a physical organ. And of course we have the abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity, love, etc. The philosopher Locke philophized: "Only man has such ideas [abstract ideas]; brutes abstract not."

The physicalist can posit only two arguments: One, the physical must somehow be able to produce the non-physical entities I've mentioned above; or two, these laws and abstract concepts are physical and not non-physical. Both arguments can't be defended. My brain, which is physical, will never give me laws of logic, rational reasoning, the ability to know truth, and imagine a unicorn or an angel. The proof that there is something more to man than a brain and body is the impossibility of something beyone the physical man not existing.

TeeJay


#43 Rhodri123

Rhodri123

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brynmawr

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:50 AM

Rhodri, I must apologize that I have not had the time to respond to your post. I've had some family emergencies to handle. It's late and I just tuned in and, and I'm tired. But I would like to respond to one issue you raised.


I’m very, very sorry to hear that. I hope everything’s better now.

If we can affirm that there is just one thing true about the mind that is not true of the brain, and vice versa, then the argument for physicalism--that there is only brain and body--would crumble. But there is not simply one thing; there are several. Laws of logic, rational thought, information, laws of mathematics, moral laws are all non-physical and exist separate from the brain which is a physical organ. And of course we have the abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity, love, etc. The philosopher Locke philophized: "Only man has such ideas [abstract ideas]; brutes abstract not."


As I said to Ron, for the sake of argument, I believe it will be more fruitful to differentiate between concepts arising from feeling (dignity, justice, love, hate etc) and laws describing phenomena (such as mathematics etc).
The first group of subjects differ so greatly between cultures that I believe it is impossible to label them metaphysical. If there were some metaphysical location for them wouldn’t there be some affinity? Here’s a link I found where the views express correlate with my own:
http://atheism.about...ractConcept.htm
I honestly cannot find any reason to suppose that concepts such as love, hate, dignity etc are metaphysical.
From which Lock text is that quotation? If you don't mind me asking.

First, laws of logic are conceptional in nature. They really don't describe aspects of the universe. Rather they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions. Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe, then we might expect different regions of the physical universe to have different laws of logic, since different regions of the universe are described differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere. They are absolute, invariant, and universal. Third, we would have no way of knowing (and therefore no reason to expect) that the laws of logic would be absolute in the future as they were in the past, since no one has experienced the universe's future.


Reasoning which emerges from our brains. It took tens of thousands of years for humans to be able to reason in such a way; it did not emerge ex nihilo. I’ll reduce it to a very simple level. Observation, plus application of reason, ordered by language, equals law. You may as well call evolution itself metaphysical as it is itself a concept.

Pretty much sums it up.
I don’t follow your reasoning (from an atheist perspective).
I’m sorry but how can you possibly know that? Laws which govern our ‘portion of the universe’ should follow at all parts of the universe. And they do, down to quantum level, at which point they stop applying.

The physicalist can posit only two arguments: One, the physical must somehow be able to produce the non-physical entities I've mentioned above; or two, these laws and abstract concepts are physical and not non-physical. Both arguments can't be defended. My brain, which is physical, will never give me laws of logic, rational reasoning, the ability to know truth, and imagine a unicorn or an angel. The proof that there is something more to man than a brain and body is the impossibility of something beyone the physical man not existing.


I think the argument, once again, can be boiled down to a disagreement over what constitutes a law or concept. If I have to prove they are not metaphysical, then I will concede. If I have to show that there is no special need to regard them as metaphyisical, then I believe I have done so.

Cheers for the reply. Sorry to hear about everything. I wish you and your family the best.
Rhodri

#44 Tirian

Tirian

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:52 AM

I do indeed believe that logical absolutes exist. It is my opinion, however, that they are concepts used to describe physical processes/phenomena, and are therefore explicable within a materialist framework. I do not believe they exist ‘in themselves’, as it were. They are constructs explaining natural laws, not reflections of the mind of God.


But then you disagree with your own links which seems to accept that Logical Absolutes are transcendent, why?


I’ve just been doing a bit of research on the subject of the transcendental arguments and its variations. These responses are pretty decent. If they do not cover what it was to which you were referring, then please outline it for me specifically so I can compose a thorough response.
http://wiki.ironchar...dental_argument
http://atheistexperi...l-argument.html
http://atheistexperi...ure-not-it.html


Thanks for the link. I read it and see that it refutes the link I earlier posted. It does not, however, refute my original argument. Invoking God to account for logic seems to me pretty circular, as it only applies if you actually believe in God. Logic does not inform existence; it emerges from it. To posit God, to me, is not necessary. What I think the argument does is conflate logical results with the discipline of logic. Absolutes are facts of nature, not God. Logic is used to describe nature. Therefore, positing God is unnecessary.


Logic is needed before you can conclude anything about nature. Without logic you can't reason if the laws of logic is true or not. So how do you propose that we observe something in nature and from that deduce the laws of logic (and that they are valid), without using logical reasoning? Or as Matt Slick replies:

"This is a common response by many atheists, but it is they who are equivocating. They are confusing the statement about the thing with the thing. The critic says "they [Logical Absolutes] are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe on which the laws of formal logic-based." If that is the case, then how do you observe the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC, cited in the original argument at 1. B ) which deals with truth statements? Or what about the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM, cited in the original argument at 1.C ) which says that statements are either true or false?"

http://carm.org/resp...dental-argument

I think you need logic before you can draw any conclusion at all. Or how do you suggest that logic could have been invented/discovered from nature without using logical reasoning?

