September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Alan Chambers’s View Is Clear | Main | Challenge: Isn’t Selling Organs for Research a Good Thing? »

October 05, 2015

Comments

Andy,


How about just one, since multiple items may be too much to ask?


So instead of:


Show us how your own ontological regression (whichever one you'd like to claim) retains (fails to eliminate) Love. And Mind. And Logic. And Personhood.


Let's just stick with one, say, love.


Show us how your own ontological regression (whichever one you'd like to claim) retains (fails to eliminate) love.


Can you do that?


I claim you don't have the necessary tools to do so.


Well?

Pro-Tip #2 is a great argument! Thanks scbrownlhrm

Daniel,

To be honest, I think your earlier comment pointing to the Cross of Christ is the only discussion that ultimately matters. I don't go there as often as I should in these threads. Fortunately those such as yourself bring the real, actual, salt.

A key word in Pro-Tip#2 is coherent.

So Daniel, see why when you wanted grounding in the other thread the complaints came? I tried to correlate the dialogue from an old western where the cowboy[I think it was Chuck Heston of "The Ten Commandments" by Cecil B. DeMil fame] asking the banditos to see their badges....the conversation ends with the lead bandito saying "we dont need no stinking badges". So it is with most non Christians, only they cry "we dont need no stinking grounding".

Of course without it, it is make believe that there is freewill, self/person, truth, logic/reason, love...etc.

There really no challenge for anyone to understand scbrownlhrm's points, there is only an unwillingness to do so in earnest.

BADGES? Wait for it…..!!

Thanks for the encouraging words on my post, scbrownlhrm
---I think coherent, well-grounded arguments are important and helpful in order to break down intellectual barriers/misunderstandings others may have so as to lead them ultimately to the Cross.

Brad B,
I can definitely see why the complaints came in the other thread. It is truly a sad thing that people (as was talked about in the video) continue to suppress the truth, and ultimately, are unwilling to submit to the rule and reign of God and to put their trust in Him.

"You cannot demonstrate for us how it is your ontology (etc.) coherently retains (fails to eliminate) the "Metaphysical Actuality" of the Divine Attributes"

This doesnt make any sense.

How can you demonstrate that the divine attributes you cite aren't simply made up?

And please define 'metaphysical actuality'.

Mike,

On the Christian's paradigm, love exists necessarily. It, or He, or said "Motions", and so on there in Trinity, both precedes and out-distances the indifference which constitutes the essence of contingent particles in motion, of any contingent X whatsoever.

That's fairly routine within Christianity's ontological topography.

Ah my comments are being blocked.

scbrownlhrm

'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself"

Please explain what you mean in more accessible terms and less archaic language.

Mike,

God is love.

God exists necessarily.

"God" would be on par with what David Bentley Hart terms the infinite wellspring of being, consciousness, and bliss that is the source, order, and end of all reality.

"God exists necessarily."

How do you know that?

Mike,

The same way you know contingent particles exists necessarily.

Evidence.

Mike,

What is your evidence that there is no such thing as an infinite wellspring of being?


"Evidence"

Great - so what's the evidence to support the claim that "God exists necessarily"?

"What is your evidence that there is no such thing as an infinite wellspring of being?" I dont know what that is - but if someone claims that there is such a thing the burden is on them to produce the evidence to support the claim.

Mike,

Evidence:

Logic.


BTW: Since you don't know what a source of being is, metaphysically speaking, or why it is necessary, you may want to look at books for people over six years old regarding said topic, despite your request to function at that level. The earlier quote was from a book written for grown ups.

"Evidence:

Logic."

How so?

The above quote about explaining things to 6 year olds was from Einstein by the way. I think he makes a valid point - one that you could learn from.

Or perhaps you are too comfortable covering up dreadful arguments with flowery, high falutin language? Obfuscation personified.

Mike,

"How so"?

That's not the question.

The question is how not so?

