[The Beego (Moderator)]

Yeah…we don’t do that kind of stuff here ✋

Lol jk

Thanks for sharing

[Jason]

Thanks, I wasn’t sure if it would be ok, but I figured this forum is about education, so I thought I’d give it a try. 🙂

[The Beego (Moderator)]

Yeah absolutely; I was just yankin your chain 😅

[Johan]

There is no puzzle regarding presups. What is confusing about someone presuming they are automatically right before beginning the conversation / investigation? What is really confusing to me is that people find this to be powerful?

[Jason]

Hi Johan, thanks for sharing your thoughts. 🙂 😀 I can tell by your response that you don’t understand what presuppositional apologetics is about, but that’s ok, we’ve all got to start somewhere. I recommend checking out the playlist I linked to, and finding out what the argument is all about.

[wonderer]

What is really confusing to me is that people find this to be powerful?

I suppose presuppositionalists can have a rhetorically powerful effect on the thinking of people who haven’t developed very good critical thinking skills. Kind of like Trump’s rhetoric can have a powerful effect on the minds of some people.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  wonderer.

[Jason]

You seem to be claiming that you have an answer to the apologetic presented by presuppositionalists. So I would ask you, how do you account for laws of logic, absolute morality, and the uniformity of nature on an Atheistic worldview?

[Jabberwock]

„Laws” of logic are not prescriptions, but descriptions of reality, morality is not absolute (which even Craig admits, in fact I have never met a moral absolutist) and the regularity of reality is ‘unaccounted for’ even on theism (as there cannot be a source of regularity outside of reality).

[Jason]

Thanks for that. I would say if laws of logic only describe the way things happen to be, then things could be other than they happen to be, breaking the laws of logic, which is irrational.

There are absolute or objective morals, some things are absolutely wrong.

The uniformity of nature is accounted for by Theism, God maintains the laws of nature, so that the future will be like the past.

[Jabberwock]

Thanks for that. I would say if laws of logic only describe the way  things happen to be, then things could be other than they happen to be,  breaking the laws of logic, which is irrational. 

But that is the case whether you starts with things or the laws of logic (or God).

There are absolute or objective morals, some things are absolutely wrong.

Such as?

The uniformity of nature is accounted for by Theism, God maintains  the laws of nature, so that the future will be like the past. 

Could God not maintain the laws of nature?

[wonderer]

You seem to be claiming that you have an answer to the apologetic presented by presuppositionalists. 

Challenging a presuppositionalist to think critically might be worth a try. Why do you think it is possible for a mind to exist without an information processing substrate (i.e. brain) to supervene upon?

[Jason]

I readily admit I don’t know everything about God’s being. God is spirit, something I don’t know a lot about, so I don’t know how his mind functions. That certainly doesn’t mean there is a problem accepting the fact that God’s mind does function, so I’m missing the point of your question.

[wonderer]

I readily admit I don’t know everything about God’s being. God is spirit, something I don’t know a lot about, so I don’t know how his mind functions. That certainly doesn’t mean there is a problem accepting the fact that God’s mind does function, so I’m missing the point of your question.

The point is that you can’t account for lots of things yourself, so the presuppositionalist game of, “You can’t account for things and I can.”, doesn’t stand up to any serious critique.

[jayceeii]

@PhilosophicalLogic

If humans were logical beings interested in absolute morality the world would be utopia. Men decide they are ready to march into Heaven before trying to establish Heaven here.

Logic brings agreement quickly among the wise. Absolute morality must be based on a trans-being awareness instead of an isolated one, so the Golden Rule is entered genuinely.

[Jason]

Thank you for sharing that. My question is how laws of logic are accounted for on an Atheistic worldview.

[wonderer]

My question is how laws of logic are accounted for on an Atheistic worldview.

I suggest that there are no laws of logic, and that what we call laws of logic are actually incorrigible intuitions about how language tends to relate to reality. Such intuitions arise from pattern recognition which occurs in the neural networks of our evolved brains. The regularities of the universe, are what allowed for the evolution of the brains which our minds supervene on. Having some understanding of how brains work can lead to a lot of understanding of people’s minds, not least our own. From this perspective, your lack of understanding of minds seems a bit problematic, when you want to presuppose that an omniscient and omnipotent mind can exist for no reason.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  wonderer.