I also looked at the video you provided, and it feels as naive as your first link. First of all, how does that person know that space time is all that exists. We have a number of things that suggest that this is simply not true.

I think both math and logic are good examples of things that are independent of the physical universe. Our own mind is another good example of something that can't be reduced to only materalistic explanations. And another thing one could bring about is information. Information is not dependent on the storage media. Information can be stored chemically, by photons or some other way, but still hold the same information.

#45 Rhodri123

Rhodri123

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brynmawr

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:01 AM

But then you disagree with your own links which seems to accept that Logical Absolutes are transcendent, why?


I don’t think they do posit that at all, at least not in the same way a non-materialist would understand it. Transcendence would immediately invoke connotations of the supernatural.

Logic is needed before you can conclude anything about nature. Without logic you can't reason if the laws of logic is true or not. So how do you propose that we observe something in nature and from that deduce the laws of logic (and that they are valid), without using logical reasoning? Or as Matt Slick replies:

"This is a common response by many atheists, but it is they who are equivocating. They are confusing the statement about the thing with the thing. The critic says "they [Logical Absolutes] are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe on which the laws of formal logic-based." If that is the case, then how do you observe the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC, cited in the original argument at 1. B ) which deals with truth statements? Or what about the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM, cited in the original argument at 1.C ) which says that statements are either true or false?"

http://carm.org/resp...p></blockquote>


Well I think reason arises from the human brain, along with language. Reason discovers these phenomena, language orders them, creating ‘laws’ used to describe physical phenomena.
This is actually the crucial area in which I believe Slick (and other promulgators of this argument) errs. For us, the ‘thing’ is the phenomena itself. The ‘statement’ is the language used to formulate the law. The ‘thing’ which he posits is a ‘law’ in a noumenal, transcendent space, which an atheist believes does not exist.

I think you need logic before you can draw any conclusion at all. Or how do you suggest that logic could have been invented/discovered from nature without using logical reasoning?



From reason and observation. By reason, I don’t mean the strict formulation of laws we have now. I mean the ability to detect patterns and observe which form the basis of modern reason.


I also looked at the video you provided, and it feels as naive as your first link. First of all, how does that person know that space time is all that exists. We have a number of things that suggest that this is simply not true.

He doesn't know; he's just asserting there's no reason to think otherwise. Like what, may I ask? Unless you're referring to other dimensions, which wouldn't apply in this case.

I think both math and logic are good examples of things that are independent of the physical universe. Our own mind is another good example of something that can't be reduced to only materalistic explanations. And another thing one could bring about is information. Information is not dependent on the storage media. Information can be stored chemically, by photons or some other way, but still hold the same information.



Doesn’t that support materialism, as it can be transported from one physical locus to another without invoking the immaterial? For instance, I assume you cannot transport the soul via the material? As I asked Ron, what is the Christian view of the Noetic science soul-weighting experiments?

#46 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:22 AM

I’m very, very sorry to hear that. I hope everything’s better now.


Yes. All is well. Thank you.


As I said to Ron, for the sake of argument, I believe it will be more fruitful to differentiate between concepts arising from feeling (dignity, justice, love, hate etc) and laws describing phenomena (such as mathematics etc).


I would not define abstract concepts of dignity, justice as coming from “feelings.” How I feel does not influence me in knowing that the punishment should fit the crime or that I should live free. Love and hate are emotions (not physical). Matter does not have emotions. And this brings up another conundrum for the atheist. Why should we love our fellow man and not hate him?

The first group of subjects differs so greatly between cultures that I believe it is impossible to label them metaphysical. If there were some metaphysical location for them wouldn’t there be some affinity? Here’s a link I found where the views express correlate with my own:
http://atheism.about...ractConcept.htm
I honestly cannot find any reason to suppose that concepts such as love, hate, dignity etc are metaphysical.


Let’s take the concept of justice. Even a ruthless gang leader, who has absolutely no compunction with stealing and murdering, will become righteously indignant if you steal from him or murder a member of his family. I do not accept your assertion that these concepts differ between cultures. I’ve lived in many countries. I have never met a man in any culture that did not want to be treated with dignity. Have you?

If you can’t admit that these concepts are “metaphysical,” can you at least admit they are non-physical, i.e. not composed of matter?

From which Locke text is that quotation? If you don't mind me asking.


Presently, I’m reading Ten Philosophical Mistakes by Mortimer Adler. In the chapter titled, “The Intellect and the Senses,” Adler only quotes Locke: “The second qualification introduced by Locke is to be found in the passages in which he deals with what he calls ‘abstract or general ideas.’ Only man has such ideas; ‘brutes abstract not,’ he maintains.”



Reasoning which emerges from our brains. It took tens of thousands of years for humans to be able to reason in such a way; it did not emerge ex nihilo. I’ll reduce it to a very simple level. Observation, plus application of reason, ordered by language, equals law. You may as well call evolution itself metaphysical as it is itself a concept.


Recall I said that the physicalist has only two arguments: Lifeless, reasonless matter can somehow produce the non-physical; or, that the non-physical is not really non-physical—absurd on the face of it. You have chosen the first—emergence. Somehow, but you don’t know how, the non-physical laws of logic, reason, morality magically emerged from the physical (the physical organ called the brain). Simple questions: Has anyone ever observed matter producing the immaterial? Can matter give what it does not have to give? Can the effect be greater than the cause?

