Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:39 pm**

Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:24 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:41 pm
But I wasn't saying "me." I was saying what rational Theists are bound to believe if they wish to remain rational.

Which is that they should agree with you!

I also have been pointing out what rational Atheists are obligated to believe, if they wish to be rational with their Atheism. So I was speaking of what groups must believe, given the premises upon which their worldview is built. That is why I wrote:

Non sequitur. I'm speaking of the proposition that God exists, which if true, will be true for everyone -- even Atheists -- regardless of my personal beliefs.

But I do not think you are right about atheists. And I do not see the connection between this and the remark you quote, which amounts to 'saying that a thing is true, is true, if it is a true thing'.

Me: And can you prove that is the case?
It doesn't even need further proof than you already have. If you use the word "proof," you must believe there is a common reality held by you and by me, in which proof is either available or lacking. Availability of it would be inductively compelling to you, and lack would be probabilistically compelling. That's what you're already implying, whether you realized it or not

.

So far, the proof is lacking. It is therefore not available, not compelling. Not even prababilistically.

No. It means that God is capable of producing evidences in the material world, because he is not less real than the reality we have; He is far more. Of course, that has to be true if He's the Creator of reality. He must be a sufficient Cause for reality. Thus He must be bigger than it....Our reality is temporary; His is the permanent truth, from which the present, transient reality is merely derived.

Before we get onto what God is like, can we have the proof he exists?

it's my inductive judgment, based on the evidence I have in hand, rational, empirical and experiential. But am I certain to the exclusion of any error margin? Of course not. Nobody ever is. That's why faith is essential to all human knowing.

Can you give the evidence? What are the instances from which you make the inductive judgement?

Of course. There is a "trilemma" in the possibilities. But you were only asking about the conflicts among Theists. However, I'm quite happy to include Atheism, and you'll find that the Law of Non-Contradiction still applies. See here...

If there are no Gods, Theism and Polytheism are untrue.

If there are many gods, then Monotheism and Atheism are untrue.

If there is one God, then Polytheism and Atheism are untrue.

However you slice it, 2/3 are always untrue. You don't even have to know which is THE truth to see that it's impossible for more than one to be true at a time.

Only if God(s) exists. If God(s) do not exist then all statements about God(s) are equally untrue, or to be accurate they are neither true or false but are meaningless. Similarly:

Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is categorically wrong to be a paedophile, then it cannot be categorically right to be one. If it's wrong to tell a lie in circumstance Z, then it cannot be right to tell a lie in circumstance Z. If it is always wrong to kill babies, then killing these babies cannot be right...

Unless moral terms are meaningless, or unless morality is determined by each individual, or a matter of goodwill, or a sociological description. Again, you cannot evoke the Law of Non-Contradiction unless the possibilities are 'jointly exhaustive', which they aren't.

It's simply a matter of understanding logic.

I understand that logic is only about the relationship between abstract symbols; e.g. 'P and not-P'. It tells you what is 'valid'. It does not tell us facts about the world. I think you are flogging a dead horse.

Then change the term. Just say, "paedophelia." Paedophiles think they're right, and you and I think they are hideously wrong. But both sides use the term without the "begging" element of "abuse."

So what is your point? You are simply telling me your opinion. That is a fact about you. How does it show anything about the existence of God?

Me: But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit...You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.
This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.

I have spent a very great deal of time on 'Proofs of God'. I have not found any. I would suggest that if you research online you will find out what is wrong with them.

And remember, even suppose we had a proof, it cannot just be a vague proof of 'The designer' or 'First Cause'. You need something much more precise. You do not accept a vague theism as enough; it has to be your own version of theism.

But the experiential is also an important argument for me, though my experience cannot be conveyed to you. You could, however, have your own experience with God. Whether you do or don't will be your own decision, not mine.

Either you have an argument or you don't. If there really is this objective evidence that God exists to be found online, you won't need an extra 'important argument based on personal experience'. Otherwise it looks like the 'ten leaky buckets' system, where we pile on one flawed argument after another, hoping that together they will hold water.

Can you tell me any one argument you think is compelling?

