On Sunday Evening August 5th, 2007 about 200 people gathered in Murrieta California to hear a debate between Pastor Gene Cook, Jr and Steve Scianni on the question of"Is the Atheistic Worldview Superior to Christianity?"
The CD quality files are available for .98 each
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
Become a Narrow Mind "Pledge Partner"
Become an Annual Subscriber
108 comments:
Great work Gene! I just loved how you stood fast in the Biblical truths during your cross examination. I guess he didn't expect such straightforward answers.
Bless you brother!
God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
All the way from Sweden
Pär Stenberg
I was truly blessed today listening to your debate. Thanks for standing boldly on the Word of God and defending the faith! I also linked to your audio on my blog.
(FYI I'm from Australia)
Wow...I only listened to part 3 of the download...and I must say I haven't seen a beating like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose. Great job Gene, you pwned that guy!
That was a horribly funny debate. That Steve guy seemed to be way out skilled by Gene. He let Gene drive the course of the debate and then was not prepared for where it went.
I do think Steve was very inconsistent in some of his statements and he may not have thought them out completely.
I’m getting the impression that Gene picks easy opponents to debate? I have yet to hear him debate anyone that poses a real challenge. I wonder what criteria Gene uses to pick the debates.
I heard a lot of assertions from Gene but did not hear any explanations as to why those assertions should be considered true such as the assertion that nothing would be intelligible unless Christianity is true. How is this conclusion supported?
I am curious as to what the presupposition is that Gene makes. Is the presupposition the truth of the bible or god? If both are presupposed then which one is presupposed first?
I noticed one major contradiction about Gene’s world view that may have just been a misstatement so I want to point it out and maybe he can clear it up for me.
“[Man] possesses certain attributes that God alone possesses”
How does that statement make sense?
I’m getting the impression that Gene picks easy opponents to debate? I have yet to hear him debate anyone that poses a real challenge. I wonder what criteria Gene uses to pick the debates.
Paul Manata is an "easy opponent"?
Eddie Tabash is an "easy opponent"?
Roger Wagner is an "easy opponent"?
Hey,
I found this debate just searching through the internet. I will begin by saying I am an atheist, and I thought that I should pose another side to what been talked about in this blog. Firstly Steve is such a bad choice for this debate. He is no where hard lined enough to go up against a pastor. He is an atheist there is no need to reference the bible at all.
First off the opening speech by Gene Cook is so wrong in so many ways.
Hey seems to think that he can talk about the atheist world, but he doesn't know that side, same as Steve talking about Christian faith. So he is subjective, he believes in his one religion, which means when he talks about religion he is always subjective. How can he believe that what he is talking about to be objective as he never brings up Islam or Buddhism. If you want to play that card then the debate is over from the start. He instantly proves his ignorance towards the view of an atheist. Religion isn't something you chose it is chosen for you, you are born into it. Either by family or society, so to promote that yours is the be all and end all, is ridicules it makes no sense, it is completely subjective. That’s where atheism is a superior world view, because it allows you to make your own mind, without having to refer to a book written by men for men. Gene talks about child molesters, serial killers etc, he seems to make out that, that’s what atheists do. Once again his ignorance comes flying through here; there are always people that do bad things no matter whether they are religious or atheists. Child Molesters are the perfect example where religious figures tend to go bad for example the documentary "deliver us from evil".
Steve’s argument as much as I agree with what he says, deals with the universe and deadly traumatic events which are always going to be a no go area with religious figures, as they can’t ever be answered by biblical facts, as they were never known about when the religious books were written. Steve does talk about the hierarchy that is religion, and the power struggle that is formed when religious people flex their muscle. Just look at the poor Catholics that donate their money because they believe god will look down on them in praise. Then you follow the hierarchy of where that money goes and you end up at the Vatican City, where no expense is spared. That is not a fair and isn’t an even spread of the vast wealth created by the Catholic Church.
Why do religious people always believe that evolution takes such a short period of time? The fundamentals of evolution means it takes 100 of thousands of years, not over night. As evolution has progressed humans have come to grips with how to sustain life, and in this humans created a moral and reasoning views. This is the fundamentals of evolution, things change we evolve. As we evolve we gain knowledge.
Steve really sucks at the cross examination. But I love how Gene backs up when he talks about space. When talking to Gene it’s like getting water out of a stone. There is a wall that he creates that he will not allow entry. He uses the bible as an excuse when he doesn’t know an answer. He generalizes and references scriptures that are both vague and of a broad nature. This is some part Steve fault as, as an atheist he doesn’t need to reference any religious books, as he is taking the debate into Gene’s field. It would be like Gene trying to talk to a biologist on his terms.
Once again Gene is talking about subjective judgment when he has yet to talk about any other religion or beliefs. He does have a good point when talking about Steve and the way he has spent the debate trying to prove Christianity is wrong it is a stupid way to talk to a religious figure, as they will always close up.
Gene is starting to lose the great response he began, when talking about meat. Humans are meat eaters, so that is just a waste of time heading down that path. Trying to link that we eat cows, so if you do that then you would eat humans. He seems to paint a picture that all atheists are crazy people that just do what they want, which isn’t the case.
How ignorant is Gene, “the bible is true” that is so floored, you can’t use one religion to put down another. That is completely illogical; because if you asked an Islamic about his beliefs I am sure he would put down the bible. Once again religion is a deluded view of a society, so where you are born dictates what religion you follow.
Overall the MC seems to be so focused on getting a specific response from Steve. Whereas when Gene talks about how he has no reference or Gods word for him to clarify his answer, this seems to be ok.
This is such a bias debate; I can’t listen to the 20 minutes as the MC has just joined Gene’s side to gang up on Steve.
I want to see Gene Cook take on Richard Dawkins now that would be a great debate. May be a little one sided, my money would be on Richard Dawkins by a long way.
Sorry about my notes they are a little all over the shop.
:)
Nick,
In lieu of a much larger response, I'll say this for now.
Gene's point is that atheists are inconsistent in holding to their own worldview and thus borrow capital from Christianity, not that "atheists are crazy people".
Eddie Tabash is big-time, man.
Dawkins won't debate a presuppositionalist. And that's smart - he'd get pantsed.
You want big-time?
Take a listen to the Bahnsen-Stein debate. Or the Paul Manata-Dan Barker debate, moderated by the Infidel Guy (who did a good job of moderating, BTW).
You might ask yourself why the Rational Response Squad is too chicken to debate Paul Manata.
Peace,
Rhology
Nick,
I think you have made a valid remarks about the moderator pounding Steve with questions when the question period seemed to be laid out for audience members. It seemed to throw Steve off a little which I felt was not really fair. The rest of your comments are littered with emotional charge, logical fallacies and arguments that clearly show you don't understand the debate at hand.
For example, you have hinted at the heresies of Christians and past Christian leaders as a good argument against the Christian world view, but don't you think that Gene doesn't agree with the evil acts of past parishioners. When religious leaders use their authority in a destructive way, this ever more backs up the Christian world view. Christianity says that men are inherently sinful and, as a result, will use anything to attain power and compete with God. Whether it be religion, politics, wealth, and even the name “Jesus”, sinful man will throw it all back in God's face. Nick, I'm not sure if you have read the gospels, but some of Jesus’ greatest concerns were how the current religious people of that day (i.e., Jewish Pharisees) were misusing their spiritual authority and making a bad image of God's house. (e.g. see Jesus cleansing the temple, Jesus commenting about hypocrisy etc.)
You also said “How ignorant is Gene, “the bible is true” that is so floored, you can’t use one religion to put down another. That is completely illogical”
It quite ironic that this statement is illogical. All of these religions contradict each other. This means that, in their entirety, if one is right, all of the others are wrong. I know there are similarities in many religions as many religions have elements of truth in them, but I’m speaking of their world views as a whole.
Nick, I can sympathize with you in a way. I was an atheist before and was pretty set on damning the narrow Christian world view. I was doing this until God revealed himself to me and literally in one day made the way I look at the world differently. Before that day, I could not see God anywhere. After that day, God was everywhere and moving in my life. I’m not going to lie, things like the theory of evolution are difficult for the average Christian to reconcile. These topics are very important to discuss and fully understand, but once the living God of this Universe reveals himself to you, things like evolution don’t matter as much as laying down your life and pursuing the most beautiful thing you have ever seen, Him.
God bless,
Chris
I enjoyed the debate. Personally, I felt for Steve who struggled with his doubts while reading the Scriptures. I know that some churches are not safe places for people to work through their doubts. I also know that some Christians like to present themselves as "never having doubted."
I wonder if our young people would be better served if Christian leaders honestly could say, "Yeah, I struggled with that question too... And this one here... And that one there. But... Here's what I've learned through an all out engagement with (not a stifling of) those doubts. And my faith is stronger for it."