“Tens of thousands of years.” Why not millions or billions?

Unless laws of logic pre-existed, man would not be able to reason logically in a gazillion years.

“Ex nihilo” Which is more rational? Logic and reason coming from reasonless matter or a rational thinking Creator God?

Pretty much sums it up.
I don’t follow your reasoning (from an atheist perspective).


I don’t expect you accept this. Your worldview will not allow you to. But if what you encounter in the real world does not comport with your worldview (set of presuppositions), then your worldview is flawed and you can never know that anything is true. For example, you are finding it very difficult to account for and justify the existence of the immaterial in a physicalist’s worldview.

I’m sorry but how can you possibly know that? Laws which govern our ‘portion of the universe’ should follow at all parts of the universe. And they do, down to quantum level, at which point they stop applying.


What you are describing here are physical laws (which are not physical). They are a description of the physical universe. But for you to argue that what you just posted is true, you have to use laws of logic. You have to use laws of logic to argue whether the physical brain can produce the non-physical. No law of logic will describe how this happens; but a law of logic can be used to argue IF it happened.

In an atheist worldview, the atheist has another conundrum. He can’t justify or account for uniformity in nature—that the physical laws can exist or that they will not change tomorrow. Your worldview is a random chance chemicals-to-man evolution. The atheist lives his life believing that the physical laws will function tomorrow as they have today, but he has no rational reason to believe this. Thus, the atheist’s belief in uniformity in nature is an arbitrary belief.



I think the argument, once again, can be boiled down to a disagreement over what constitutes a law or concept. If I have to prove they are not metaphysical, then I will concede. If I have to show that there is no special need to regard them as metaphyisical, then I believe I have done so.


I think we have some equivocation here. Surely you can see the difference between the concept of justice say and a law of logic. One may have to go to court to seek a just ruling but a law of logic is absolute. You just used the law of non-contradiction to argue: For it is true that “it can be boiled down to a disagreement over what constitutes a law or concept” or it is true that “it can’t be boiled down to a disagreement over what constitutes a law or concept.” The law of non-contradiction will not allow both to be true.

As an aside, justice can’t really be determined to be absolute unless a Biblical God exists. One of the psalms says, “Righteous and justice are the foundation of Your throne.” Unless there is a just God who has given us His moral laws to live by, then morality and justice are relative: “What’s moral for you is not moral for me.” “What’s just for you is not just for me.” Absent God, there can be no justice or morality that is not simply preferences. But just as in logic that something can’t be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same way, so too, a particular behavior can’t be both moral and immoral at the same time and in the same way. In an atheist worldview, it’s very difficult to justify any absolutes.

Cheers for the reply. Sorry to hear about everything. I wish you and your family the best.
Rhodri


Thank you for your concern.

TeeJay


#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:10 AM

Your first sentence is not logical possible. It is impossible to be a naturalist (atheist materialist) and be a Chiristian creationist at the same time and in the same way. For it is either true that all that exists is matter or it is true that there is something that exist outside of matter and is not physical.

Your class mate can say that, but it is not true. They can't be material and immaterial at the same time. Laws are not physical. They can't be smelled, felt, eaten, inhaled, touched, or as Ron pointed out, spray painted.



This is what this thread is all about. The atheist, who denies a Creator God, can't then account for or justify anything that is not physical within his wolrdview. Reasonless, lifeless, amoral matter can't give you life, laws of logic, rational thought, morality. Matter does not have these things to give.



Yes, the Christian creationist Standard is God and His word. But at least we can account for what we believe and see in reality. Our worldview matches what we encounter in the real world. Our belief is not arbitrary. The atheist has not reason to believe that laws of logic should exist within his wolrdview. When at atheist uses laws of logic, he is being inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational. He denies the Source of the laws of logic but then uses laws of logic to argue against the Source of logic.

The test of whether something is true does not hinge on whether it is believed to be true. it is not just a matter of blind faith. The Christian worldview can account for the existence of laws of logic in that the Source of all rational thought is a rational God. The proof of God is the impossibility of an alternative. The alternative is that matter is the source of laws of logic and rational thought--absurd on the face of it. You simply asserted that there is no evidence, but there is, and man is without excuse (Romans 1:18-22).

Let's examine this pure logic: "If it were a matter of evidence then the evidence of this would be that all people would convert to Christianity since there is absolute evidence of its superiority." Not true. Lazarus the rich man posited this to Abraham. But Abraham replied, "... if they do not believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). There is self-deception that Paul wrote about in Romans 1:18-22 and Jesus said that "Man's heart is deceitful above all things."

Gilbo, I must ask you a question: You, as a participant on this website, have been presented with tons of evidence from all manner of disciplines by Christians; yet, none of these arguments have affected you. You are living proof that your argument here is false. No?




But we can know that some beliefs are false. Can't we know, for example, that reasonless matter can't give something that it does not have to give? Can't I further know that reasonless matter which is incapable of producing rational thought, can never in a gazillion years produce it?



So what you are arguing here is that the physical is not physical?



Are the laws of logic part of matter?



Why, in your worldview, would you expect it be natural for the braion to rely on logical process? Your worldview can't even account for the existence of laws of logic. The fact that the atheist uses logic to understand anything, is proof that his worldview is false and the creationist's worldview is true.

The lawsof nature: The Christian can expect the universe to conform to and obey the physical laws because God created all that exists and has promised us in His world that He will "uphold all things with the word of His power." The atheist does not. The atheist has no rational reason to believe that the laws of gravity, say, will function tomorrow as it has today. Absent God, his belief that the physical laws will function tomorrow as they have today is an arbitrary belief.