Granted, as a materialist logic isn't a coherent property in your paradigm.

But that's your problem.

Not mine.

If you can prove otherwise, feel free to give it a try.

Mike,

Since you have no idea what a "metaphysically infinite wellspring of being that is the source, order, and end of reality" can possibly be referring to, I'd point you to the book for grown-ups from which the topic was hashed out. Only, I doubt your interest, so I'll spare you the tedious labor involved. And besides, 6 year olds *cannot* follow it, so, according to you and your bizarrely abused reference to a quote by someone who made a living going over the heads of 6 year olds, the book *must* be philosophical obfuscation.

scbrownlhrm

Actually "how so?" is precisely the question because you are the one doing the claiming.

You claiming something and then saying "show me it aint so" isnt the way it works - because that method isnt parsimonious.

So please show hoe "Logic" is evidence for your assertion that "God exists necessarily". You make the claim, back it up.

"Granted, as a materialist logic isn't a coherent property in your paradigm"

What does this even mean? Please explain.

And why are you labeling me a materialist? Is that what you do when people ask you perfectly reasonable questions? Throw labels about like passive aggressive insults?!!

Mike,


There is no evidence within any part of philosophical naturalism, at all, which affirms the coherence of the property that is logic within such a paradigm. That unavoidable finding fits the predictions of the Christian's paradigm. That finding along with other lines of evidence leads me to embrace Christianity.

That's a simple claim about the property of logic.

If you have information the Christian does not know about - that his paradigm has not accounted for, and can present it in language which a six year old can follow - please - do share.

You see here is the problem:

This -> "There is no evidence within any part of philosophical naturalism, at all, which affirms the coherence of the property that is logic within such a paradigm. That unavoidable finding fits the predictions of the Christian's paradigm. That finding along with other lines of evidence leads me to embrace Christianity."

requires explanation. It's simply word salad.

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, what I think you are saying is:

Humans have a tool called logic
I, scbrownlhrm, cant see how we could have logic unless there was a logic giver
That logic giver is God
Therefore God exists

Observations:

1. Are there really no other explanations here?
2. Why do we need to 'account' for logic anyway?
3. Isnt it circular to use god given logic as evidence for god?!! You are saying "I know God exists because I have logic and Im using logic to show God exists". That doesnt work

Even a 6 year old would understand that.

Mike,


This is peculiar: “I, scbrownlhrm, can’t see how we could have logic unless there was a logic giver”. Actually that would be a good point if that were the premise/conclusion I employed. But it wasn’t, so the point fails.


“Are there really no other explanations here?” Not that philosophical naturalism has shown us. But, again, not my problem. If you have something to offer, please, do share.


“Why do we need to 'account' for logic anyway?” If you want to just go on “magic makes this property” then that is fine. But, as a Christian, that just won’t do for me.


“Isn’t it circular to use god given logic as evidence for god?!! You are saying "I know God exists because I have logic and I’, using logic to show God exists". Again, that would be a good point if it were the premise/conclusion I employed, but it wasn’t, so the point fails.


You may want to look up the difference between blind axiom, circularity, and metaphysical presupposition, particularly as such relate to one’s ultimate explanatory terminus. The predictive power of Christianity on the property of logic relative to the material order lends itself to further evidence of Christianity’s plausibility.


Love. Logic. Mind. Person. Reason. Intention. It's all the same here. All such properties end in elimination because - as everybody knows - causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with. The property of logic isn't "magically different" and able to claim some sort of "immunity" from the way reality works.


But, we're always open to new information. If you have some, please, do share.


Now - the premises of Christianity predict all of that relative to the material order, so, again, that along with other lines of evidence lead me go with those far more plausible lines.

"“Isn’t it circular to use god given logic as evidence for god?!! You are saying "I know God exists because I have logic and I’, using logic to show God exists". Again, that would be a good point if it were the premise/conclusion I employed, but it wasn’t, so the point fails."