I know that doesn't always "work." But I believe the church and our young people would be better served by engaging the issues at hand.
This is why I enjoy Gene's approach. I believe he tries to deal with people on that level.
Concerning the debate: Steve's arguments served to reinforce my faith. I don't think he saw that his atheism is based on moral outrage--a feeling.
Good job.
JR
I do not know why but I have yet to see an atheist debate Gene where the atheist did not just point out how ridiculous Gene’s argument is from the start. It’s quite obvious to me that Gene must borrow from a materialist world view to claim his own. And by this alone he defeats his own argument from the very beginning. One does not even need to listen to the atheist side of the debate because Gene does a much better job of showing the fallacies of his own world view without help from the atheist. That’s why I enjoy listening to The Narrow Mind, because it only strengthens my disbelief.
Can't we just easily say that jc is borrowing from a non-materialist world view the use of logic itself to even make a statement that "Gene is borrowing from the materialist world view"? If atheism is superior in the sense that "it allows you to make your own mind", than "the opening speech by Gene Cook is so wrong in so many ways" can be "so right, in so many ways" too!
BTW, great debate. I AM WHOLLY CONVINCED THAT ROCKS HIT THE MOON and that Gene looks like a monkey with a sweet mullet..
..kidding...
k-skrap -
“Can't we just easily say that jc is borrowing from a non-materialist world view the use of logic itself to even make a statement that "Gene is borrowing from the materialist world view"?”
Yes, you can say that, but it does not make it any truer than if it you never even thought it.
Think about it… :)
“If atheism is superior in the sense that "it allows you to make your own mind", than "the opening speech by Gene Cook is so wrong in so many ways" can be "so right, in so many ways" too!”
Atheism is superior in the sense that it is closer to the truth of reality than theism. Of course I’m making an assumption that the closer to the truth of reality the better. It could be that it is best for you to live a fantasy, in which case atheism would not be superior for you.
Superior is a judgment made from a certain point of view. Part of the problem of the debate is that the question "Is the Atheistic Worldview Superior to Christianity?" is not a specific enough question to debate and neither side was able to make their case because they did not define from what point of view superiority is to be determined. Maybe the question should have been “Is the Atheistic Worldview Superior to Christianity for people that want to live in a fantasy world?”. Answer: NO.
JC,
I would like to invite you to come on The Narrow Mind to explain HOW I borrow from the materialist worldview. Just let me know when you are available.
Gene
Hey,
Thanks Rhology and Chris for your response.
Starting with Rhology's response. I have a question for you, before the holy book was made were there Morals, logic and reason?? Some of the ideas that have come out of the Christian Bible do have merit in today's society, and they are some of the corner stone of how civilizations were formed. This is mainly caused by the historical views that religion played or was forced upon people with the fear of death. But under the banner of evolution time’s change, we evolve and ideologies get moved on, but as we evolve we keep the ideologies that stay true. And many of these will always link back to biblical scriptures, because some of there teachings were great.
One thing about being an atheist is that I can borrow capital from any religion. Instead of having 10 commandments, from one book I can make mine up from all religions, from Hindu, Buddhism, Islam and the greatest of all personal experience. You are born with a moral judgment; before you can talk you have a sense of what is good and bad. This is before your mind has been deluded with religious teachings.
Thanks for the reference to another debate. Cheers Mate
Hey Chris, I have read the gospels along time ago. No offense but I do not need to defend my view against biblical scripture. This is an area where an atheist can never win, because in your mind your scripture is never wrong and you will never budge on that. No religion is the same, and you kidding yourself trying to bag all religions up as a one entity, especially with such a broad heading of “speaking of their world views as a whole.”
That is a key issue with this debate. Evolution is demanded to have such a specific answer and even when they do, religious figure will not acknowledge them. Where as religion can be as broad as they like and just expect people to fill in the blanks and make there own conclusions. Religion closes people up, it creates a facade in which you lose what is truly beautiful, and that is evolution itself is the only miracle that’s happened. For example Chris “things like evolution don’t matter” that’s it you are closed to new facts.
Break the shackles that are religion, don’t be a sheep, create you own destiny. You and you alone have the power to decide your fate, be free.
Good Luck
Nick,
Thank you for your kind words. I apologize about the one comment "speaking of their world views as a whole." I really meant their world views as wholes (i.e., Hinduism as a whole, X religion as a whole etc.)
About being closed to scientific facts. Dude, I have a Bachelors Degree in Science and I'm currently employed as a forensic engineer utilizing science every day of my life. I love science.
Simply, I love God more. I'll always learn science because it reveals to me, as you said, something very beautiful about nature. I just choose to worship the creator not the created.
Later bro,
Chris.
The fact is, the atheist can not account for rationality, or the laws of logic. They can say that they are facts of the universe but they can not say why.
The Christian can say that a logical,rational God created logical,rational beings.It naturally follows. The atheist must conclude that non-rational, non-logical forces created rational, logical beings. That in fact they created the "opposite" of what they are.
That these non-rational, non-logical forces created something completely foreign to their nature/properties.
To me, this is a deeply irrational postion.
I was a tad disappointed Gene didn't attempt to answer some of Steve's questions during his cross examination period. There is a perfectly biblical reason the moon is scarred with craters and earth's crust shifts on plates. Its called the global flood of Noah. But that aside,
I chuckled at Steve's insistence that primates don't hunt or eat each other. My family just finished watching the BBC's Planet Earth series. One episode deals with a family of chimps. In one scene, a large group of chimps attack and kill another group of chimps for their tree groove. The victorious chimps cannibalized one of the defeated chimps. It was quite gruesome to behold.
Nick,
Yes, before the Bible there were morals, logic, and reason. The Bible, however, is the explicit revelation of the God on Whom are based morals, logic, and reason.
That doesn't mean that everyone who borrows from it (like you) come right out and give credit where credit is due. You plagiarise w/o footnoting your source.
RE: Borrowing from diff religions: I'd be interested to know how you made the judgment call and what you based it on when you cherry-picked from the variety of diff worldviews. How did you know what was worthy of taking on for yourself? Personal preference? Why would anyone respect that as a serious intellectual player?
...
JC,
Please, PLEASE call the Narrow Mind and explain yourself. I'd love to hear it.
Peace,
Rhology
-jcateno
"The fact is, the atheist can not account for rationality, or the laws of logic. They can say that they are facts of the universe but they can not say why."
Is that a fact?
"The Christian can say that a logical, rational God created logical, rational beings. It naturally follows."
Ah, yes a Christian can say that but they cannot say why. Also the Christian must borrow from a materialistic world view to even begin to suggest that.
"The atheist must conclude that non-rational, non-logical forces created rational, logical beings."
As an atheist, I see no need to conclude that. You must be talking about some other form of atheism.
"To me, this is a deeply irrational postion."
I would agree. I am glad I do not hold that position.
Gene - I would be delighted to come on your program to discuss our world views. I will contact you.
"Is that a fact?"
Of course...
"Ah, yes a Christian can say that but they cannot say why."
I just said why. Why the universe has logical rational beings.
"Also the Christian must borrow from a materialistic world view to even begin to suggest that."
Please show how...
"As an atheist, I see no need to conclude that. You must be talking about some other form of atheism."
So the non-rational (non-thinking) forces of nature did not create rational beings? Then what exactly did?
jc,
are you a materialist? if so, are you a sctrict materialist? are you a Platonist? can you please explain why you, as a materialist or one who claims that the materialist world view is superior can use terms like "true", "truer" or "superior" since meither of these are material entiites. Since they are metephysical how then can they interact in a material world. (please, no Madonna jokes)
-jessefrommontebello
Ya, I agree with Gene and jcateno. Jc has not understood transcendental argumentation. You must not only show that a worldview cannot provide the preconditions of intellegability for logic, but you also must show why it cannot.
I think that, what we want to say in this situation, is that whether you are a materialist or a platonist, you have to be arbitrary in order to fit the laws of logic into your worldview. For the materialist, the obvious problem is that the laws of logic are not material. They are immaterial and abstract. If you are a platonist, you still have not accounted for the laws of logic, because the immaterial world cannot be part of the material. Thus, you must show how it is that this immaterial world of the forms is brought into the material world so that it effects the material world. Thus, all secular views, [and I would say all non-Christian religious views as well] cannot account for the laws of logic.
Also, I would disagree with jcateno that the foundation for the laws of logic is that a logical, rational God created logical, rational beings. The reason is because human beings can be irrational. Think, for instance, of people in insane assylums, or people who are irrational just because they don't want to avoid specific conclusions.