"Understanding" and "comprehending" are not physical functions of the brain. The motion of chemicals in the brain will not let you know anything.



If what I say is untrue, then refute it.



I will get back to you on this.



Tiypo. Please "can" to "can't."



Why don't you pick one and try and justify it. Take your choice: laws of logic, morality, uniformity of nature, reliability of senses, etc. See if you can justify any of these things coming from lifeless, reasonless, amoral matter. If you can, you will be the first one I have met who can.

TeeJay


I'll try my hand at 3


1- Uniformity of nature: How is this justified via God and how is it unjustified via naturalism? Just saying it isn't is not enough. Considering Naturalism is ALL about nature its a stupid statement to claim that the uniformity of nature doesn't fit with naturalism.....

2- Morality: Morals can and do stem from what we perceive to be good and bad. Whilst this is subjective, there is no real objective truth of morals...

Why do I say this. Consider the psychopath who totally disregard the morals that other people live by... Yet if the majority of people were like this then this would be considered the norm. Thus morals are merely set via the majority and thus are subjective.

Consider how children learn from their environment, thus a child from a broken home is more likely to do and say the things their parents do. Thus the "objective moral values" are not instilled in these children to the same degree as those from a normal home, the same is said of the psychopath who hold no objective moral values. If morals were objective then psychopaths would not exist.

Now what do we replace it with?

Subjectism + Utilitarianism. Moral values stem from the upbringing of a child, they are taught to obey laws, (many of which coincide with the 10 commandments). They also stem from a person's own worldview on life and such. Whilst the majority are "normal" good people and laws and social rules are made to accommodate these. There are many who do not fit this, and thus are evidence of the subjectivity of morals. A rapist wouldn't claim that rape is a bad thing, I would and I am sure that you would too, however in making this judgement we are making a subjective ruling based on our own view of that situation.


Reliability of the senses: This one is easy! :D

We believe our senses are reliable due to the history of its use. I know that I can feel things with my fingers because I remember feeling this keyboard when writing the last paragraph. From this we grow accustomed to and make expectations based on our use of our senses. Unfortunately a baby can learn about his / her sense of temperature via touching a hot object... Why didn't he or she not do it? Its because there was no expectation before hand, after touching that object the expectation (learning experience) will be there that ensures that the child knows that to do so again will cause pain, and thus will often try to stay away.

These expectations can change due to circumstances. A pensioner with failing eyesight may not realise the extent of its failing until something bad happens... This is due to his / her expectations not fitting with the actual reliability of his / her eyesight.






However many of these things you point out have are merely arbitrary to God... ie- We have X because God did it.

Such a thing is not a rational statement since anything can fit in X and thus anything can be claimed to be evidence.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:25 AM



First – You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your assertions, thus rendering them to mere opinion (regardless of who makes them), as you are merely stating them (and “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum”) and not providing factual basis for them.


That paragraph was meant as an introduction. What followed was the case itself.



The reply was to the post in general, not simply specific to the quote. And it stands, because you have totally failed to provide any actual refuting evidence; you have merely supplied your opinion and the opinions if others (which is far less than you need to do, as you made assertions as if they were factual).



Second – Phenomena such as altruistic love, the Laws of “Mathematics” and “Logic” (etc…) were not INVENTED by man, they were DISCOVERED by man. Therefore they are not CONCEPTS, they are PHENOMENA; and yet they are METAPHYSICAL.



By ‘concept’ I mean they have been conceptualized. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to understand love and hate as concepts, especially from an atheist perspective.




First – You keep making the same mistake Rhodri (whether intentionally or not), as I was speaking of the phenomena “altruistic love” (amongst other phenomena), not “love” in general (which can indeed be interpolated upon), or any other attempted interpretation (or misinterpretation) of love in general. And there is absolutely NO evidence that “altruistic love” is any different than it always been since the creation of man (man’s history).

Second – It doesn’t matter what PERSPECTIVE (yet another metaphysical phenomena) you have, as “altruistic love” has always meant the same thing. So attempting to equivocate upon its meaning will be dealt with (as I warned you previously).

Third – Altruistic love is NOT simply a “Conceptual” construct; it is rather an OBSERVED metaphysical phenomenon (in that one observes the EFFECTS of “altruistic love”) that ma has DISCOVERED (not inverned).



Third – There is absolutely NO evidence that these Phenomena have not ALWAYS been as they are now. So, your “emergence” hypothesis has no foundation.


As I demonstrated, love and hate are EMOTIONS, reducible to physical processes and cultural values.
Yes there is indeed evidence. A cursory look at any two literary texts, from two discrete periods will tell you as such. There is no evidence, rather, to suppose they have remained the same throughout recorded history.



First – Altruistic love (that which I was speaking) in NOT an emotion (as I provided above, it is an observed phenomena); therefore YOU need to quit misrepresenting what I posited (conversion by definition/equivocation). You need to either do a little more research into that which you are attempting to rebut, discontinue misrepresenting my words, OR you need to quit pretending that you know what you are talking about.