Ermm sorry, that was the premise and conclusion you used:

""God exists necessarily." - "Evidence - Logic""

And yet you are using logic to demonstrate the point.

Thats circular- you are hoisted on your own petard.

I dont care if you dont understand why your argument fails - its wrong.

We arent getting anywhere hear. You think you have all the answers and no duty to explain any of your reasoning - you know what you know anmd thats good enough for you.

Be ware that others who think metaphysics is a load of old codswallap, equivalent to making stuff up, are less credulous.

My guess is you were a theist first before you started waffling metaphysics.

Mike,

Show us how your ontological template - whichever one you want to use - retains, or fails to eliminate, the properties of love or logic or person or mind or.......

That's not complicated or fancy.

The Christian premises lead the Christian to conclude that you can't pull it off.

You're not exactly hurting his case.


"Show us how your ontological template - whichever one you want to use - retains, or fails to eliminate, the properties of love or logic or person or mind or......"

"Thats not complicated or fancy"

?????

Its simply unnecessary! WHY does anyone need to do this?

You said above that we need to 'account for logic' because "If you want to just go on “magic makes this property” then that is fine"

Of course that is precisely what you are doing by claiming logic is god given. Again, whether you like it or not, it is the case. God is not a answer to the question you are trying to answer. A question which you havent provided any sort of justification for asking in the first place.

Its much more likely that you are reasoning from your notions of God. Which will take you in circles as I have already demonstrated.

Mike,

"Its simply unnecessary! WHY does anyone need to do this?"

Well, that's nice but people do it all the time. They describe and account - on materialism - for what love "is", for what reasoning "is", for what mind "is", for what logic "is", for what person/self "is" at its fundamental / elemental level.

That materialism eliminates all of it is the Christian's prediction. Causes cannot give to their effects properties not implicitly housed in the cause to begin with.

That you don't want to explore and discover and account for the human mind, for logic, for what we experience as the 'self', and so on, that you scoff at the attempt to do so, at others seeking to do so, and claim that no one needs to be doing those things is quite un-scientific of you. In fact, surprisingly, its even un-scient-ism of you.

Mike,

No one is claiming God gives logic.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

Rather, I'm merely asserting that the Atheist will (metaphysically) eliminate both love and logic.

"No one is claiming God gives logic."

You said earlier in the thread that logic is a divine attribute.

Whats the difference between saying God gives logic to it being a divine atrribute?!

"Causes cannot give to their effects properties not implicitly housed in the cause to begin with"

What has this statement got to do with logic?

Logic is a human invention. The history of logic shows that. Why does it work? Who knows - I dont know. My inability to answer that question however does not necessarily mean you can claim God exists by the way

Mike,

I stated:

"Rather, I'm merely asserting that the Atheist will (metaphysically) eliminate both love and logic."


You may want to know why I make that assertion about the Non-Theist at all.

Well, had I never known the physical sciences, the premises and conclusions about reality which I derived solely from the Christian's truth claims would have led me to those same conclusions about all those properties.

Having, though, the benefits afforded by the physical sciences and the philosophical arenas I find only affirmation upon affirmation coming in from all directions.

One can imagine how reassuring Theology's precision of prediction is.

So, as it is, the premises upon which I make that conclusion, and hence the assertion, are bountifully saturated with assurance upon assurance from the Theological, from the Philosophical/Metaphysical, and from the Scientific.

For what it's worth, more affirmation streams in from the likes of Daniel and Brad B. and WisdomLover and DGFischer and Pemberton as their particular paintings bring to light that City not made with hands wherein the Cross of Christ instantiates love's timeless Self-Giving in the face of my own moral failures.


“In my view it comes down to this: Only Christianity characterizes God as offering Grace to sinners, all of whom desperately need it. Our own need for Grace from God is palpable. And the God revealed by reason to all is a God of Grace. So Christianity is the truest religion. Of the religions with any currency in the world, it is the only one that could be true.” (WL)

This has gotten more interesting and topical since in my opinion, the way rational free agent moral beings suppress the truth is by being careless with their worldview systematics. No careful inspection of the coherency of the system is done, especially when grounding/foundation is concerned.