I think it is more accurate to say, as Greg Bahnsen always did, that the laws of logic reflect the way God thinks and the way he expects us to think. Thus, we can say that a person who has a mental illness indeed has a mental illness because he is not thinking in the way God expects us to think. Also, we can say that irrational arguments are wrong because they are not patterned after the way God expects us to think.
-jcateno
"I just said why. Why the universe has logical rational beings."
Correct me please if I am wrong but unless I missed something you did not say WHY God is a “logical, rational God”.
"So the non-rational (non-thinking) forces of nature did not create rational beings? Then what exactly did?"
Well, I’m not sure what “non-rational forces” has to do with anything but as far “non-logical” (which is what you said in your first comment), I am curious as to where I made the statement that the universe was “non-logical”.
Also, I would disagree with jcateno that the foundation for the laws of logic is that a logical, rational God created logical, rational beings. The reason is because human beings can be irrational. Think, for instance, of people in insane assylums, or people who are irrational just because they don't want to avoid specific conclusions.
My point was that because we have a logical, rational Creator we can expect to find these properties in creation. As we do - not that all men think rationally.
- Jesus Saenz
"are you a materialist? if so, are you a sctrict materialist? are you a Platonist?"
I am a human.
"can you please explain why you, as a materialist or one who claims that the materialist world view is superior can use terms like "true", "truer" or "superior" since meither of these are material entiites. Since they are metephysical how then can they interact in a material world."
1. As for weather or not a materialist world view is superior I would say only in so far as it relates to closeness to reality. Again, I am only assuming that a world view that is closer to reality would be better but this is not always the case for everyone.
2. “true”, “truer”, and “superior” are all basically the same.( again, see my assumption above on the use of superior ) They are statements used to describe how close another statement is to “reality”. Are you saying that statements are metaphysical in that they can “exist” outside a material world? For example, is the statement “I am stupid” just out there somewhere outside of the material world just waiting for me tap into it and speak (or type) it?
Correct me please if I am wrong but unless I missed something you did not say WHY God is a “logical, rational God”.
I'm not explaining why God is the way He is. I'm explaining why the universe has the properties it does. Which is much more rational than your position.
Well, I’m not sure what “non-rational forces” has to do with anything but as far “non-logical” (which is what you said in your first comment), I am curious as to where I made the statement that the universe was “non-logical”.
The forces of nature, the forces that created us are non-rational - non-thinking. Do you disagree?
the statement that you are stupid is subjective.
"true", "truer" and "superior" are not basically the same, that is illogical. things are either true or they are not, they cannot be more true (or truer)
by what standard do you *know* that something is closer to reality? do you not already have to know what *reality* is before you can even say that something is closer to it. what is reality? is it an objective reality?
if it is not always the case that having a worldview that is closer to reality is better, why then are you making a claim that the materialist worldview is better, since that is a contradictory statement?
-jesse
- jcateno
"I'm not explaining why God is the way He is. I'm explaining why the universe has the properties it does. Which is much more rational than your position."
So let me get this strait:
From what I understand you trying to say is:
(a) An atheist can assert that the “laws of logic” are a fact of the universe but they cannot explain WHY, and this is why the atheist worldview IS NOT rational.
AND
(b) A Christian can assert that the “laws of logic” are a fact of God but they cannot explain WHY and this is why the Christian worldview IS rational.
Looks to me like you are really saying that the attribution of the “laws of logic” to something without explaining WHY is both rational and not rational at the same time. It appears that you do not even believe in the “law of non-contradiction”.
If you do believe in the “law of non-contradiction” then you must either say that both the Christian and the Atheist worldviews are not rational or they are both rational, but only on the proposition of the “laws of logic” being attributed to something without a “WHY”.
"The forces of nature, the forces that created us are non-rational - non-thinking. Do you disagree?"
I agree that nature is non-thinking. But I disagree that nature is not logical.
(a) An atheist can assert that the “laws of logic” are a fact of the universe but they cannot explain WHY, and this is why the atheist worldview IS NOT rational.
AND
(b) A Christian can assert that the “laws of logic” are a fact of God but they cannot explain WHY and this is why the Christian worldview IS rational.
Looks to me like you are really saying that the attribution of the “laws of logic” to something without explaining WHY is both rational and not rational at the same time. It appears that you do not even believe in the “law of non-contradiction”.
No, I'm saying that I can account for the laws of logic and the existance of rational beings in the universe.
And yes I'm saying that my position is more rational:
Me:
A rational God creates rational beings.
You:
Non-rational forces create rational beings. They in fact create something that is opposite of their inherent nature.
I agree that nature is non-thinking. But I disagree that nature is not logical.
I'm speaking of the rational/thinking function right now. So you agree that non-rational forces created that which was opposite of their nature?
- Jesus Saenz
"the statement that you are stupid is subjective."
I hope so.
""true", "truer" and "superior" are not basically the same, that is illogical. things are either true or they are not, they cannot be more true (or truer)"
“things” is very general. If you read my earlier post you will see that I was talking about a specific “thing”. That “thing” was a “statement”. Based on that, a statement can be truer than another statement and still not be completely accurate. Therefore you can have “things” that are neither completely false nor completely true.
"by what standard do you *know* that something is closer to reality?"
Ever hear of the scientific method? I hear it works well.
"do you not already have to know what *reality* is before you can even say that something is closer to it."
No. You could say anything you want and it’s going to be just as close to reality no matter if you know what reality is or not.
"if it is not always the case that having a worldview that is closer to reality is better, why then are you making a claim that the materialist worldview is better, since that is a contradictory statement?"
You obviously did not read my earlier posts. Please go back and read them and if you are still confused on this I will try to explain better.
- jcateno
"No, I'm saying that I can account for the laws of logic and the existance of rational beings in the universe.
And yes I'm saying that my position is more rational:
Me:
A rational God creates rational beings. "
The problem is that you made the claim that just accounting for the laws of logic through attribution was irrational yet you are only attributing them to God with no explanation of “WHY” which is what you apparently require from the atheist worldview but not your own. If you cannot see the flaw in your argument then you may be in denial.
"You:
Non-rational forces create rational beings. They in fact create something that is opposite of their inherent nature. "
I never said Non-rational forces created anything.
Also, please do not attribute a statement to me that I did not make. I will try to extend the same courtesy to you and I hope I have not misquoted you so far. If I have, please let me know so I can correct my mistake.
jc, thanks for your replys.
i hope you and Gene can work out a time for you to come on the show but more importantly, may God share his saving grace with you.
JC said:
I never said Non-rational forces created anything.
So, are you an atheist or not? If you are, then did RATIONAL forces (ie, a divine being) create?
Or was the universe just uncreated?
Thanks!
- rhology
"So, are you an atheist or not?"
Yes
"If you are, then did RATIONAL forces (ie, a divine being) create?"
No
"Or was the universe just uncreated?"
Is it a requirement that universes have to be created?
Thanks as well!
The problem is that you made the claim that just accounting for the laws of logic through attribution was irrational yet you are only attributing them to God with no explanation of “WHY” which is what you apparently require from the atheist worldview but not your own. If you cannot see the flaw in your argument then you may be in denial.
Perhaps we are speaking past each other. I gave a basis for why the universe is as it is. And that is what we are discussing. And yes I believe my position to be logically superior: A rational, logical God creates rational, logical beings. It follows nicely.
You on the other hand believe that non-rational, non-logical forces created rational logical beings.
No you say that you believe that the universe is "logical." What does that mean? That the laws of logic are universal?
I never said Non-rational forces created anything.
Also, please do not attribute a statement to me that I did not make. I will try to extend the same courtesy to you and I hope I have not misquoted you so far. If I have, please let me know so I can correct my mistake.
What is the third option? Either the non-thinking/non-rational forces of nature created us rational, thinking creatures, or a rational, thinking force created us.
Which is it? If there is a third option please present it.
Is it a requirement that universes have to be created?
Are you saying that the universe(s) are eternal? How do you know that?
- jcateno
"Perhaps we are speaking past each other. I gave a basis for why the universe is as it is. And that is what we are discussing. And yes I believe my position to be logically superior: A rational, logical God creates rational, logical beings. It follows nicely."
You try to give a basis for why the universe is a logical universe indicating that a logical system requires a basis for why it is logical. The problem you fail to see is that based on the requirements you have set forth, you too must then provide a basis for why a God is a logical God. Now, you could say something like logic is part of Gods nature and God cannot be illogical but if you were to assert this you will have contradicted your self.
"No you say that you believe that the universe is "logical." What does that mean? That the laws of logic are universal? "
Simple, it means the universe is a logical universe. It only follows that the “laws of logic” describe how our logical universe is. You might as well call it the “fundamental laws of the universe”.
"What is the third option? Either the non-thinking/non-rational forces of nature created us rational, thinking creatures, or a rational, thinking force created us. "
Logical life exists in a logical universe. Seems logical to me.