Second – There is ABSOLUTEY NO empirical evidence adduced that provides the phenomena that we know as “Altruistic love” as having changed one iota since it was first observed. If you think you can provide said evidence to support your claims, please do so. Otherwise, quit misrepresenting…



Fourth – If these phenomena could have “definitions imposed upon them”, they would be capricious in nature, and not be self-evident. And yet they ARE self-evident! For example: 1+2 can never equal 4! It is self-evidence that it will always be 3! And two tings cannot be contradictory AND the same, at the same time in the same sense. Again, man did not invent this like he did the rules of baseball, therefore you’re “imposition” fallacy is moot as well.



You mean *your*.


Rhodri, pointing out a typo, as if it is somehow something other an accidental mistake in typing (a literal oops moment) is not only juvenile and disingenuous, but it is tantamount as an ad Hominem as well.



And yes it does. Love is not self-evident. I think for the purpose of debate it would be better to separate ‘feelings’ such as love and hate from ‘laws’ such as mathematics and logic. Would you agree?
You misunderstand what I mean by imposed. I meant that they have been explicated and categorized through language. I did not mean that man forced them to behave in a certain way. Sorry, my fault for not explaining that.


No, it isn’t… Where “Altruistic Love” is found, it is “SELF-EVIDENT” It is NOT a FEELING, or EMOTION. Once again, you are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting.

Second – And, for the purpose of debate, we were talking about metaphysical phenomena. I provided a cross-section of metaphysical phenomena as examples. ALL of the examples fit well within the parameters of the conversation, and were therefore contextual.

Further, man observes, and then describes what he observes via language. This in no way detracts from or denigrates what man observes, unless he is being disingenuous or dishonest in his description (i.e. forcing his presupposed opinion upon said description).

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:26 AM



Once again, neither you, nor your link provides anything but opinion on the subject. Nor does simply providing links with nothing more than more opinions, in anyway substantiate/validate these claims.

In order to substantiate your assertions, you MUST provide FACTUAL evidence (historic AND extant) to prove that altruistic love, or hate has somehow evolved (and that they have evolved from nothing for that matter).

Further, saying that you agree with “many scientists” is nothing more than “Argumentum ad Populum



My links did substantiate my claims. If you couldn't access the paper, I’m sorry. I’m afraid you can’t just dismiss them so cursorily without explaining why.



Actually, I can indeed dismiss your assertions (cursorily, or in any other manner I wish), as you have provided absolutely NO empirical evidence or facts to support you assertions. Further, if you provided a link as evidence, and yet that link cannot be accessed, it is INDEED your FAULT, as it was supposed to support YOUR assertions (further, claiming that your lack of evidence was my fault, is a type of Ad hominem). And, as we all know (as is stated over and over); “If you are going to assert something as factual, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the evidence to substantiate said assertion.” Just don't attempt to accuse someone else for your lack of cogent respose, or evidence to support your assertion.


It is incontrovertible, though, that the concepts of altruistic love and happiness have changed over time. Look at two texts from different periods if you want proof. It’s obvious. Take The Odyssey or Iliad and compare it with Joyce’s Ulysses for example. Completely different, yet sharing a core, which I perceive as biological.
On extant definitions: take the definition of happiness in Hinduism:
http://www.gatewayfo...s/happiness.htm
And compare it to how you yourself would consider happiness. Different, no? Read any book on changing definitions of happiness throughout the ages. An interesting-looking book came out in the UK a few weeks ago; unfortunately I can't remember its name but its subject was how vastly the definition of happiness has changed throughout the history of Western Civilization. If this book comes out near you then it might be worth taking a look at. When I find the newspaper in which it was reviewed I'll let you know.


Once again, “saying something is so, doesn’t make it so” (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum), and your opinions are not facts. Further, “Altruistic Love” is not “happiness”, although “happiness” MAY BE one of MANY consequences (effects) of “Altruistic Love”. And, “HAPPINESS” is not the conversation here, “Altruistic Love” (amongst other examples) is! You really need to do a little more research into the subject.

Further, the corollaries you attempt to draw between the Odyssey or Iliad and Joyce’s Ulysses do not, in any major way, reconcile your posts with the contextual “Altruistic Love” of this conversation.


By evolving from nothing: well, the fact that a microbe cannot feel happiness, a dog can to some degree, and a human a more complicated version indicates evolution.
I was not using the ‘many scientists phrase’ to corroborate my opinion; I was introducing my point.


First – The statement “By evolving from nothing” is absolutely a non sequitur in this conversation. Further, it is a non sequitur in the context of the thread.
Second – You have ABSOLUTLY NO IDEA what a microbe may, or may not feel.
Third – “Happiness” is not even a factor in this conversation, it is simply another rabbit trail you have introduced (interjected, interpolation) to divert from the actual context of the conversation.

Fourth – Your “more complicated” assertion as it relates to your attempt to promulgate macro-evolution is not only an unfounded opinion of yours, but it is a non sequitur, as it doesn’t follow from the premise. There are absolutely no inter-relational (lineage) ties between a microbe, a dog and a man.


Quite simply actually… When you can touch, taste, smell, see, or in any other manner “Measure” ANY of the Laws of Mathematics, then you have the empirical scientific right to call them physical and not metaphysical. But the problem you’re going to run into right away is this: You can ONLY “touch, taste, smell, see, Measure” the effects of mathematics, NOT the laws themselves. Therefor your argument fails


It does not ‘fail’ in any way, shape or form. The laws of mathematics are explications of natural processes. Language, plus observation of natural phenomena, equals laws (over-simplification, I know, but not a bad starting point). God, or any other supernatural being, is not required. Your argument only holds ground if you assume they exist in some sort of noumenal space. I do not.