A secondary way of suppressing the truth is by implementing the hyper-skeptical view of any uncomfortable propositions/evidence that exposes the system's incoherency.

Now, of course logic comes from God and of course the Christian systematic worldview doesn't just assume it but accounts for it.

In argumentation, the Christian can account for logic within the system, so unless the non Christian can account for it also within his/her system, the Christian has no duty to even allow any debate at all, since their opponent has no right to even argue since their worldview fails before it can even use a single word. But, even [though] if the non Christian trespasses/borrows/steals from the Christian worldview, and we look the other way so that debate can occur, their foolishness is soon exposed when the structure not built on any foundation is also found to be wanting re:coherency.

And....scbrownlhrm is right that the physical world is only reasonably/rationally experienced through the Christian paradigm. All others experience the world irrationally and in disobedience.

Ultimate propositions are necessarily circular, or one could say radically self attesting. Mike complains that you use logic to prove that logic comes from God...this is not circular or question begging, it establishes that within the Christian system of thought, the great I AM is the ultimate proposition.

That this ultimate proposition is behind/under all creation, everyone is in reliance to Him for all their being. Denying this requires the opposition to provide an argument that distills down to an equally coherent necessary ultimate proposition.

Challenges to the premises of a system are fair game but what often occurs is that the world system is used to judge the Christian system which is just question begging. If one cannot start with our Ultimate starting point, they cannot judge the systems coherency at all.

Now, if the non Christian system of thought can provide a necessary starting point that accounts for logic they are free to do it...even if Mike attempts this, he wont be chastised for being circular...he will just have to account for it within his whole system-show coherency. He wont though since the world system eliminates all possibility of self/freewill/logic/reasoning. In other words, it cuts it own imagined supports. The non Christian system is truly a system that has "feet firmly planted in mid air".

scbrownlhrm,

"You're simply failing to demonstrate an ability to tackle Pro-Tip #2."
- I see you still have not figured out how to use a dictionary to look up words that you do not understand, like "tip". So I did it for you:
"tip
noun
Definition:
1: a piece of advice or expert or authoritative information
2: a piece of advance or confidential information given by one thought to have access to special or inside sources"
You´re welcome.

"Show us how your own ontological regression (whichever one you'd like to claim) retains (fails to eliminate) love. And Mind. And Logic. And Personhood. And......"
- How would I do that... well, first of all I would point out that eliminative materialism does not claim that "logic" doesn´t exist, so this part of your "challenge" has actually nothing to do with materialism but rather just displays your ignorance. And next I would point out that an atheist is not obliged to agree with eliminative materialists about many mental states being non-existent, (s)he can rather stick with the much more common versions of materialism that claim that mental states are real and either reduce to or emerge from physical brain states.
And lastly, I would point out that an atheist does not even have to be a materialist in the first place - pretty much all schools of dualism and idealism (including those that mainstream Christian philosophies subscribe to) are in fact perfectly compatible with atheism and atheists who are not materialists are not rare at all (they are even the majority of atheists in eastern cultures).

Wow, that is certainly a *hard* challenge scbrownlhrm!
No wait... That was actually one of the stupidest "challenges" I have ever seen and you should be embarrassed for your obvious ignorance and your stereotyping.

scbrownlhrm,

and now let me try a little challenge. An atheist can ground logic empirically without having to resort to mere assertions - by looking at how the most fundamental building blocks of reality behave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical%3F
I claim that you in fact cannot ground logic without relying on mere assertions that you cannot back up with *any* evidence or arguments to support them - I challenge you to prove me wrong.

"An atheist can ground logic empirically without having to resort to mere assertions - by looking at how the most fundamental building blocks of reality behave" ~ Isn't this a mere assertion, Andy? Aren't you presuming this assertion to be a "fact?" without the ability to prove it as such?