[wonderer]

Bumping for Jason…

I suggest that there are no laws of logic, and that what we call laws of logic are actually incorrigible intuitions about how language tends to relate to reality. Such intuitions arise from pattern recognition which occurs in the neural networks of our evolved brains. The regularities of the universe, are what allowed for the evolution of the brains which our minds supervene upon. Having some understanding of how brains work can lead to a lot of understanding of people’s minds, not least our own. From this perspective, your lack of understanding of minds seems a bit problematic, when you want to presuppose that an omniscient and omnipotent mind can exist for no reason.

• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  wonderer.

[Jason]

That’s a sophisticated response, thanks for sharing. I think the trouble your view faces, is that everything conveniently seems to operate in a lawlike manner for no particular reason. In a chance universe, how is it that we have consistent regularity in nature? And why is our language so capable of accurately describing a chance reality? If there are no laws of logic, square circles would be possible. Think about that.

Regarding the understanding of how the mind works, no one knows how our own minds work, let alone God’s mind. I’m not saying God exists for no reason, I would affirm the Christian doctrine that God is self-existent, he exists by the necessity of his own nature. But aren’t you saying the universe exists for no reason? That there is no God who created, sustains, and regulates our home?

[wonderer]

I think the trouble your view faces, is that everything conveniently seems to operate in a lawlike manner for no particular reason. In a chance universe, how is it that we have consistent regularity in nature?

I don’t know how one could justify saying a naturalistic universe should lack regularities. Why would that be the case?

If there were no regularities to the universe then evolution wouldn’t have occurred and we wouldn’t be here. So on a naturalistic view, it shouldn’t be surprising that we find ourselves existing in the sort of universe that allows for our existence. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

And why is our language so capable of accurately describing a chance reality? If there are no laws of logic, square circles would be possible.

Again, we wouldn’t have evolved linguistic faculties in a universe without regularities which result in those linguistic faculties being adaptive. So I suggest the regularities of the universe are prior to us developing language and logic. Logic isn’t causal, and does not seem to needed as an explanation for mindless regularities to the way things happen in the universe.

“Square” and “circle” are simply words that are defined in such a way that “square circle” can’t refer to anything.

Regarding the understanding of how the mind works, no one knows how our own minds work, let alone God’s mind.

Well, the thing is, neuroscience is developing better and better understanding of how our minds work. So although we certainly can’t claim to understand how our minds work in a comprehensive way, there is a lot that can be understood to a meaningful degree, if effort is put into developing such understanding.

I would affirm the Christian doctrine that God is self-existent, he exists by the necessity of his own nature.

That just seems like special pleading to me. One can accept that on faith if one is so inclined, but it seems more a non-explanation than an explanation to me.

 But aren’t you saying the universe exists for no reason? 

I don’t make a claim one way or the other as to whether there is a reason the universe exists or not.

• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  wonderer.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Anthropic principle) - Wikipedia

Anthropic principle) - Wikipedia

[Jason]

Thanks for sharing all of that. 🙂 I agree that we would need a universe that operates according to regularities in order to evolve, evolve language, etc. The question though, is on what basis can we expect those regularities in a chance universe? Theism can account for the uniformity of nature, God upholds all things so that we can live. But in a chance universe, it makes no sense for there to be lawlike regularity. Rather, we would expect things to be different all the time – by chance.

Thank you for taking the time to respond at length, I appreciate it.

[wonderer]

The question though, is on what basis can we expect those regularities in a chance universe? 

Since we can’t step outside the universe, to look for an exlanation of why the universe is as it is, that is a very open question, and I’m inclined to think skepticism is in order if someone claims to know the answer.

My perspective is similar to that of Richard Feynman when he said:

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.”

Theism can account for the uniformity of nature, God upholds all things so that we can live.

Perhaps that is a dangerous belief for social primates like us to hold. Maybe it is up to us to prevent global warming from trashing the biosphere and God isn’t going to do anything about maintaining an environment that we can live in?

Thank you for taking the time to respond at length, I appreciate it.

No problem.

[Jason]

Regarding knowing why the universe is the way it is, I suppose the presuppositional argument has a lot of theory necessary to really grasp the point. The idea is that both the Theist and the Atheist are claiming to be rational. On that basis, the question is asked, can the Atheistic worldview make sense of the uniformity of nature? The Theist is claiming the Atheistic worldview cannot make sense of uniformity, and is therefore an irrational worldview.