First and Foremost – It doesn’t matter WHAT you hold, if what YOU hold doesn’t fit factually.

Second - The Laws of Mathematics are NOT simply explications of natural processes. In fact, what you are attempting to claim as ”natural processes” are actually the “EFFECTS” of the LAWS of Mathematics. Therefore, the ONLY natural phenomena are the effects.

Third - The Laws of Mathematics are NOT simply explications, as the Laws of Mathematics are self-evident metaphysical phenomena that DO NOT require man AT ALL. They exist regardless of whether or not man was around to discover them, then use his language to describe what he discovered (not invented).

Fourth – If man did not invent the Laws of Mathematics (and he did not), and these “Laws” are metaphysical phenomena, and “Laws” are a “body or system of rules”, and these “Rules” are self-evident (i.e. irrefutable), then these laws logically BEG for a “RUME MAKER”. This is not an assumption, but rather a logical line of reasoning. And you might not like the implications of logic in this reasoning, BUT you not only have no better explanation, but you have no logical material explanation at all.

#50 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:30 AM


Exactly my point Rhodi… Thanks! The “EFFECTS” are measureable; and ONLY the effects. The laws themselves are not (unless you can do the impossible and provide how they are?).



Again, you’re not proving anything. Laws are forms of taxonomy, resulting from natural processes. ‘Laws’ can be reduced to language, arising from human minds, describing the enactment of physical processes. If the burden of proof is on me, however, I will concede the debate, as I cannot completely remove all spaces in which to locate the metaphysical.



First – Once again, you are incorrect…. Laws in general are “Binding and enforceable rules”.

In the case of man-made laws, it is all dependent what the major body of the community accepts and enforces.

But In the case of the Laws of Mathematics, they are:

NOT man made, therefore man cannot change them!
Self-evident, therefore they are irrefutable!
NOT physical, therefore are not influenced by anything physical.

Second – You CANNOT “remove” ANY “spaces in which to locate the metaphysical”. You cannot Touch, Taste, See, Smell, hear, or in any other manner measure the METAPHYSICAL.



Exactly my point Yep… Once again THANK YOU, you make my point once again! The EFFECTS may be observable, the hypothesis, model, theory or law IS NOT



Same again. Theory arises from human brains. Law describes that. No need for metaphysical in this either.I think the mistake you're making is conflating the concept law with its sense as a rule with an agency behind it.



NO… although the Theory may arise from the brain, the LAW does not! The LAW is (especially in the case of the conversation WE are having) Self-evident!

Further – You have done absolutely NOTHING to refute my initial assertion of hypotheses, theories and laws being metaphysical, and only their effects being physical in nature.

And finally – Conflating is a “merging of two or more things into a unified whole”. And this is what you have attempting to do (example: Macroevolution = reality etc…)

I assert the FACT that the OP phenomena are METAPHYSICAL not PHYSICAL. This means that I am saying that they are DIFFERENT not the SAME! Further, Laws are rules, and rules beg for a rule maker. This is not conflation, this is logic based upon facts.



Exactly my point First – The anthropic principle itself is metaphysical (it is a philosophical argument based upon many precise constraints that make life on earth possible, and not random), but therefore NOT something you can observe. The only phenomena you CAN observe are the effects of said principle! You keep using examples that prove my case, and destroy yours. Again, thank you


I know what it is; as i stated, I didn't want to go into it because it had little to do with this present argument. I was not using it in my argument. I was merely stating the fact that many physicists believe the universe derives from chance. I'm not really sure why I even wrote it to be honest. I apologize.



And, regardless of WHY you posted it, I refuted it…



Once again, you could NOT be further from the truth. Therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide factual evidence that the Laws of Mathematics are random AND physical.
First – I would suggest that you look up the definition of Random (and its antonyms).
Second – I would suggest that you somehow attempt to reconcile how something as rigidly inflexible and deliberate in its foundation of truth as the Laws of mathematics could possibly come about from something as chaotic as randomness. Keeping in mind that these laws were discovered not invented; that they are not capricious; they are true EVERYWHERE; and there is absolutely NO evidence that they are not as they ALWAYS have been.



I am well versed in the definition of random, thank you.


Not based upon your comment… And, as I said “, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide factual evidence that the Laws of Mathematics are random AND physical”. And you have thus far FAILED to do so


On a quantum level, the ‘laws’ that govern the universe do indeed appear to be random.


“APPEAR” is not fact, it is opinion. It doesn’t matter what “LEVEL” you are attempting to “OPINE” from.


The laws of mathematics emerge from this randomness at the level of Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry. Neither of these phenomena applies at quantum level.


Once again, you are attempting to endorse your OPINION as fact. Further, YOU need to provide factual evidence as to how the Laws of Mathematics emerged from randomness (since you are making, or attempting to make such an assertion).


So actually your statement about them being true everywhere is utterly incorrect.


Really??? Then you need to provide WHERE AND HOW 2+2 doesn’t = 4 EVERYWHERE!


You will no longer be allowed to misrepresent, equivocate or use Ad hominems at this forum.

#51 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 18 April 2012 - 08:24 AM

1- Uniformity of nature: How is this justified via God and how is it unjustified via naturalism? Just saying it isn't is not enough. Considering Naturalism is ALL about nature its a stupid statement to claim that the uniformity of nature doesn't fit with naturalism.....


Gilbo,

Is it a “stupid statement” to claim that the uniformity of nature does fit with naturalism? Just saying it does is not enough. A little Special Pleading here?