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:25 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:31 pm And I responded to that post. Did you miss it?

I'll check back.

I think not.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:33 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:31 pm No universe, no us. I stop at the universe (which we can observe, test and measure, within the admittedly limited boundaries of our sensory and cognitive architecture)

If so, you've just identified your "non-caused" event -- the universe. I would say we should expect a cause for it, and should continue to push back the regression of causes beyond that. The universe itself is clearly not perpetual. It contains observable entropy.

whereas you push a step back to invoke God, which we cannot observe, test or measure.

I keep pushing for answers. You've apparently stopped at "The universe did it." To me, that's manifestly not an answer. But at least you've realized the problem: that you are going to have to posit some kind of First Uncaused Cause.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:34 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:34 pm I can prove them wrong quite easily...

And....? I'm not seeing it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:34 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:34 pm I can prove them wrong quite easily...

And....? I'm not seeing it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:42 pm**

Immanuel, if one Googles "Parable of the Workmen" one reveals nothing but sources that name this parable by its more usual titles. Nobody using this discussion forum is so stupid that they don't know how to interpret Google.

The parable mentioned illustrates how God's generosity is infinite. The Hadith has the same story. Apparently God does not weigh up which persons are more deserving than other persons.

I don't think you are a Christian. I was brought up in a Christian family and educated by Christians and my understanding that God's generosity is infinite is a proper Christian understanding, according to the many Christians, Protestant and RC, whom I have met during my life. I was taught this important parable when I was a child, and have studied it in later life .It is about love and the inexhaustibility of love.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:52 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:34 pm
davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:34 pm I can prove them wrong quite easily...
And....? I'm not seeing it.

You'll have to hold your horses; I've got plenty of other stuff to do than post here!

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:54 pm**

This is the reply to the early point (on your claims about evidence) that you seemed to have missed.

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:55 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:41 pm This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.
Well, see, this is where atheists disagree with you, pretty much across the board.

The nearest to a logical argument for God is the Ontological Argument, and it does not work. Not sure what you mean by an analytic argument in this context; maybe you could provide an example? Empirical evidence -- none that I know of. If by experiential you mean private experience, that isn't evidence, at least not in the scientific sense, where evidence must be publicly shared and subject to evaluation. Same with revelatory. It think the "moral argument" is what you're trying to make here, and it's not persuasive in the least.

As to Kaalam, that was a corrective to other cosmological arguments that were self-refuting; a repair. It doesn't work, but I suppose we could discuss that separately if you wish. By empirical evidence, possibly you are thinking of the fine-turning argument. That would also be a separate discussion, but I can't help but note for now that the fine-tuning argument and Kalaam are in direct conflict, yet theists often invoke both.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:55 pm**

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:41 pm
But I wasn't saying "me." I was saying what rational Theists are bound to believe if they wish to remain rational.
Which is that they should agree with you!

No, it's on the assumption that they know that rational consistency is a virtue, and that they want to form their syllogisms logically, and use reason not mere prejudice or preference.

But I do not think you are right about atheists.

Then ask them what moral precept they think they, as Atheists, have a moral obligation to follow. They'll tell you they have no such obligation, because Atheism has no moral view.

And they're being honest.

But don't take my word for it. Ask them.

Me: And can you prove that is the case?
It doesn't even need further proof than you already have. If you use the word "proof," you must believe there is a common reality held by you and by me, in which proof is either available or lacking. Availability of it would be inductively compelling to you, and lack would be probabilistically compelling. That's what you're already implying, whether you realized it or not

.

So far, the proof is lacking. It is therefore not available, not compelling. Not even prababilistically.[/quote]
You're not getting it. I'm speaking of your own self-contradiction. If you ask for "proof," then the rational assumption that goes along with that is that people have a shared world (from which "proof" for both can be drawn). So you've already conceded the point, just by the way you asked.

Want to rephrase?

Before we get onto what God is like, can we have the proof he exists?