It’s not just that a particular Atheist doesn’t know why things are the way they are, it’s that the Atheistic worldview is completely incapable of offering a rational explanation for uniformity in a chance universe. But the Theistic worldview can offer a rational explanation for uniformity. Therefor the Theistic worldview is shown to be rational, while the Atheistic worldview is shown to be irrational, or so the story goes. 🙂

Thank you for the Feynman quote, that was really cool. 🙂

I do believe humans have a responsibility for maintaining their living environment, you are right to point out that we can’t just expect God to clean up after us if we make a mess of things. And that really is the answer to the problem of evil. We can’t expect God to make everything nice for us, since we’ve destroyed the whole world with our sin. We have to live with the consequences of our actions. Thankfully, Christ has offered himself to save us from our sins.

[Mammal]

@PhilosophicalLogic .. Jason, were you not asked right from the outset why you think the Atheistic worldview cannot account for the regularities in nature?

As far as I know deists, pantheists, atheists can all make sense of that from their respective worldviews

You seem to be beating the drum of atheists & naturalists only subscribing to chance and therefore it makes no sense. Even though you were reminded that something like evolution is not merely chance driven. It is almost as bad as me reminding you that the theistic explanation for regularities in nature points to different Gods depending on their cultural groupings, which should not make sense to theist (but for atheists it does).

Just so that you know, all of the observable universe was the size of roughly a soccer ball when the Big Bang inflation period occurred.. everything that we observe was embedded in that. Why would it not show regularities? Further to that, some models posit an entangled reality, which would also fully account for regularities without the need to point to a supernatural entity.

• This reply was modified 6 months ago by  Mammal.

[Jason]

You asked me why the universe would not be expected to operate in a lawlike manner on Atheism. The reason is because the Atheistic worldview posits a random chance universe. But it’s worse than that. The question is, “How do you account for the uniformity of nature on the Atheistic worldview?” The Atheistic worldview is entirely unable to account for/explain lawlike regularity in the universe, but the Theistic worldview can.

“some models posit an entangled reality, which would also fully account for regularities” – not in a random chance universe they wouldn’t.

Your tone seemed to indicate that you think you’re schooling me, yet you seem unable to even grasp the answers I’ve already provided in previous comments.

[Mammal]

But, like we already explained to you, atheists don’t all think the universe came to be what it is because of just random chance. And our expectations of uniformity is perfectly rational. We have that on good authority. So even if you jump up and down, close you’re eyes and scream out loud atheists cannot account for it, it does not change anything and we don’t really care..

[Jason]

Either there is a God who created the universe and provides uniformity, or the universe exists by random chance. Those are your only two options genius.

[jayceeii]

@PhilosophicalLogic

Your comment directed against Mammal may be true, but your opinion won’t necessarily make God your friend. To know or have a suspicion God exists is not the same as service.

If you are remaking God in your image, God won’t like it or agree. Humans have identified God too quickly as a friend, before establishing they are worthy of this.

It also won’t be enough to shout, “Jesus has made us worthy,” if you don’t like Jesus or agree to His ways, as the Bible points out, “Your ways are not my ways, says the Lord.”

[Jason]

@jayceeii

Thank you for sharing that. You are quite right, the presuppositional argument for Theism does not entail that God is our friend.

[jayceeii]

@PhilosophicalLogic

Bold admission. Mayhap this is some of Christ’s meaning to say, “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord.’” Jesus would find them concocting ways to prove the God they believe to be on their side exists, while ignoring the Living God and all of His instruction.

[Jason]

@jayceeii

Do you have a particular religion or view of God that you are trying to advocate for?

[jayceeii]

@PhilosophicalLogic

Yes, a God whose lowest social standards were too high to be recorded in the religions given to man. Perhaps Jesus stands in the doorway, but none are rising to the threshold.

As I’ve forayed numerous times here, for the love between the people to be genuine they’d have to care about each other, and if they cared about each other poverty would end at least within a given church, if we are to say there is a group who are justified. From the beginning the churches ought to have been economic sanctuaries, the wealthy sharing what they have gained largely through position and luck with those who were hard workers but lacked position and luck. As it is the wealthy sit beside the poor in the pews expecting to keep their money and edge of domination against the other church members. And as Jesus was always poor, we know He’d be denied in this way as well.

But that’s not even the real first step. I only keep restating that since to me it looks like the most basic interpretation of “love your neighbor as yourself,” but no one has seen it.

[Jason]

I don’t think God’s goal is to eliminate poverty on earth. And I know he doesn’t tell people who are well off that they must give everything so there are no poor people in churches. You are misinterpreting the words of Jesus. If you want to be a communist, it will only lead to destruction. God established a capitalist society in his chosen nation of Israel, that is our example. People flee communist countries, and they run to capitalist countries.