First, if one believes something is true or might possibly be true, he has to have a rational reason for believing it is true. Otherwise, the belief is simply an arbitrary belief. An example is how the evolutionist explains away the comets lasting billions of years. The evolutionist theorizes that there is an Oort cloud that replaces comets. No one has ever seen this Oort cloud nor does the evolutionist have any good reason to believe it exists. This is an arbitrary belief—like believing that there are little red men who live in the sun and tweak dials to regulate the heat. Even if future space exploration does indeed prove the Oort cloud exists, the evolutionist still does not presently have a good rational reason to believe it exists.

But you did ask a fair question: How is uniformity in nature justified by God and unjustified by nature?

The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on His creation. God upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). The biblical creationist can expect that the universe will function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. God is also consistent (1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-8). God promises us that there are certain things that will not arbitrarily change (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21).

Scientists require the biblical principles of uniformity of nature to be true in order to perform experiments. But an atheist scientist is inconsistent within his worldview. The atheist accepts the biblical principles such as uniformity in nature while simultaneously denying the Bible and God from which these principles are derived. The atheist scientist argues that the universe is not designed but does experimentation as though it is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way.

Now your second question: How is it unjustified by nature. I’ll let you justify it absent God. You, Gilbo, have no rational reason to believe that gravity, say, will function tomorrow as it has today—if you stay in your worldview.



2- Morality: Morals can and do stem from what we perceive to be good and bad. Whilst this is subjective, there is no real objective truth of morals...


Is it true that there is no real objective truth of morals? And if what I perceive to be good or bad differs from what you perceive to be good or bad? Then perception becomes the moral standard.

Why do I say this. Consider the psychopath who totally disregard the morals that other people live by... Yet if the majority of people were like this then this would be considered the norm. Thus morals are merely set via the majority and thus are subjective.


Suppose that I perceive his morality acceptable?. If morals are determined by the majority, then Hitler can’t be condemned. The majority of Germans followed him. If you had been a citizen of Nazi Germany in WW II, and if your perception differed with Hitler’s perception, what standard could you use to condemn him?

Consider how children learn from their environment, thus a child from a broken home is more likely to do and say the things their parents do. Thus the "objective moral values" are not instilled in these children to the same degree as those from a normal home, the same is said of the psychopath who hold no objective moral values. If morals were objective then psychopaths would not exist.


Your argument here is irrational in that psychopaths would not exist if morals were objective? Could you argue that people would not sin if morality was objective. God gave man the freedom to love or hate, sin or not sin. But you’re problem is not the psychopath. Rather it is trying to justify anything moral or immoral with worldview that rejects the Moral Prescriber.

Now what do we replace it with?


What? Is this soft ball? I can hit this one out of the park. The answer is God. Unless there is an Authority above man, then man becomes his own standard and all is relative. “What’s true for you is not true for me.” “What’s moral for you is not moral for me.” The atheist is stuck in a relativistic nightmare.

Subjectism + Utilitarianism. Moral values stem from the upbringing of a child, they are taught to obey laws, (many of which coincide with the 10 commandments). They also stem from a person's own worldview on life and such. Whilst the majority are "normal" good people and laws and social rules are made to accommodate these. There are many who do not fit this, and thus are evidence of the subjectivity of morals. A rapist wouldn't claim that rape is a bad thing, I would and I am sure that you would too, however in making this judgement we are making a subjective ruling based on our own view of that situation.


What standard could you use to argue that “rape is a bad thing”? In the early days of Texas, the Comanche taught his children that it was good sport of burn the noses off their White captives. Such is life under subjective morality.


Reliability of the senses: This one is easy!

We believe our senses are reliable due to the history of its use. I know that I can feel things with my fingers because I remember feeling this keyboard when writing the last paragraph. From this we grow accustomed to and make expectations based on our use of our senses. Unfortunately a baby can learn about his / her sense of temperature via touching a hot object... Why didn't he or she not do it? Its because there was no expectation before hand, after touching that object the expectation (learning experience) will be there that ensures that the child knows that to do so again will cause pain, and thus will often try to stay away.


Basically, your argument is that your senses work. But the question is why are they reliable and why do they work? We take for granted that our senses and memory are basically reliable, and that there are laws of logic; yet most of us do not stop to ask why these things are so? In a biblical creation worldview, these preconditions of intelligibility make sense; they are perfectly compatible with the Bible and what we would expect as we are created in God’s image.

Past history is not a good argument to justify reliability of your senses in the future. This is circular reasoning. How do you know that your senses will be reliability in the future? You would answer because they have been reliable in the past. When you assume the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past, you are assuming that which you are trying to prove.

In an evolutionary worldview, there is no justification (rational reason) for assuming that our senses are and will be reliable. Evolutionists trust their senses, of course, but such a belief makes no sense within their worldview. In the evolutionist’s worldview, sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past.

These expectations can change due to circumstances. A pensioner with failing eyesight may not realize the extent of his failing until something bad happens... This is due to his / her expectations not fitting with the actual reliability of his / her eyesight.


Again, the argument is why should an atheist who believes he is an accident of random chemicals and molecules believe that his senses are reliable and will be reliable tomorrow?