Daniel,

"Isn't this a mere assertion, Andy? Aren't you presuming this assertion to be a "fact?" without the ability to prove it as such?"
- It´s not a mere assertion because I can provide evidence to back up this claim. Empirical facts about quantum phenomena can be used to derive the algebraic properties of logic and if one does that, one ends up with a system of logic that is grounded empirically and exactly this has already been done by philosophers, for example in this paper here:
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dmalamen/courses/prob-determ/Putnam.pdf

So, how do you ground logic without relying on mere assertions or stealing from an atheist worldview?

Andy,

You presuppose that one can draw reliable conclusions from observations/facts empirically. There is still an underlying set of presuppositions you bring to the table. Have you considered that it is the a-theistic worldview which is ultimately groundless on its presuppositional claims (including its faith in empiricism)?

scbrownlhrm has clearly thought over these topics much more than I have and has taken the time to respectfully explain his position quite well (way more than you've given him credit for).

scbrownlhrm,

"You may want to look up the difference between blind axiom, circularity, and metaphysical presupposition,"
- Your ignorance truly knows no boundaries or does it? The only difference between an "axiom" and a "presupposition" is that the former is considered to be self-evidently true while the latter is not, that´s it.

"Love. Logic. Mind. Person. Reason. Intention. It's all the same here. All such properties end in elimination because - as everybody knows - causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with."
- Indeed! And since God is the first cause of every contingent thing, God must therefore be physical, because some contingent things have the property of being physical and "a cause cannot infuse their effect with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with".
Or lets use your "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" BS to prove that water cannot have the property of being "fluid":
Neither hydrogen nor oxygen have the property of being fluid, so their chemical bonding to yield water molecules caused by the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen gas cannot infuse water with the property of being fluid.
Isn´t logic fun?

Daniel,

"You presuppose that one can draw reliable conclusions from observations/facts empirically."
- Nope. I do not presuppose that, I rather conclude it based on the regularities I can observe in the world around me.

"There is still an underlying set of presuppositions you bring to the table. Have you considered that it is the a-theistic worldview which is ultimately groundless on its presuppositional claims"
- Yes, I have considered that and found it to be wrong.

"(including its faith in empiricism)?"
- That is actually not a "faith". Just like you are not having "faith" when you have an infected wound and go see a doctor to get some antibiotics instead of praying for healing - you are rather relying on empiricism´s *demonstrated* track record.

"scbrownlhrm has clearly thought over these topics much more than I have"
- No, scbrownlhrm might give you the impression that he has any clue about this subject because he is unbelievably pretentious and loves to use big words, but he is actually amazingly clueless about this subject.

"and has taken the time to respectfully explain his position quite well (way more than you've given him credit for)."
- He is not respectful, he is rather incredibly presumptous because he constantly claims to speak for all Christians and, even worse, for all non-Christians. He is also incredibly rude (and you are too if you agree with the OP) because he doesn´t just claim that people who disagree with him are wrong, he claims that they know that they are wrong and lie about it - this could not be any more rude.

"I rather conclude it based on the regularities I can observe in the world around me."
-Don't you see here, Andy, that this is a presupposition? You say that you conclude things based on the regularities you observe - this is itself something you take to heart and believe in. It is in fact a presupposition.

Why don't you think a-theism is groundless? Have you thought over, for instance, that a-theism provides no explanation for the existence of the universe (I refer you to the contingency argument)?

"when you have an infected wound and go see a doctor to get some antibiotics instead of praying for healing"
-Actually, this is also an example of faith. You have faith that the Abx will work. That faith comes from experimental data, but it is faith nonetheless, my friend.

Andy, I also just want to point out something about your statements on "rudeness" from your worldview. On an atheistic worldview, what is "rude" anyway? Is there anything wrong with "rude"? If all that anything is is particles in motion, what more is your offense to someone coming across to you as "rude" than just perhaps some chemical reactions taking place in your brain? If so, then why is there anything wrong if someone comes across to you as speaking for everyone?

Daniel,

"Don't you see here, Andy, that this is a presupposition? You say that you conclude things based on the regularities you observe - this is itself something you take to heart and believe in. It is in fact a presupposition."
- No, it is not. A conclusion and a presupposition are completely different things - the former is the end of a reasoning process and the latter is the beginning of a reasoning process. I don´t have to presuppose that there are regularities in nature - I can rather start with the agnostic view "maybe there are regularities, maybe there are none, lets find out" and only conclude that there regularities if I can indeed find some.

"Have you thought over, for instance, that a-theism provides no explanation for the existence of the universe (I refer you to the contingency argument)?"
- Afaict, something must necessarily exist because the existence of nothing is an incoherent idea (if truly nothing exists, then this would include the rule "from nothing, nothing comes", but without that rule, "nothing" could not be a stable state of existence).
And I deny that theism actually gives you an explanation for the existence of the universe - because a theistic God has no reason to create or do anything. It is actually even worse than that because a world that contains just a theistic God (who is by definition perfect in every respect) and *nothing else* would be a perfect one - it cannot be improved by creating stuff, so based on theism, I would expect that *nothing* exists except for God alone.

"Actually, this is also an example of faith. You have faith that the Abx will work. That faith comes from experimental data, but it is faith nonetheless, my friend."
- Then you are using the word "faith" in a very idiosyncratic way - you use it as a synonym for "belief". However, there are warranted beliefs - beliefs that are supported by good reasons - like the belief that a doctor can help you with your infected wound, and there are unwarranted beliefs - like the belief that your infected wound will get healed if you just pray for healing.

"On an atheistic worldview, what is "rude" anyway? Is there anything wrong with "rude"? If all that anything is is particles in motion, what more is your offense to someone coming across to you as "rude" than just perhaps some chemical reactions taking place in your brain? If so, then why is there anything wrong if someone comes across to you as speaking for everyone?"
- Let me answer that with some counter-questions:
You as a theist say that we are just our material bodies plus immaterial "souls". If that is all we are, what´s wrong with being rude to each other? Why should your offense when someone treats you rudely matter, if your offense is nothing more than some magic reactions happening in your immaterial soul?
What I am getting at with this is: what our minds are ultimately made of has no moral significance - our minds ultimately reducing to particles in motions does *not* tell you that they have no moral value and our minds ultimately reducing to some magical "souls" or whatever does not tell you that they *do* have moral value.

Andy,

"A conclusion and a presupposition are completely different things" - Nah, man. I wasn't saying they are the same thing. I'm saying that one stems from the other. In stating that you can draw conclusion A from evidence given starts with the presupposition that one is able to draw inferences from observations.
In any case of whether you can understand what I'm trying to say or not, I hope you can take into consideration some valid and logical arguments for theism. I refer you, for instance, to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Andy, in light of an eternal perspective, please think and weigh carefully the arguments for Theism, specifically Christian Theism. I'm not saying what I'm saying to be "right," but with the hope that you will honestly seek the God Who is for your own good and joy. Please take time to look over the arguments for God's existence, the historical Jesus, etc.
One resource I have found beneficial (from what I've read so far) is Dr. Tim Keller's book, "The Reason for God."

For lack of time right now (though I wish I could go into more detail) I'm not going to say much more right now.

On that last part of your most recent post on the subject of morality, I encourage you to carefully think over the moral argument as well. Another resource I've found helpful in searching for answers is Dr. William Lane Craig's website, reasonable faith: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Hope that helps at least to point in the right direction. I'll be praying for you, my friend!