But you could start with yourself. I’m sure you have money you don’t need to survive, and I’m sure you could find poor people to give it to. So live out your view, give away all your extra money to poor people. Do it ever day, in every way. Never spend another day of your life with any extra money, give it all to the poor.

[Mammal]

@PhilosophicalLogic

Jason wrote: “Either there is a God who created the universe and provides uniformity, or the universe exists by random chance. Those are your only two options genius.”

A bit of false dilemma that you are trying to push here, bro.. That’s your misplaced opinion, which I obviously don’t need to listen to. There are other more subtle metaphysical variations, a brute fact state of affairs giving rise to a necessary (it will always happen due to its nature) evolution of universes. Something along the lines of pantheism sans God and supernaturalism, as these could easily be replaced by the nature of the state of affairs right at the bottom. Just as an example. So no, you’re still wrong.

[Jason]

@Mammal

This conversation has gotten ugly because of your rudeness. I’ll try to work on this problem on my end.

Suffice it to say you do not understand the ideas you are putting forward, I’ll leave it at that.

[jayceeii]

@PhilosophicalLogic

No one can be selfless on his own, and survive. Jesus is denied here, as everywhere else.

You do an end run around Jesus by appealing to the Old Testament, a foundation that eventually proves to be sand. It shows you do not really believe that “Jesus is Lord.”

I said nothing about communism or giving to the poor generally, only asking that in places claiming to follow Jesus there be refuge given. There is no love in the churches.

[Mammal]

@PhilosophicalLogic : Jason, which parts of what I put forward do I not understand, in your opinion?

Something has to exist. If you reverse engineer all of reality you will end up with that something. We don’t know exactly what it is, but presumably it has a latent potency. Maybe a vacuum with varying densities, in other words different “values” (information) accross it. Lets say that something and the information it contains could become something like a qubit. Go and read up on what a qubit is and what its potency is. It will invariably entangle, it has to. Then revert and tell me what I don’t understand.

Thanks.

[Jason]

@Mammal

What you want to do is look into the problem of induction. There is no reason for the future to be like the past in a random chance universe. And if God didn’t put it there, if he is not upholding it in regularity, then it exists by random chance.

[Mammal]

I am afraid that kind of objection does not hold up against e.g. (information-driven) quantum monism. We would expect to see exactly all this under such a view. SEP has quite a bit to say about it (under Monism, if I remember correctly). And it reminds of Spinoza of old, which is why I mentioned “pantheism sans God” earlier.

It explains uniformity and why the universe evolved in the manner it did towards “higher” levels of (informational) complexity, perhaps from the kind of fundamental state such as I alluded to.

And it is atheistic as far as I can see.

[wonderer]

Regarding knowing why the universe is the way it is, I suppose the presuppositional argument has a lot of theory necessary to really grasp the point. The idea is that both the Theist and the Atheist are claiming to be rational. On that basis, the question is asked, can the Atheistic worldview make sense of the uniformity of nature? The Theist is claiming the Atheistic worldview cannot make sense of uniformity, and is therefore an irrational worldview.

It’s not a matter of not understanding theistic theory on my part. I’m a preachers’s kid, and I know what it is like to believe Christianity makes the most sense. I’ve learned a lot since I was a kid though. It’s important for social primates like us to learn what we can about a wide variety of matters. That’s how we train our neural nets to yield more accurate intuitions, which results in changes to what makes the most sense to us.

Regarding the rationality thing… That’s a complicated matter. We all have different constellations of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. That plays a significant role in determining the ways we vary, in learning about things that need to be made sense of.

When it comes to your question, “On that basis, the question is asked, can the Atheistic worldview make sense of the uniformity of nature?”:

1. Atheism is not a worldview. As far as I am concerned “atheist” is just a word I find useful for succinctly conveying my view on the question of whether gods exist. “Naturalism is a more appropriate word for conveying my worldview in a nutshell. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

2. I’m a 60 year old electrical engineer, who knows a bit about some of the regularities in nature. Do you think that you know more about the regularities in nature than I do? If so, why? I often find myself better than a lot of people at making sense of some of the uniformities in nature. I am open to being shown that your knowledge of such uniformities is in some sense greater than mine, but I’d need to see evidence for that to happen.

3. For a view of the way things look from a naturalistic perspective I recommend Sean Carroll’s <b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Origins-Meaning-Universe/dp/1101984252/ref=asc_df_1101984252/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312014159412&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17829786241794480311&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016724&hvtargid=pla-450493603127&psc=1&mcid=b4fea18a997f38689fd513a4d1636b08