Yes. I've listed some good inductive arguments for you, and I've suggested the experiential option. But if you won't look at the proof, then no, there's no proof for someone who won't look.

it's my inductive judgment, based on the evidence I have in hand, rational, empirical and experiential. But am I certain to the exclusion of any error margin? Of course not. Nobody ever is. That's why faith is essential to all human knowing.
Can you give the evidence? What are the instances from which you make the inductive judgement?

Read Michael Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge." He does a wonderful job of this.

Of course. There is a "trilemma" in the possibilities. But you were only asking about the conflicts among Theists. However, I'm quite happy to include Atheism, and you'll find that the Law of Non-Contradiction still applies. See here...

If there are no Gods, Theism and Polytheism are untrue.

If there are many gods, then Monotheism and Atheism are untrue.

If there is one God, then Polytheism and Atheism are untrue.

However you slice it, 2/3 are always untrue. You don't even have to know which is THE truth to see that it's impossible for more than one to be true at a time.

Only if God(s) exists. [/quote]
No, regardless. Aristotle's Law does not presuppose any God, even if Aristotle himself was a Polytheist. And since I've included Atheism, under item 1, you've got no cause to complain. I included your objection.

If God(s) do not exist then all statements about God(s) are equally untrue, or to be accurate they are neither true or false but are meaningless.

False. The statement, "Santa Claus is real" does not lack meaning. It's simply not true. So even if you believe God to be no more than a "Santa Claus" case, you don't have a meaningless claim.

But you're right about one thing: if there were no God, then "meaning" itself would have no meaning. But I doubt you were thinking of that.

Similarly:

Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is categorically wrong to be a paedophile, then it cannot be categorically right to be one. If it's wrong to tell a lie in circumstance Z, then it cannot be right to tell a lie in circumstance Z. If it is always wrong to kill babies, then killing these babies cannot be right...

Unless moral terms are meaningless, or unless morality is determined by each individual, or a matter of goodwill, or a sociological description. Again, you cannot evoke the Law of Non-Contradiction unless the possibilities are 'jointly exhaustive', which they aren't. [/quote]
Actually, they are. "Right" and "wrong," if they mean anything at all, are mutually exclusive options in all cases in which the relevant particulars are the same.

It's simply a matter of understanding logic.
I understand that logic is only about the relationship between abstract symbols; e.g. 'P and not-P'. It tells you what is 'valid'. It does not tell us facts about the world. I think you are flogging a dead horse.

Wow. You really don't know anything about logic. You're only talking about symbolic logic, and even there, you haven't understood the relationship between validity and truthfulness.

I see why I can't persuade you. You think all claims are just prejudice statements...presumably, except your own.

Then change the term. Just say, "paedophelia." Paedophiles think they're right, and you and I think they are hideously wrong. But both sides use the term without the "begging" element of "abuse."
So what is your point? You are simply telling me your opinion.

And there it is...completely missing the point, by your own admission, and mistaking logic for "opinion."

I can't help you with that. You're going to have to learn how logic works first.

Me: But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit...You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.
This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.

I have spent a very great deal of time on 'Proofs of God'. I have not found any.[/quote]
That doesn't even make any sense. It's like saying, "I've spent a great deal of time in France, but never found France."

I try to take the charitable reading of what you say, if I can. But I can't fix that level of self-contradiction, I'm afraid. You're going to have to help me understand how you "spent a great deal of time" on something which you also claim you have "never found."

Meanwhile, go to http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer, and have a look around. You're going to see a lot about these issues...though you've "never found" anything, despite "a great deal" of effort to locate them, allegedly.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:09 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:42 pm Immanuel, if one Googles "Parable of the Workmen" one reveals nothing but sources that name this parable by its more usual titles. Nobody using this discussion forum is so stupid that they don't know how to interpret Google.

This just isn't true. Calm yourself down. And I don't need to "google" the agrarian parables. I know them all.

Again, which parable did you mean? You don't say, even though I asked you explicitly if you meant Mark 12. Did you mean Mark 12? If not, say which one you meant.

The parable mentioned illustrates how God's generosity is infinite.

Nope. If it's the one I think you mean, it says no such thing at all. In fact, it says God will judge the unrighteous.