TeeJay


#52 Sporktastic

Sporktastic

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:21 AM

Wow, lots going on in this thread! Making a useful reply will require some reading and thought on my part. In the mean time, I think Rhodri's idea to separate "feelings" from "laws" is a good one, but it's getting hung up on the issue of altruistic love. So I have a question for Ron: What is "altruistic love"? I searched this thread for the term, and never found a definition. Saying that altruistic love is more than a feeling and constant throughout history is a bold claim. Defining it more clearly might help determine whether or not it is a correct claim.

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:53 PM


Wow, lots going on in this thread! Making a useful reply will require some reading and thought on my part. In the mean time, I think Rhodri's idea to separate "feelings" from "laws" is a good one, but it's getting hung up on the issue of altruistic love.


In the context of the OP, altruistic love falls well within with the rest of the line of reasoning. The hang up isn’t “altruistic love”, but rather that Rhodri123 spent an inordinate amount of time misdirecting from the OP, and talking about love in general (out of context).

The argument was never based upon “love” in general terms; this is nothing more than a red herring that Rhodri123 was using to derail from the OP. I allowed this to continue, so that he would just give himself enough rope to either hang him-self OR realize his mistake, and get the conversation back on track.


So I have a question for Ron: What is "altruistic love"?



First – Had you simply googled it, you wouldn’t be having this issue. This was Rhodri123’s problem; instead of researching a little, before he started making claims, he could have saved himself a lot. Especially since I gave him plenty of opportunity to do so.

Second – “Altruistic love” is that love where one will sacrifice themself for another (some refer to it as “mother-love” for obvious reasons). A soldier throwing themself on a grenade to save others around him, a mother putting herself between danger and her children (etc…)


I searched this thread for the term, and never found a definition. Saying that altruistic love is more than a feeling and constant throughout history is a bold claim. Defining it more clearly might help determine whether or not it is a correct claim.


It’s not a bold claim, its historical fact. But, once again, if one did a little of their own research, its not all that hard to find the definition.

Although I feel compelled to remind you to read the OP before replying, as we want to insure the conversation remains within the context.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:56 AM

What is found to be BOTH humorous AND sad at the same time, is the fact that absolutely NO materialist has addressed the OP of this thread in the manner that was asked(I’m reposting it for observational purposes):


I find it strange that it shouldn’t be taken for granted that the title of this sub-forum is “Creation versus Evolution”, yet it is inferred “Creation versus Materialistic Evolution”. Why; because it is a given that Theistic evolutionists don’t question it to be of Supernatural (metaphysical, ethereal, abstract, nonphysical etc…) origins, explained ontologically. In other words, in order to be a "Theistic" Evolutionist, by definition, one MUST believe in Creation!

The materialists (atheist, skeptic, agnostic etc…) evolution (by definition) must wholly believe in a naturalistic origin, but they proceed so bereft of ANY materialistic/naturalistic evidence/facts/proof. Yet the materialist also requires an ontological explanation; which, of course, is metaphysical in nature as well!

In other words the materialistic atheist (skeptic, agnostic etc…) relies heavily on metaphysical (ethereal, abstract, supernatural, nonphysical etc…) evidence for their “Origins” explanations; all the while eschewing anything that is not materialistic/naturalistic.

All of this leads to the questions at hand:

If the materialist ‘has’ to have a naturalistic/materialistic evidence based explanation, what naturalistic/materialistic evidence based explanation does the materialist have for the “Origins” of all of this (the universe, life, intelligence etc...)? In other words, from what did evolution evolve/spring? Because, in order for materialistic evolution to be a fact, it MUST be materialistic in nature AND have a materialistic origin! And if it does not, they (the materialists) are living their life wholly by faith; and “Blind Faith” at that.

Is there a materialist (atheist, skeptic, and agnostic etc…) that has the Origins answer based only on “materialistic/naturalistic” factual evidence?


Instead of addressing the “Origins” questions with naturalistic/materialistic FACTS, we find them attempting to attack minor points of verbiage with quibbling, equivocation and prevarication (i.e. is “supernatural” a “metaphysical” or “Abstract” phenomena. “Altruistic Love” is only an emotion etc…) and/or postulating with mere opinion on the “Origins” questions instead of actually providing the FACTS the OP demands.

I might suggest that anyone posting in this thread FIRST read the OP, and SECOND, read through the thread. In this way you won’t continue in the same dishonesty of some, or the pure misunderstand of others.

#55 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:14 AM

There were five posts removed from this thread due to there being absolutely NO correlation between these posts and this thread’s OP. I will be reviewing these post further to see if I need to step in and make some decisions concerning punitive rules infractions or not.

#56 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:22 AM

There were five posts removed from this thread due to there being absolutely NO correlation between these posts and this thread’s OP. I will be reviewing these post further to see if I need to step in and make some decisions concerning punitive rules infractions or not.


Ron,

I take responsibility for this. I challenged Gilbo that he could not account for or justify laws of logic, uniformity of nature, mathematics, etc. I included laws of morality as I deemed any law as non-physical. I believe Bahnsen includes these laws in his transcendental arguments. Blame me and not Gilbo.

TeeJay

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:49 AM

It's not the debate per.se, but rather the vitriol ensuing from the debate. Further, how does said debate follow from the OP. Believe me, it can indeed follow, BUT the back-and-fourth you guys have been into has greatly detracted from said debate (and this thread). So, if you are going to make such debates, you need to do so “Civilly”, with “Tact”, within “Context” and supported by “Facts”.

I would suggest that if you want to continue said line of discussion, follow the above direction. Again, you can do so within this OP, as long as you tie it into the OP. Or you can make a separate thread.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users