"Are you saying that the universe(s) are eternal? How do you know that?"
How do you know a universe needs to be created?
Sorry, JC, I think you and we are talking past each other a bit...
So just forget the "created" bit.
I think the 3rd option that was just presented is trying to get at the question of the origin of the universe, not LIFE so much.
So,
1) Did the universe have a beginning?
2) If yes, do you have an idea of how that happened?
3) If no, how do you escape the problem of infinite regress?
Thanks!
Peace,
Rhology
Now, you could say something like logic is part of Gods nature and God cannot be illogical but if you were to assert this you will have contradicted your self.
Of course, that is exactly what I would say. And how is that a contradiction? God is Mind, and rationality proceeds from mind. Not from rock, gas and ice.
Simple, it means the universe is a logical universe. It only follows that the “laws of logic” describe how our logical universe is. You might as well call it the “fundamental laws of the universe”.
How do you know that the laws of logic are universal? That the universe always follows such laws?
Besides the laws of logic are not material, they are abstracts.
Logical life exists in a logical universe. Seems logical to me.
No, I said rational/thinking. This quality rock, gas and ice do not contain. It literally is the opposite of their inherent nature...
How do you know a universe needs to be created?
Did I say that? You suggested that the universe was eternal - so again, how do you know that?
Also, I asked:
What is the third option? Either the non-thinking/non-rational forces of nature created us rational, thinking creatures, or a rational, thinking force created us.
Which is it? If there is a third option please present it.
-Rhology
"Sorry, JC, I think you and we are talking past each other a bit..."
It happens. :)
"1) Did the universe have a beginning? "
No
"3) If no, how do you escape the problem of infinite regress?"
There is no problem of infinite regress. If I were to say the universe requires justification then I would have an infinite regress. But the universe is self justifying. It is infinite and it is logical. Without an infinite logical universe nothing would be intelligible. Can you imagine a universe that was illogical?
Peace to you as well
- jcateno
"Of course, that is exactly what I would say. And how is that a contradiction? God is Mind, and rationality proceeds from mind. Not from rock, gas and ice."
Here is your original statement:
[The fact is, the atheist can not account for rationality, or the laws of logic. They can say that they are facts of the universe but they can not say why.]
I will rephrase it back to you so you may see your dilemma:
[The fact is, the Christian can not account for rationality, or the laws of logic. They can say that they are facts of God but they can not say why.]
If you cannot see the dilemma you create for your self then I’m afraid this conversation is going no where.
"How do you know that the laws of logic are universal? That the universe always follows such laws?"
They are part of the nature of the universe.
"You suggested that the universe was eternal - so again, how do you know that?"
Without an eternal logical universe nothing would be intelligible.
[The fact is, the Christian can not account for rationality, or the laws of logic. They can say that they are facts of God but they can not say why.]
If you cannot see the dilemma you create for your self then I’m afraid this conversation is going no where.
And you are not dealing with my point. We are accounting for why the universe is as it is. Not why God is as He is.
It's really rather simple: Mind = mind, Rationality = rationality, Logic = logic.
Rationality and logic are functions of the mind. Rock, gas and ice don't think or care about logic. Logic is not a material thing.
So again you have non-rational, non-mindful forces creating rational minds. I have a rational Mind, creating rational minds.
Without an eternal logical universe nothing would be intelligible.
You can not assume that just because your limited experience has been somewhat intelligible and logical that logic is universal.
- jcateno
"And you are not dealing with my point. We are accounting for why the universe is as it is. Not why God is as He is. "
Exactly my point, you are not account for why “God is as He is” but you insist on placing the requirement on an atheist to account for why the “Universe is as it is”. Why the double standard?
"Rationality and logic are functions of the mind. Rock, gas and ice don't think or care about logic. Logic is not a material thing."
Are you saying that the “laws of logic” would not exist without a “mind”? So if there were no “minds” a circle could be a non-circle at the same time? I don’t know about your worldview but in mine, the “laws of logic” would still apply even if there were no minds to ponder them.
So again you have non-rational, non-mindful forces creating rational minds. I have a rational Mind, creating rational minds. "
Do all rational minds require a rational mind to create them?
"You can not assume that just because your limited experience has been somewhat intelligible and logical that logic is universal."
Since when do the “laws of logic” depend on my experience?
Exactly my point, you are not account for why “God is as He is” but you insist on placing the requirement on an atheist to account for why the “Universe is as it is”. Why the double standard?
Here is the difference jc. In explaining the universe we can ground and account for things like logic, rationality, mind, etc... We start with Mind and move to mind. You start with non-mind and move to mind. Even if we can not tell you why God is as He is, we have a more rational and linear accounting of the universe as it is.
Are you saying that the “laws of logic” would not exist without a “mind”? So if there were no “minds” a circle could be a non-circle at the same time? I don’t know about your worldview but in mine, the “laws of logic” would still apply even if there were no minds to ponder them.
How can the laws of logic exist apart from mind? Where are they? If there are no minds to ponder the circle question is it not a moot point?
Do all rational minds require a rational mind to create them?
Can you give an example where this is not the case - without begging the question?
Since when do the “laws of logic” depend on my experience?
You said that the universe would not be intelligible. I'm asking you why do you think that the universe, as a whole, is intelligible?
I understand that some feel that I, as the moderator, treated Steve unfairly during the "Q&A" time. Here are a few of my initial responses to this charge:
#1. I was asking questions that the audience had posed. The audience had given me nearly five times more questions for Steve than they did for Gene. So the first two questions I asked Steve were a compilation of many similar questions asked by the audience.
#2. As soon as Steve answered the question I moved on. Gene answered the questions with clarity and consistency. But it was obvious that Steve was dodging some questions and giving inconsistent answers. As a fair moderator, I have a responsibility to press the apologist to be clear and actually answer the question. REMEMBER: I am not asking the questions as a moderator -- but as the representative of the audience.
#3. Steve was given time to rebut Gene's answers to my questions. Gene's answers were so good, even his opponent had not real rebuttal.
#4. The apologists had asked the audience to listen to them talk for two hours; at least they could answer their questions! Some of you think I was unfair to Steve, but what about being fair to the audience who deserves to have their questions answered?
#5. At the end of the debate, each apologist had spoken the same amount of time during the debate. There was only a 24 second difference. Thus they each had the same amount of time to defend their position.
#6. Steve told us that he had never been treated better by group than us. He did not feel that anything done by Gene or the moderator was unfair. In fact, Steve would like to have another chance to debate in our venue.
#7. Was I an unbiased moderator? No -- and I never pretended to be. Fair, yes. Unbias, no. "Unbias" was thrown out the moment I opened the debate in prayer. Guys, this debate took place in the church I pastor. I not only have a responsibility to be a fair moderator (which I was) -- I had more of a responsibility to be an elder who protects his church from any unchallenged error. So when I was charged with the responsibility to ask Steve questions from our congregation, I asked the question until it was clear that Steve's unbiblical worldview was "baseless", void of any truth, and foolish. This debate was not at a university or in a debate society. Steve agreed to come into our church as speak to our congregation. He expected tough questions. And they were tough, but fair. And I make no apologies. I would rather stand before God having been tough on the Atheist than sympathetic to his foolishness and allowing his falsehoods to go unchallenged.
#8. I am amused when blasphemers get the "sympathy vote" from the very people that they consider to be brain-numb religious nuts. I wonder if the Apostle Peter would have given such a God-hater a sympathy vote? Maybe Peter would have not asked Steve any questions at all, but just went up on stage and given him a hug. :^)
- jcateno
"How can the laws of logic exist apart from mind? Where are they? If there are no minds to ponder the circle question is it not a moot point?"
The “laws of logic” are part of the nature of the universe. They would still be a part of that nature even if no minds existed to observe them.
[Do all rational minds require a rational mind to create them?]
"Can you give an example where this is not the case - without begging the question? "
One example would be a sperm and an egg. Neither is rational. When combined, they sometimes create a fairly rational being but not always.
You are the one that seems to think a rational mind is needed to create a rational mind. In which case you are the one begging the question.
"You said that the universe would not be intelligible. I'm asking you why do you think that the universe, as a whole, is intelligible?"
See response above.
This was a good debate. I posted a link to it on my World View Ministries blog.
The “laws of logic” are part of the nature of the universe. They would still be a part of that nature even if no minds existed to observe them.
Hello jc, sorry for the delay - I do not have regular access to a computer. Thus far I believe you only have asserted. You have not answered: how do you know that the laws of logic are universal or how do you know that the rest of the universe (apart from your finite experience) is intelligible.
Again, where do the "immaterial" laws of logic live? Can you touch them? Smell them? Are the hiding on Mars? How do you account for non-material abstracts in a strictly material universe?
I'm going to take a page from Doug Wilson. We are both sitting in a room - we both agree that the walls are straight. But what accounts for that fact? What is the pre-condition for straight walls? A straight and plum foundation. We would not conclude that the foundation was made of jello.
I have a straight and plum foundation for the laws of logic - a rational, logical Creator. You on the other hand have a foundation of jello - random, non-rational forces...
Anyway, it was nice talking to you, you may have the last word...
Peace, Jim
JC,
Thanks for answering my questions in such a straightforward manner.
Since the universe did not begin, the problem of infinite regress applies b/c every second that elapses into the future adds one second to the infinite number of seconds already elapsed. How is it possible that a real infinite set exist, to say nothing of the possibility of adding to a real infinite set?
Peace,
Rhology
-jcateno
"Thus far I believe you only have asserted. You have not answered: how do you know that the laws of logic are universal or how do you know that the rest of the universe (apart from your finite experience) is intelligible."
I presuppose a logical, uniform, universe. This is how I know.
"I have a straight and plum foundation for the laws of logic - a rational, logical Creator. You on the other hand have a foundation of jello - random, non-rational forces... "
I would disagree. The Christian world view only leads to unintelligibility. My worldview on the other hand is completely logical and coherent.
Thanks
- JC
Gene, praise Jesus for the clear thinking! Steve is upset that evil befalls on us "primates". Who is he not to interfere with a woman terminating a life, yet with God...?
Lord bless you!
Holy crap what a horrendeous debate, notably due to the sickeningly biased moderator. I almost vomited.
Gene does the presupp schtick, which - as always - gets him nowhere whatsoever.
The atheist tries to show the absurdity of Christianity, but what can you do against the "la la la not listening" of the presupp argument?
I think neither did particularily well; Gene, for not having an actual argument (presupp isn't an argument), and the Atheist for being unfocused and leaving too many cheap openings.
/Z
So when I was charged with the responsibility to ask Steve questions from our congregation, I asked the question until it was clear that Steve's unbiblical worldview was "baseless", void of any truth, and foolish.
LOL.
Only a christian could ever label this as fair.
Sorry, I'm giggling my head off at the blatant hypocricy. Really.
You didn't press Gene coz you liked his answers, in your splendid bias. You pressed Steve because you didn't.
If you had shredded Gene's answers with the same vigor, there would have been "fairness".
Now there were none.
/Z
Hello all...this is Steve, thought I would drop in and join. Thank you all for listening to the debate and the comments. I enjoyed participating, and learned alot from the experience.
I'd like to first say, I'm not the best representative of Atheism by far, I will readily admit, so I apologize to those who wished for more and wanted me to say "this" when I said "that." Undeniably, I still have a lot to learn and improve upon.
I have to get "quicker on my feet" - for one - and I think that will come in time. In addition, I have to become more familiar with the Transcendental approach/ argumentation. I probably should have interacted with it more here on a blog (where I think most of us are more comfortable, given time to process and respond) before a public debate, haha.
But all that out of the way, I really enjoyed reading JC and Jcateno go back and forth; looking forward to him and Gene talk, and would like to say that I was not bothered in the least with Jason's moderating. Fair or not, Biased or not - not an issue for me. He can even call me a 'god-hater' and 'blasphemer' and I really don't get that ruffled. I actually enjoy his company alot in person. I think he is real kind and friendly, but he (as perhaps we all do) sings a different song when blogging or on the radio show - much more aggressive and confrontational.
But what IS a little aggravating for me is Gene's consistent misunderstanding, and his inability to deal honestly with what his opponents say. Listening to the three "commentary" shows of the debate makes one want to scream. It is as if he is not listening; or he simply refuses to fairly represent the other side. He distorts or does not comprehend or willfully ignores what points are trying to be made. It is astounding actually - every time he would stop the MP3 and chime in, it was a masterpiece of fraud. It was the same story after our "hell" debate and he did it again here - yet for some reason this slaughtering of the strawmen is a great accomplishment to be praised.
In addition to this, what arguments did he make to prove any of his claims? What evidence does he ever present for his foundational dogma that the Bible is the ultimate authority? I cannot recall any, and this is deliberate because of the presuppositionalist stance he takes.
It seems Master Zap is right to point out that it gets us nowhere. But ok, I've said my share, look forward to interacting with all of you.
...one more thing. Gene's latest show has a call from "Jay Walker" who claimed I "called him for advice" and misused his "crater" argument. For the record, I have never met, called, written, spoken to or had any communication with this man ever in my whole life. Frankly I was rather disturbed by his call - perplexed why he felt he needed to lie and tell a ridiculous story. Does anyone know anything about this guy that might clear things up?
Steve,
[What arguments did he make to prove any of his claims?]
The problem is, is that Gene did not need to prove his position; he only needed to show that your position was inconsistent and/or subjective. If you have listened to many of Genes’ shows, you will often hear him talk about how we all have our presuppositions. On this point he is correct. What I see happen with many atheists is that they deny having a presupposition and say that everything requires evidence. This leads to an infinite regress. You will often hear the question; “What evidence do you have that everything requires evidence?” When you cannot answer, the inconsistency is made apparent and as Gene would probably say, therefore the Christian worldview is true.
If you could only accept and embrace your own presuppositions you would realize that Genes’ true starting point is actually the same as most atheists.
P.S. I think that Jay Walker thing is more like a little comic relief not to be taken seriously. I find it quite funny my self.
- JC
If you could only accept and embrace your own presuppositions you would realize that Genes’ true starting point is actually the same as most atheists.
How so, since our starting point is a logical, rational Mind (i.e. God) and yours is what?
jcateno,
[How so, since our starting point is a logical, rational Mind (i.e. God) and yours is what?]
A logical universe! This is exactly what you are presupposing as well. Unless of course you consider the universe to be illogical, in which case you have no basis for knowledge of anything.
-JC
A logical universe! This is exactly what you are presupposing as well. Unless of course you consider the universe to be illogical, in which case you have no basis for knowledge of anything.
But I do not start with a logical universe. I start with a logical Mind - that is our first assumption. Which as I pointed out gives a foundation or precondition for rationality and logic.
So NO, a logical universe is NOT our starting point...
Oh no! another master zap sighting... and as usual with nothing to say. It took a while for you to make a comeback after Paul Manata treated you like a redheaded step child. So now you come back as if nothing had happened, with the same condescending attitude as if you somehow had the intellectual higher ground, as if Paul didn't expose for being the petulant atheist with his fingers in his ears. You come back with the same schtick, making assertions, crying a like a "chavala" because the atheist was treated unfairly. Get over yourself!
You are right about Gene's argument getting him nowhere... nowhere except to show the absurdity of the atheist.
“What evidence do you have that everything requires evidence?” When you cannot answer, the inconsistency is made apparent and as Gene would probably say, therefore the Christian worldview is true.
But I do have an answer. I have two perfectly good answers:
My first perfectly good answer:
“What evidence do you have that everything requires evidence?”
ALL OF IT. Every single instance of evidence leading us to truth underlines the proposition that evidence leads us to truth. Hence, the sum of all evidence for everything is my evidence for the proposition "everything requires evidence".
Second perfectly good answer:
“What evidence do you have that everything requires evidence?”
I never said everything requires evidence. To be exact, I would say that all synthetic propositions require evidence, and this is, itself, an analytic proposition, which do not require evidence (since analytic propositions are true in virtue of their definition, like 1+1=2).
/Z
- jcateno
How do you go from no universe to a "Mind" that created your "non-universe"? You might as well say that you don’t even presuppose your own existence.
How do you go from no universe to a "Mind" that created your "non-universe"? You might as well say that you don’t even presuppose your own existence.
JC, you said that the Christian "starts" with the same assumption as you. That is incorrect. We start with Mind and of course if there was no mind none of us could assume anything.
- jcateno
What "mind" do you start with?
JC said:
What "mind" do you start with?
Of course I use my mind. But I don't assume that my mind created it's self. No, in this immediate case, I will assume two rational parents as the source or precondition of my fine, fertile mind.
Is that a logical assumption or precondition?
- jcateno
To clarify, are you saying then that your first presupposition is that your mind is rational?
To clarify, are you saying then that your first presupposition is that your mind is rational?
Yes, and do you agree that a rational mind(s) (parents) are a necessary precondition for your rational mind?
BTW - how do you define "rational?" How do you know what is rational?
-jcateno
[Yes, and do you agree that a rational mind(s) (parents) are a necessary precondition for your rational mind?]
A logical universe is a precondition for anything to be rational.
At least we are getting somewhere with your worldview. You started out saying that your first presupposition was God [you said: “since our starting point is a logical, rational Mind (i.e. God)”]. Now you have changed your story and your first presupposition (starting point) is that you have a rational mind. I am curious at this point as to where exactly you make the leap from “I have a rational mind” to “There is a God”?
[BTW - how do you define "rational?" How do you know what is rational?]
Thought that conforms to reality.
So when I was charged with the responsibility to ask Steve questions from our congregation, I asked the question until it was clear that Steve's unbiblical worldview was "baseless", void of any truth, and foolish.
Why didn't you continue asking Gene until his it was clear that is unscientific, circular worldview was baseless, void of any truth, and both foolish and childish?
And if you didn't, how can you even begin to label this "fair" and even pretend to be intellectually honest?
Be a man, and admit you were being both biased, unfair, and unprofessional in your "task" as moderator.
/Z
JC said:
A logical universe is a precondition for anything to be rational.
At least we are getting somewhere with your worldview. You started out saying that your first presupposition was God [you said: “since our starting point is a logical, rational Mind (i.e. God)”]. Now you have changed your story and your first presupposition (starting point) is that you have a rational mind. I am curious at this point as to where exactly you make the leap from “I have a rational mind” to “There is a God”?
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not take God out of my first assumption - that I believe that God created men with rational minds.
Look at it this way. You have a rational mind, that is your assumption. But there is something that comes before, or is first - your rational parents that created you and your rational mind.
So in one sense your personal ability to think must come first, to even grasp the concept. But for that to happen there is a precondition or a first assumption - rational parents...
JC said:
Thought that conforms to reality.
And how do you know that your thoughts always comform to reality?
Is part missing after Steve finishes? Part 2 seems to start in the middle of something. Wow though - Gene whacks right at the root of the problem in his opening remarks, and Steve just continues on (what else can he do?) walking right into the wall anyway in his opening remarks.
JC, I hear you...makes alot of sense, but walk me through this one step at a time. What would you say the Atheist's presuppositions are? And how are Gene's similar? If I have been follwing you correctly, would you say to question 1: the universe is logical and rational - this is our assumption.
And Hi Terriergal, I was puzzled by the remarks - as if Gene did something profound or important by predicting I was going to use words like "truth" "morals" "justification," etc. etc. This is simply common English, and for Gene to claim this is somehow the "image of god coming out of me" or requires "Christianity" for me to do so is absurd. You see, he can assert whatever he wants - it doesn't make it true, and you should be able to make this distinction. Gene should carry the burden of PROVING his remarks rather than simply ringing a bell and getting Pavlovian responses.
Steve—
The reason Gene said that your use of the words "truth", "morals", and "justification" demonstrate the image of God in you is that none of these concepts are coherent or intelligible within a purely materialistic, physicalist worldview. If there is no immaterial or transcendent element to the universe, but only matter-energy, then you cannot appeal to things like truth or morality or rational inference.
The reason for this is that these things are not material in nature. For example, you would presumably say that our minds are simply part of our brains; that rational inference is a purely physical process involving certain neurons firing in certain sequences to produce certain results. But if that is the case, then truth is an absurd concept, because you cannot say of one piece of matter that it is true (or false) of another.
Worse, not only can you not apply truth to a materialist or physicalist worldview, but you can't actually make sense of the very idea of truth itself. Truth and logic are non-physical: logical laws do not exist in a material way. They are not physical laws. We can imagine a world in which there are no physical objects; where no physical laws apply—but in such a world, the law of noncontradiction must still apply. So, if you are accepting the laws of logic (as you must if you wish to involve yourself in debate of any kind), you must accept something non-physical in the universe. Otherwise you are immediately contradicting yourself by claiming to use the laws of logic, when your worldview in fact denies them by denying the non-physical.
However, your problem does not end there. If we know the laws of logic, then we obviously have a causal relationship (of some kind) with them. In a physicalist worldview, such a relationship would have to be physical, since you assume that knowledge is something which is itself physical, being in some way related to the brain. Obviously, a physical relationship with non-physical laws is impossible; which means that either you do not know the laws of logic, or your mind is not physical either. That puts a dent in many assumptions about the nature of man and the universe, and demonstrates that the physicalist worldview is inherently untenable and self-refuting. In attempting to establish that only material things exist, it is already borrowing and using non-material things to do so.
Gene's contention would be that these non-material, transcendent things are only intelligible given a non-material, transcendent originator. And, he would further contend, that originator must be God, since only God accounts for logic and morality in a way which is intelligible and comprehensive. The fact that you appeal to logic and morality is therefore evidence of the revealed truth that God has placed eternity in your heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11), and that you have an intrinsic, built-in knowledge of him (Romans 1:19-21).
Regards,
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
Steve,
[What would you say the Atheist's presuppositions are? And how are Gene's similar? If I have been following you correctly, would you say to question 1: the universe is logical and rational - this is our assumption.]
Yes, a logical universe is one of the presuppositions that the atheist holds but it is not the only one. You must first presuppose that you are a logical being. From this you are able to state the presupposition as “I am a logical being in a logical universe”. This describes what you hold to be true about yourself and your “container” (the universe). This is where Gene and others fail to see that they are actually using the same presuppositions as the atheist. They will try to say their presupposition starts with God and then work inward from there but this is illogical, for all presuppositions about ones worldview must start at the point from where they are being made. Let’s look at the basic statement of the Christian worldview:
“The bible is the word of God!”
Now the Christian would say this is the presupposition however it is not. This can easily be broken down in to the actual presuppositions as follows:
1. “The Bible…” – It is presupposed that the bible exists. The bible is a material object so it is therefore also presupposed that material objects exist as well.
2. “God” – This presupposes a creator of the logical universe therefore the presupposition is that the logical universe exists.
So you can see from this that the Christians real presuppositions are actually that there is a material universe that is logical. This is the same as the atheist worldview.
Dominic,
[We can imagine a world in which there are no physical objects; where no physical laws apply—but in such a world, the law of noncontradiction must still apply.]
What would the "law of non-contradiction" apply to in such a world?
JC—
The law of noncontradiction could apply to any number of things. Numbers, values; whatever you please. It could simply apply to itself.
Incidentally, you are confusing the chronological and logical priority of presuppositions in the Christian worldview. We start with the proposition that the Bible is the word of God as the first principle of our epistemology; but this does not mean that other beliefs do not precede it chronologically. It simply means that those beliefs are not justified without the first principle we have taken.
Regards,
Bnonn
So you can see from this that the Christians real presuppositions are actually that there is a material universe that is logical. This is the same as the atheist worldview.
And JC you have yet to justify a logical, rational universe. We have justified it.
And you avoided my question (which will become important as we go on): are you always rational, do your thoughts always comform to reality - how do you know?
Bnonn,
[The law of noncontradiction could apply to any number of things. Numbers, values; whatever you please. It could simply apply to itself.]
Numbers of what? Values of what? I’m just curious what you could apply this to that is neither a material object nor a product of a material object. Maybe just give me one specific example.
-jcateno
[And JC you have yet to justify a logical, rational universe. We have justified it.]
You have only deferred the supposed need for justification to something else. You say a logical universe needs an explanation for its existence but then you say that your God does not need an explanation for its existence. If you do not see the obvious problem you create for your self then we will get no where with this conversation.
[And you avoided my question (which will become important as we go on): are you always rational, do your thoughts always comform to reality - how do you know?]
The same way you do!
You have only deferred the supposed need for justification to something else. You say a logical universe needs an explanation for its existence but then you say that your God does not need an explanation for its existence. If you do not see the obvious problem you create for your self then we will get no where with this conversation.
And again JC, it's apples and oranges. It's rational to believe that a Mind contains thought, rationality, logic, etc... And to be the foundation of such non-material concepts. It is not rational to believe that the strictly material, non-rational forces contain such immaterial concepts.
The same way you do!
That is a non-answer. Again how do you know that your thoughts always conform to reality? Are you ever irrational (your thoughts don't conform to reality)?
-jcateno
[And again JC, it's apples and oranges. It's rational to believe that a Mind contains thought, rationality, logic, etc... And to be the foundation of such non-material concepts. It is not rational to believe that the strictly material, non-rational forces contain such immaterial concepts. ]
Are you saying it is not logical that a material universe can contain material minds that are able to produce non material concepts? If so, please explain why you think this is not logical?
[That is a non-answer. Again how do you know that your thoughts always conform to reality? Are you ever irrational (your thoughts don't conform to reality)?]
It is an answer, just not the one you want. Again, it is part of my presupposition that I am a rational being that is part of a logical universe. Based on this, I assume, just as you do, that I am able to perceive the universe with a level of accuracy that enables me to survive within it.
Are you saying it is not logical that a material universe can contain material minds that are able to produce non material concepts? If so, please explain why you think this is not logical?
No, I think it is up to you to show how non-rational, material forces can produce their opposite: rational, non- material minds and concepts. In my case it logically follows: Mind = mind, Rational = rational.
Based on this, I assume, just as you do, that I am able to perceive the universe with a level of accuracy that enables me to survive within it.
I asked a specific question. Do your thoughts always conform to reality? Are you ever irrational ( i.e. that your thoughts don't conform to reality).
As far as surviving - what if irrational thoughts helped you to survive - then what?
-jcateno
[No, I think it is up to you to show how non-rational, material forces can produce their opposite: rational, non- material minds and concepts. In my case it logically follows: Mind = mind, Rational = rational. ]
Based on your logic, one can only wonder how you would then explain a rational, non-material mind creating its opposite: non-rational, material objects. In my case, it logically follows: A Logical material universe produced logical material beings.
I would be interested to know how you would explain something non-material creating something material at all? It is very apparent that material things can produce non-material effects. For example, two rocks can produce a sound. Sound is not material however it is produced by material acting in a certain way. If you have an example of something in the universe that is non-material creating something material please post it.
[I asked a specific question. Do your thoughts always conform to reality? Are you ever irrational ( i.e. that your thoughts don't conform to reality).]
Yes, I have been known to be irrational at times. Just ask my wife. :)
[As far as surviving - what if irrational thoughts helped you to survive - then what?]
Irrational thoughts can help people survive. So what?
JC—
You seem to be supposing that my numbers must represent something physical. Why? Clearly they need not. Are you saying that we should not be realists about numbers? That would be consistent with your worldview, but then since logic is not physical either, you would have to be consistent and declare that we must not be realists about it either. In which case you are in a pickle.
Aside from that, I challenge your presupposition that we live in a logical universe. I challenge your presupposition that the universe exists in the way you suppose at all. You seem to think that you can just assume this without warrant, and be immune from criticism in so doing. But the whole point of presuppositional apologetics is that you have no basis for your assumption—you might believe it, but you cannot justify it; nor can you justify any presupposition you hold, and so you cannot make any knowledge-claims at all. If you think I am wrong, then please declare the first principle of your epistemology by which you claim rationally justified belief about the universe.
Regards,
Bnonn
- bnonn
I was only asking if you could provide an example of numbers applied to something that is neither material nor a product of a material object. One example would do.
[If you think I am wrong, then please declare the first principle of your epistemology by which you claim rationally justified belief about the universe.
I start with the proposition that “the universe is logical” as the first principle of my epistemology.
Bnonn, thanks for the comments. It is not enough for Gene to show that ANY worldview is not intelligible or coherent, he needs to prove HIS worldview.
He needs to justify the statements that we reason because we are "made in the image of god" or that logic, truth, morals, etc. not only depend upon a god, but depend upon HIS particular, Biblical god.
Further, I think a Theistic worldview assumes we know everything matter and energy are capable of producing. The statement that says there "must be something immaterial" to account for X assumes that we know something material could NOT produce X.
It also assumes we know what we are talking about when we say "immaterial" - what is this exactly?
And what is energy? Light? Waves? Are these not distinct from matter? Are they different forms of material substance?
In addition, I think you're assuming that morals, logic, truth etc. are independent of matter and energy, but as JC asks, which of these things is not a product of something material?
I am also curious what you would say the Laws of Logic ARE if they are not descriptions of the way matter and energy behave? Or even in what way they differ from rules of linguistics.
"...since only God accounts for logic and morality in a way which is intelligible and comprehensive."
Even if we grant this is the case, Gene has not proven that HIS god is the one responsible. In fact, given that we recognize and find irrationality and immorality in the Bible it is impossible that its god is the originator of rationality and morals to begin with.
JC—
I am interested in your desire that I apply numbers to something non-material. Firstly, applying numbers to themselves would constitute a fulfillment of your request, unless you are not a realist about numbers—in which case we should examine whether this is a defensible position. Secondly, how do you determine whether something is not "a product of a material object"? I deny that the mind is a product of a material object, and so I offer the mind as another example. But you will say that the mind is a product of the physical. So again, we must look deeper to see whether this is defensible.
Now, you say that you take the proposition, the universe is logical as the first principle of your worldview. I presume that you are aware that a first principle must contain sufficient information from which to deduce every other proposition within your worldview. That is why it is called the first principle. This being the case, could you show me how, from this first principle of yours, you deduce:
1. The first principle itself (ie, how it is self-affirming)?
2. A coherent explanation of what knowledge is, what the mind is, and how the two are related? (You should probably refer to my comments to Steve, below, as you consider this question.)
I don't believe that your first principle is remotely functional, since it appears useless as the foundation for a theory of reality and a theory of knowledge.
Steve—
I agree that the Christian must prove his own worldview as well as refute non-Christian ones. However, even if all Gene did was to refute your worldview, that still makes you wrong.
Anyway, theistic worldviews do not need to assume that we know everything that matter and energy are capable of producing; they simply need to show that the assumptions of non-theistic worldviews about matter and energy are absurd. Concepts like truth and value are not intelligible in a genuinely physicalist worldview, since it is incoherent to speak of matter-energy being "true" of other matter-energy, or "good" to other matter-energy. Not only this, but the concepts of truth and goodness are themselves not deducible from a physicalist worldview; so they must be imported from somewhere else. They are, by definition, transcendent concepts: no amount of assuming otherwise will make them coherent in a worldview which denies the transcendent. I am afraid that you cannot actually use words like "truth", "value", or "virtue" if there is nothing but the physical. These words would have no meaning, because the concepts behind them would not exist.
If you are willing to affirm that truth and value do exist, then you are immediately denying the sort of pure physicalism which most atheists assume. If goodness is a quality which can be used to describe something meaningfully, then goodness must exist; it must be real. Regardless of what we believe about the conventions of goodness (ie, regardless of what we opine is good, and what we opine is not good), we are necessarily being realists about an intrinsically non-physical thing by accepting the concept of virtue itself. We are saying that virtue, whatever it is, is a real thing. Which raises some very difficult questions if you believe only in the physical, since there is no physical quality of the universe which can be identified as virtue, and it is in fact self-evident that virtue is not physical.
Basically, I am saying that if you wish to affirm a truly physicalist worldview, then I am going to hold you to that. If you try to affirm something which is, by definition, non-physical, then I am going to make you account for it. I am going to make you work in purely physical terms, and see how far you get before you start borrowing concepts which I contend are from my worldview, and don't belong in yours.
Regards,
Bnonn
Although I think you did a great job putting Steve in his place, I totally disagree with what you said about the New Covenant vs. old Covenant in the cross examination and his comments about the Sabbath. The idea that Messiah's sermon on the monunt about loveing your enemies does away with the old testament is way off. Most of (if not everything) that Jesus taught on the mount can be found in the Torah and some in the Talmud. That means what he taught was not new, but was in line to the contemporary teachers of His day. For instance, loving ones enemies in Exodus 23:4-5
"If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. 5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.
If that is not an example of loving ones enemies than I don't know what is.
As for your comments about the Sabbath, it was just nonsense to say that he kept that Sabbath by being in Christ. In Col 2:16-17 is says that the Sabbath is a shadow of things that ARE COMING not things that have already past or that things that are in Christ. Yes that substance (body of the shadow) is Christ, by the reality of it is not yet here.
Over all, I did enjoy the debate even with those mistakes. Perhaps I will call your talk show and talk more about it with you. Thanks for sharing.
Bnonn,
The universe is self-affirming because the universe IS truth. It is the standard to what all claims of truth are measured. The universe is logical because it could not be illogical. Any worldview that denies the truth of the universe would be completely unintelligible because there would be no basis to make claims of truth and knowledge at all.
Just to simplify for you my view on the “mind”, I will just say that it is a product/process of the brain.
Now that you have grilled me a bit about my world view, I would like to get your response to the same question you asked of me. How is your first principle "the Bible is the word of God" self-affirming?
Thanks,
JC
[I asked a specific question. Do your thoughts always conform to reality? Are you ever irrational ( i.e. that your thoughts don't conform to reality).]
Yes, I have been known to be irrational at times. Just ask my wife. :)
[As far as surviving - what if irrational thoughts helped you to survive - then what?]
Irrational thoughts can help people survive. So what?
JC, I will let Bnonn deal with your other points, he seems to be doing quite well.
Now to the above. You agree that your thoughts do not always comport to reality and that irrational thoughts may in fact help us to survive.
The fact is when our thoughts are not comporting to reality, we, at those moments think they are (or we would change them).
Take this debate for instance JC, how do you know that your thoughts and conclusions here are comporting to reality?