The Hadith has the same story. Apparently God does not weigh up which persons are more deserving than other persons.

It DEFINITELY does not say -- or imply -- that. Show where you think it does.

I don't think you are a Christian. I was brought up in a Christian family and educated by Christians and my understanding that God's generosity is infinite is a proper Christian understanding, according to the many Christians, Protestant and RC, whom I have met during my life.

You've been taught Universalism, apparently. But the Bible flatly denies Universalism, on many, many occasions. For example, Revelation 20:12-15, or Christ Himself, in Matthew 7:21-23. So you've been lied to, I'm afraid. The Bible does not say what your teachers told you it says.

I was taught this important parable when I was a child, and have studied it in later life .It is about love and the inexhaustibility of love.

Which parable? Conservatively, there are 46, and most of them are agrarian, and a large number of those have "workmen" in them. We can't clear up the misunderstanding if you don't know where the parable to which you want to refer is even found.

What I can tell you for sure is that you've been lied to. That's not your fault. But continuing to believe it without checking would be.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:11 pm**

I Can, you want me to prove that Social Darwinists were wrong in justifying their project based on Darwinian evolutionary theory. You yourself brought up antebellum slaveholders. Can you prove that they were wrong in pointing to your Good Book in justifying slavery? Because that is exactly what they did. Have you ever read Alex Stephens' 1861 Cornerstone speech? Among many others.

And? I'm not seeing it ...

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:18 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:54 pm Well, see, this is where atheists disagree with you, pretty much across the board.

By definition, and by creed, they disagree with me. That's no surprise.

The nearest to a logical argument for God is the Ontological Argument, and it does not work. Not sure what you mean by an analytic argument in this context; maybe you could provide an example?

The Ontological Argument is analytical: that is, it deals with what is definitionally so, not with empirical tests. The Kalaam is an empirical-deductive argument: it starts with the empirical, and deduces mathematically, using the empirical as a basis. The Design Argument is empirical, based on inference to the best explanation. The Moral Argument is an intuitive and sociological kind of argument. The Argument from Evil is values-based. The Historical Arguments are historical, and the experiential arguments are personal and experiential. That's a pretty broad net right there.

But to those who are not willing to believe NOTHING is "evidence." They won't recognize evidence as evidence, let alone let it prove anything to them, even probabilistically. And there's no possibility of making willfully blind eyes see. That skill belongs to only one Person. But I can point out the evidence, and then let people make their own judgments.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:29 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:11 pm ..slavery...

Red herring.

The Bible does not justify slavery. However, slavery is one of our oldest institutions, and it was common in the world of the Bible. In cities like Athens, there were more slaves than free men. In point of fact, there are more slaves in the world today than at any time in history. So that makes the issue of slavery a permanent concern in human affairs: it would be surprising (and odd, therefore) if the Bible said nothing about slaves.

In fact, it says to slaves that if they can get free, they should; but if they cannot, then God still loves them, and they can still serve Him. And it goes on to explain how. In fact, it tells Christians that they are to be "bondslaves to Christ," and that someone who has been enslaved by men should regard himself or herself as "God's freedman". So free or bond, any man (or woman) can be a Christian in the fullest sense. And all are equally dignified in the eyes of God.

But unfortunately, slavery, like poverty, is a permanent fact of this wicked world until the Judgment. The Bible understands that that is what mankind will do to each other. And in retrospect, it has been entirely right.

However, what's often unnoted is the historical role of particularly evangelical Protestantism in destroying the slave trade in the UK and America. Once all men are value-equal before God, no rationale for slavery can endure. The problem is that without God, mankind has no reason to think men are equal. Then slavery is quite possible.

It's funny: the skeptics take the pronouncements about the Bible that were made by Crusaders, Nazis or slaveholders, but don't listen to what is said to them by those who actually practice the faith. It's almost like they're determined to misrepresent it...rather like the Crusaders, Nazis and slaveholders, actually...just for their own purposes.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:30 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:52 pm You'll have to hold your horses; I've got plenty of other stuff to do than post here!

Shortly, so will I...but not quite yet.

Philosophy Now Forum

Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists