[jayceeii]

We’ve just been over this recently. Since scientists are finding genetic connections to intelligence and even criminality, the materialist perspective appears to be given weight. The spiritualists are left saying these factors show how a body limits a spirit, that might have been different given a better physical situation, which reduces to a weak position.

Nonetheless the place I think the materialists balk is in the so-called experiences of spirituality. For instance some find such extreme bliss in meditation that they can sit for hours or sometimes days at a time without moving, yet others cannot meditate a minute if their life depended on it. Others have lesser experiences, for instance in church, where they feel inwardly lifted by a supernal joy. These experiences cut across all genetic lines.

Then, these seemingly impossible states only prove the soul, saying nothing about God. If it seems trivial to suppose such states must have a Creator, I seem to smell a battle brewing over this that might overwhelm the world over time. Man does not want to admit that he was made. He won’t admit it until he sees incontrovertible proofs in his own soul.

[Lelouch]

You assert that scientists are finding genetic connections to intelligence and criminality, which suggests that the materialist perspective is gaining ground. While it is true that genetic factors can contribute to certain traits and behaviors, it does not necessarily mean that these traits and behaviors are fully determined by genetics. Environmental factors, such as upbringing and education, can also play a significant role in shaping these traits and behaviors. Moreover, even if genetic factors do play a role in intelligence and criminality, it does not necessarily negate the possibility of a transcendent, all-knowing, and all-powerful being, namely God, as the best explanation for certain human qualities and characteristics.

You argue that spiritual experiences, such as extreme bliss in meditation and inner joy in church, are evidence of the soul and do not necessarily prove the existence of God. While it is true that spiritual experiences do not necessarily prove the existence of God, they do suggest that there is more to human consciousness than just physical processes. Furthermore, the existence of the soul, which is often defined as the immaterial part of a human being that transcends physical death, is consistent with the idea of a transcendent, all-knowing, and all-powerful being, namely God.

[jayceeii]

You spend most of the time strengthening the materialist case here, weakening your argument to that God is not ruled out. The materialists would agree, then ask what is your evidence for God. The argument supplies none until as I’ve begun doing, you take a much closer look at the exact human experience across the wide ranges in intellect and emotion (states). Yet that only takes it to personal spirit or soul, saying nothing about the Creator until any other process that could bring it into existence (such as the Gaia hypothesis) has been ruled out. Even then, if a creative intelligence is admitted it might not be the God of the Bible, instead something more amorphous, like a “ground of being.” The God that is Real can only be known through revelation, by the Incarnation.

[Lelouch]

You correctly note that the argument does not provide direct evidence for the existence of God. However, this is not a flaw in the argument, as it is not intended to be a proof of God’s existence based on empirical evidence. Rather, it is an argument for the best explanation for certain unique human qualities and characteristics that are not fully explainable through naturalistic explanations. In this sense, the argument is similar to many philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which are based on inference rather than direct evidence.

You suggest that the argument only takes us as far as the existence of a personal spirit or soul, and does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Creator exists. However, it does provide support for the existence of a transcendent, all-knowing, and all-powerful being. If these unique human qualities and characteristics are not fully explainable through naturalistic explanations, then it is reasonable to infer that they are the result of a supernatural force. And if this supernatural force is transcendent, all-knowing, and all-powerful, it is reasonable to call it God.

You suggest that there may be other explanations for the existence of these unique human qualities and characteristics, such as the Gaia hypothesis or a more amorphous concept of a “ground of being.” While it is true that there may be other possible explanations, the argument provides a strong case for the existence of God as the best explanation. This is because the concept of God is more coherent and explanatory than these other alternatives. The Gaia hypothesis, for example, does not provide an adequate explanation for the unique human qualities and characteristics, as it is primarily focused on the Earth as a living organism. And a more amorphous concept of a “ground of being” does not provide an adequate explanation for the complexity and specificity of human qualities and characteristics.

Finally, you suggest that the only way to truly know God is through revelation, such as the Incarnation. However, this does not invalidate the argument as a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Philosophical arguments are based on reason and inference, not direct revelation. Therefore, thr argument stands as a valid philosophical argument for the existence of God.

[jayceeii]

You do not need to convince me that God exists, but you will find strong resistance to the core of your argument, otherwise Aquinas would have offered it:

“If these unique human qualities and characteristics are not fully explainable through naturalistic explanations, then it is reasonable to infer that they are the result of a supernatural force. And if this supernatural force is transcendent, all-knowing, and all-powerful, it is reasonable to call it God.”

Your role is to list these human qualities and characteristics in ways that convince nonbelievers. They’ll come back at you, saying Gaia or the ground of being has some type of impersonal guiding force. Or they’ll say with Hinduism, that “All is One.”

[Johan]

I reject premise 2. Things are not best explained by things that don’t exist, so if you want to argue that god is the best explanation you must first show that god exists at a minimum. If you can’t go that far, then the argument doesn’t get off the ground.

The argument is working backwards.

[Lelouch]

You raise a valid point. It is indeed true that in order to argue that God is the best explanation for the unique human qualities and characteristics mentioned in premise 1, one needs to first establish that God exists. However, this does not necessarily mean that the argument is invalid or flawed.

What I have presented is a type of argument called an “abductive argument,” which is a form of reasoning that infers the best explanation for certain observed phenomena. In this case, I am arguing that the existence of human qualities and characteristics that cannot be fully explained through naturalistic explanations is best explained by the existence of God.

It is true that in order for this argument to be convincing, one needs to provide evidence or reasons for why God is the best explanation. However, this does not mean that premise 2 is false or that the argument is “working backwards.” It simply means that one needs to provide further support for the argument.

One way to support premise 2 is to consider the various attributes of God that are commonly accepted by theists, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. These attributes provide a coherent and plausible explanation for the existence of the unique human qualities and characteristics mentioned in premise 1. For example, if God is all-knowing, then it makes sense that humans possess a high degree of intelligence and consciousness. If God is benevolent, then it makes sense that humans have a sense of morality.

Additionally, one could also provide evidence or arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, or the argument from religious experience. They can provide further support for the idea that God is the best explanation for the observed phenomena.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Lelouch.

[Johan]

Even with an abductive argument, the subject of the argument must exist before the argument is seen as sound. You can’t use an abductive argument to argue for the existence of something because something that doesn’t exist is by definition not the best explanation for anything.

If you are arguing that the existence of human qualities and characteristics cannot be fully explained through natural explanations, then you need to make that case. Also, even if you could prove that the natural can’t do X, that does not mean that God is the best explanation for X, you still have all your work ahead of you.

The problem is that if you provide further support to the point of showing that God exists prior to the argument, then you have lost the need for the argument to prove the existence of God. Basically, the argument only works if you already except Gods existence, in which case, arguments for the existence of God are moot.

[Lelouch]

You raise valid concerns about the validity of using abductive reasoning to argue for the existence of God.

You state that the subject of the argument must exist before the argument is considered sound. While this is true in some cases, it is not necessarily applicable in this context. The argument presented is an abductive argument, which aims to provide the best possible explanation for a phenomenon. Abductive arguments do not necessarily require the subject of the argument to exist prior to the argument being considered sound. Instead, they seek to provide the most plausible explanation for a given set of observations or facts.

You suggest that if the existence of human qualities and characteristics cannot be fully explained through naturalistic explanations, it does not necessarily follow that God is the best explanation for them. While this is true, it is important to note that the argument presented is not claiming that God is the only possible explanation for these qualities and characteristics. Rather, it is arguing that God is the best possible explanation given the available evidence.

You argue that if I provide further support for the existence of God prior to the argument, then the argument for the existence of God is moot. While this may be true in some cases, it is not necessarily applicable here. The argument presented is not assuming the existence of God prior to the argument but is instead providing evidence and reasoning to support the existence of God.

So while you raise valid concerns about the validity of using abductive reasoning to argue for the existence of God, it is important to note that the argument presented is not assuming the existence of God prior to the argument. Instead, it is providing evidence and reasoning to support the existence of God as the best possible explanation for the unique human qualities and characteristics that cannot be fully explained through naturalistic explanations.

[Johan]

I am beginning to notice a troubling pattern. You seem to acknowledge my point, say that it was a good point, but then go on to simply re-state your point again without actually going into any additional detail or supporting arguments.

“Abductive arguments do not necessarily require the subject of the argument to exist prior to the argument being considered sound.”

I don’t agree here, but you could persuade me if you were able to show me some example arguments that demonstrate your point. Would you be able to do that?

[wonderer]

Even with an abductive argument, the subject of the argument must exist before the argument is seen as sound. You can’t use an abductive argument to argue for the existence of something because something that doesn’t exist is by definition not the best explanation for anything.

Is “sound” widely used to describe abductive arguments? I honestly don’t know.

It seems to me there is an unavoidable subjective element to abductive arguments so and referring to an abductive argument as “sound” come across a bit strange to me.

[Johan]

I can understand that. So rather than say the argument hasn’t been shown to be sound, should I simply say that I just don’t accept the argument. Basically that my reasoning takes me to a different conclusion?

I guess that is a potential pitfall with abduction. Two honest people can look at the argument and reach different conclusions given the same data and both might be reasonable. (basically there is no force like there would be with deductive arguments.)

[wonderer]

Perhaps the ideal response would be to offer an alternative abductive argument. For example, I would suggest human moral reasoning, and the individual variation that exists between people WRT moral reasoning is sufficiently well explained by a combination of:

1. Naturalistic evolution resulting in us all having unique brains, but a general similarity to emotional reactions in many cases.

2. Differences in life experience shaping our views in various ways.

This to me seems sufficient to explain both the degree of commonality and the degree of difference to the ways individuals think about morality.

Pragmatically speaking, often the person one is in discussion with may go on consciously thinking the same as he had. Perhaps however, having heard the alternative abductive argument, the other person’s subconscious will be comparing observations with the alternative abductive argument you presented from then on out and eventually have an epiphany where they recognize that the evidence they have observed better fits your explanation.

However, it would be hypocritical for me to say that’s what a person *should* do. Undoubtedly I’d make a case by case judgement as to how likely it seems that such ‘seed planting’ would bear fruit.

[kravarnik]

Alternatively, one could argue in more specific and technical way, namely: the logical collapse and metaphysical incoherence that follows from affirming two contradictory substances as predicted on one being.

That is: if subjectivity involves processes and states that cannot be, principally, predicated on matter, then one affirming matter as the only existent thing ends up with logical collapse, or alternatively with denying subjectivity as real(mind becomes illusory; reasoning becomes illusory; emotions become illusory – they are empty of real content, but are mere representations of the electricity of your nervous system, so “reason” is then illusory; “good/goodness” is illusory; “intellect” is illusory; “mind” is illusory).

If your mind is your brain, but your brain isn’t sad, whilst your mind is sad, then what is sad? The materialist would have to either affirm the distinction there – mind is distinct from brain, – thus either affirm theism, or enter logical collapse. If they don’t affirm the distinction there, but persist in claiming “brain=mind(or mind is property of brain)”, then that’s again ending up with logical collapse.

Since matter is complex, thus the properties which material structures attain are connected through parts and material structures are thus composite, then if they persist in claiming “brain=mind”, they’d need to demonstrate the material part that connects brain and mind, and not merely formally claim it, while resorting to agnosticism(we know the mind is brain or is of the brain, but we don’t know how).

Because substance of being is so high in metaphysics, one cannot maintain a belief with paradigmatic consequences – changes one’s entire view of the world and how one would act within it, – on the basis of agnosticism. If they don’t know, then they shouldn’t claim it.

For, then, it would be akin to me saying “your money belongs to MY being, it is part of MY wallet, but you just don’t see the connection that makes them mine”. Or, just saying to people “I don’t know how your money are my money, but they are my money and that’s it”.

Naturalism and materialism end up with logical collapse, because by biting the bullet of claiming only complex and composite being exists, then anything that you cannot find a naturalistic, or material, substance, or part, to predicate it on, then you’re basically ending up with logical collapse. And simply maintaining one’s naturalism, or materialism, by agnosticism – as in, I know all is self-subsisting nature, or all is matter, but I don’t know how, – in the face of contradictory substances and experiences of men to these beliefs is, if not dishonest and childish, it is best genuine ignorance and confusion of how to deal with philosophy and reason and be rational about one’s beliefs about the world.

[kravarnik]

So, their usual route is presupposing naturalism/materialism, then claim
agnosticism through espousing skepticism(but inconsistent one, because
consistent skepticism leads to idealism, or solipsism). It translates
into something like:

“All is self-subsisting nature/matter, but we don’t
know how to explain in material and purely naturalistic terms, nor
identify and conclude it through naturalistic and materialistic means,
experiences and facts about reality, which contradict our initial
presupposition(all is nature/matter); however since we are skeptical
about those, then see the beginning of the sentence(all is
self-subsisting nature/matter/nature made of matter only).”

You know how children often presuppose they are right, but refuse to listen to you and do not believe you? Yeah, that’s the same, but with grown ups. And much more complex matters. Many atheists, materialists and naturalists are people with the body of a grown up, but the rationale of a child. It’s infantile and self-entitled.

[Jabberwock]

The issue with that argument is that the second premise does all the heavy lifting, i.e. you would need an actual argument for why exactly such features cannot be naturalistically explained. Note that it is not sufficient to prove that naturalism does not explain them now – you have to actually show that the naturalistic explanations are either impossible in principle or at least very unlikely. But this is not the only problem with the argument, see below:

1. God possesses cognitive abilities, including the ability to reason, think abstractly, and reflect on his own existence, as well as a sense of morality, with a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and a desire to act in accordance with ethical principles.
2. None of those features in God are a result of supernatural forces (they are completely uncaused).
3. Therefore, such qualities do not have to be a result of supernatural forces.