Daniel,

"In stating that you can draw conclusion A from evidence given starts with the presupposition that one is able to draw inferences from observations."
- That is not a "presupposition" in any meaningful sense. A "presupposition" is something that you do not argue for, something you just take as a given without considering potential falsifications or verifications. And your ability to draw conclusions based on observations is something that is both potentially falsifiable (and you could readily falsify it if you would exist in a world that has no observable regularities) and verifiable (you verify it every time you successfully anticipate something based on prior beliefs).

"Andy, in light of an eternal perspective, please think and weigh carefully the arguments for Theism, specifically Christian Theism."
- I did. And I encourage you to carefully think about whether Christian Theism specifically or even Theism in general, might actually be false. Some popular level ressources I can recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Became-Atheist-Preacher-Christianity/dp/1591025923
And two college-level books:
http://www.amazon.de/Arguing-about-Gods-Graham-Oppy/dp/0521122643
http://www.amazon.com/Hiddenness-Cornell-Studies-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801473462

Hi Daniel....I think you are a sleeper...as in an unexpectedly well prepared character. In fact, you have exposed Andy's groundless system over and over while he redefines and in general carries on as if superior. I especially like that one can use sense perception/observation as grounding for a tenet of a systematic worldview and your challenge is met with refe3ences to books...even college level books to substantiate a view...not pure reason or even 6 year old reasoning....which would be adequate.

Keep it up, it is enjoyable to follow along.

Brad B,
"you have exposed Andy's groundless system over and over while he redefines..."
- I´m confident that you can show where Andy redefined anything because you are surely not a liar, or are you?

"I especially like that one can use sense perception/observation as grounding for a tenet of a systematic worldview"
- I´m glad that you like it! That´s understandable because the properties of propositional logic being both falsifiable and verifiable by observations is certainly much more intellectually honest and satisfying than just merely and dogmatically asserting some putative laws of logic to be universally valid "because God".

"and your challenge is met with refe3ences to books..."
- Well, actually, the references to books I provided were not in fact a response to any "challenge" at all they were rather a response to Daniel citing some ressources that he thinks support his Christian worldview and inviting me to check them out. You might want to work a little on your reading comprehension skills.

Daniel,


Brad B is correct. The inferior reasoning here by our Non-Theist friends is apparent. Logic and love are eliminated, as you've seen. The reason the skeptic is left with magic instead is also obvious. Keep the following quote and principles in mind, and don't let the skeptic's disdain for "principles" relative to real causes and real effects deter you:


"A true physicalism makes no allowance for emergent properties in nature that are not already implicit in their causes. Unless, then, one is positing the existence of proto-conscious material elements, particles of intentionality and awareness that are in some inconceivable way already rational and subjective, and that can add up to the unified perspective of a single conscious subject (which seems a quite fantastic notion), one is really just talking about some marvelously inexplicable transition from the undirected, mindless causality of mechanistic matter to the intentional unity of consciousness. Talk of emergence in purely physical terms, then, really does not seem conspicuously better than talk of magic." (David Bentley Hart)


Andy will say God must be physical - cause physical stuff exists - as if that's the principle - but such silliness you can just ignore as *your* stuff reaches farther than all that nonsense.

Daniel,

your friend scbrownlhrm is of course completely right, when you consider something to be true, like "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with", and then see that consistently applying this principle would lead to conclusions that you do not like - then you can just arbitrarily ignore it whenever it is convenient for you.

scbrownlhrm also nicely demonstrates how lying is totally ok, but only if you lie for Jesus.

Daniel,


See what I said about the "principle" and Andy's reply ;)

Being itself escapes him as does the Christian meaning of the word God.

Don't be fooled by Andy's appeal to observational reality as what logic "is". He's stopping short of his own ontological stopping point.

Which is dishonest.

And circular.

He's afraid to take the brain synapses even further, so don't buy in until he's willing to go the disrance.

Love too dies that death in his ontology.

And Personhood. And.....

Not to worry - you can point him to our paradigm built atop Personhood, and Logic, and Mind, and, of course, Love.

The comments to this entry are closed.