JC—
To which universe are you referring when you say that it is self-affirming? Are you supposing that there is a physical universe which exists outside of yourself, of which you are a part? How did you come to knowledge of this universe? It does not appear to be self-affirming in the slightest. The only proposition about reality which you can prove by attempting to deny is that you exist—not the universe. But the fact that you exist in no way implies that the universe exists. Unless you can validly infer from the proposition I exist (which is proved by its denial) to the conclusion therefore, a physical and external universe exists; or unless you can show me a proposition which, in denying the physical universe, simultaneously affirms it, you are wrong to make the claim that the universe you perceive is self-affirming.
In fact, although you rely on a physicalist worldview, the only thing that you can know about reality is by nature non-physical: that is, you know that you exist. You have no way to know (ie, validly infer from a self-affirming proposition) whether you exist in the sense that you suppose—as a corporeal being. It is entirely possible that the physical universe you perceive exists only in your mind, and that there is no such thing as the physical whatsoever. The only thing you can prove to yourself is that the immaterial exists; not the physical. This is, if I may Britishly understate, somewhat incongruent with your very strong convictions about physicalism.
Further, what do you mean by saying that the universe is truth; that it is the standard by which all truth-claims are measured? What sort of claims do you mean? I have already mentioned to Steve how truth is itself not a concept which can arise from the physical. It is, if you will, supra-physical. So presumably you aren't confining your measurement of truth-claims to physical things. The proposition ¬ (P ∧ ¬P) cannot be physically measured, although it can be translated into physical terms. The proposition murder is bad cannot be evaluated by or translated into physical terms. What property of the universe permits this proposition to still be intelligible and measurable? It obviously cannot be a physical property.
And again, as regards the mind, I am going to hold you to your physicalist view. If the mind is purely physical, then it cannot know anything. It is not coherent to say of one piece of matter that it is true of another. Furthermore, you run into severe difficulties in trying to even account physically for rational inference. For example, if rational inference is purely a physical process, and takes place as neurons interact in the brain, then what does the propositional content of that inference have to do with the conclusion drawn from it, given that it is wholly determined by physical interactions all along? How can we trust inference, or even account for it at all?
You say that any worldview which denies the truth of the universe would be completely unintelligible, because it would have no basis for knowledge-claims. But it does not appear that you can prove the truth of the universe yourself—whatever you suppose it to even be. Does this truth entail physicalism? Because physicalism is self-refuting, as I have shown in a couple of my comments now. Since it does not account for truth or value, and in fact implicitly denies these things, it certainly cannot be used as a basis for making knowledge-claims about anything. Knowledge, in a physicalist worldview, does not exist.
Regarding the first principle, the Bible is the word of God—it is self-affirming because it attests, itself, to this truth: "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16).
Regards,
Bnonn
-bnonn
The proposition “I exist” does in fact imply the universe exists. “I exist” assumes there is a universe to exist in. To deny that you exist would be simultaneously affirming that there is a universe to not exist in.
[Further, what do you mean by saying that the universe is truth; that it is the standard by which all truth-claims are measured?]
I probably should have stated this more clearly as claims to objective truth.
[The proposition (P ∧ P) cannot be physically measured, although it can be translated into physical terms.]
What is “P”? I’m going to assume it represents something? What is that something if it is not material or in relation to something material?
[The proposition murder is bad cannot be evaluated by or translated into physical terms.]
This proposition is not an objective truth claim. It is subjective; however it still references the physical since one must ask what would be murdered or even what is murder.
[If the mind is purely physical, then it cannot know anything.]
I see the assertion but I do not see anything to support your conclusion. Please explain.
[It is not coherent to say of one piece of matter that it is true of another.]
I’m not sure what you mean here. If you can, please explain this statement.
I think you may not understand fully my view on the material nature of the universe. I do not claim that there is only matter and energy but that all things derive from or are related to matter and energy. This would include properties, events, processes, states, etc… I am not sure if this would be what you are calling physicalism or not but it is my worldview.
[Regarding the first principle, the Bible is the word of God—it is self-affirming because it attests, itself, to this truth: "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16).]
How you see that as self-affirming, I don’t know. But if you wish to place the standard of self affirmation so low, you only make things harder on your position. By your standard we could just consider any statement that claims it’s self to be true “self-affirming”. You also fail to see that the bible is its self a material object. So you would first need to take from my worldview to know that it really exists to begin with.
Bnonn,
[I agree that the Christian must prove his own worldview as well as refute non-Christian ones. However, even if all Gene did was to refute your worldview, that still makes you wrong.]
We agree here, but my point was that if Gene is going to make part of his refutation, statements like "the image of god coming out of him" etc. he needs to prove them before they would have any value.
[theistic worldviews do not need to assume that we know everything that matter and energy are capable of producing; they simply need to show that the assumptions of non-theistic worldviews about matter and energy are absurd.]
But for a theist to show the 'absurdity' of such assumptions they need to know what matter and energy are capable of doing as a matter of groundwork.
[...it is incoherent to speak of matter-energy being "true" of other matter-energy, or "good" to other matter-energy.]
You do not provide evidence for this claim, and I don't think you make your case here. The first statement does sound incoherent, but I am not aware of anyone who understands "truth" in that way. Only propositions are either "true" or "false" and that depends upon their accuracy in describing events, people, behavior, things, etc.
"...the concepts of truth and goodness are themselves not deducible from a physicalist worldview; so they must be imported from somewhere else."
This is something you will need to prove.
[I am afraid that you cannot actually use words like "truth", "value", or "virtue" if there is nothing but the physical. These words would have no meaning, because the concepts behind them would not exist.]
A related claim in need of proof. Why can't they be used if only the physical exists? Moreover, what are the concepts behind them?
[If goodness is a quality which can be used to describe something meaningfully, then goodness must exist; it must be real.]
As a substance? What is "goodness" in your understanding? Certainly, "goodness" exists - it is the state or quality of being good - a word-label we attach to certain dispositions, natures, things or behaviors.
[we are necessarily being realists about an intrinsically non-physical thing by accepting the concept of virtue itself.]
Again, what, in your view, is "real" about 'virtue' or 'goodness'?
[...there is no physical quality of the universe which can be identified as virtue...]
Good behaviors of physical beings have this quality.
[I am going to make you work in purely physical terms, and see how far you get before you start borrowing concepts which I contend are from my worldview, and don't belong in yours.]
This will be good for both of us I imagine. In turn, you are obligated to show that these concepts are from only your PARTICULAR worldview, and for you to claim they do not belong in a Naturalist's is going to take an awful lot more knowledge about the abilities and nature of matter and energy.
In addition, I have re-pasted segements of the last post I would like some response to.
(1) It also assumes we know what we are talking about when we say "immaterial" - what is this exactly?
(2) And what is energy? Light? Waves? Are these not distinct from matter? Are they different forms of material substance?
(3) I think you're assuming that morals, logic, truth etc. are independent of matter and energy...which of these things is not a product of something material?
(4) I am also curious what you would say the Laws of Logic ARE if they are not descriptions of the way matter and energy behave?
(4b)Or even in what way they differ from rules of linguistics.
(5)Given that we recognize and find irrationality and immorality in the Bible it is impossible that its god is the originator of rationality and morals to begin with.
Thanks,
Steve
JC—
Contrary to your claim, the proposition I exist does not imply that the universe exists. You are assuming that you must exist in a universe; but why? Please, show me the inference that you used to deduce this.
1. I exist.
2. ???
3. Therefore, the universe exists (profit!!)
Regarding the law of noncontradiction, P does not need to represent a physical object. It can simply be a mental object having no relation to physicality. P is not a physical thing; it is P. There is no reason to assume that it represents something physical if you are not trying to redeem a physicalist worldview.
In the same vein, I deny that it is a subjective claim that murder is bad. However, even if it is, it still references the concept of value, which I have discussed at some length above. How do you describe or account for value within a physical worldview without begging the question? It is clearly not a physical concept. Since you affirm only the existence of the physical, do you then deny that value exists altogether? If so, the proposition that murder is bad is less than subjective within your worldview—it is in fact meaningless: since value itself does not exist, the word "bad" cannot mean anything.
As regards my contention that a physical mind cannot know anything, permit me to elaborate by focusing only on the concept of truth itself:
If the mind is purely physical, in the sense that there is nothing more to it than the physical brain, then we cannot say that a state of mind is true or false any more than we can say that my water bottle is true or false, or my keyboard is true or false. It is meaningless to describe matter (or energy) in this way. We can say that matter and energy exist (and this is itself a truth statement), but we cannot say that they are true, or that they are false. What would this mean, after all? Truth and falsehood are not qualities of the physical universe. They are qualities of states of mind. For example, the state of mind "matter and energy exist" can be described with the quality "true"; and the state of mind "I don't exist" can be described with the quality "false".
But if states of mind are actually merely states of physical matter, then we are deceived to say that truth and falsehood are qualities that can be intelligibly applied to them. Unless we have some way to explain how a state of physical matter could produce a non-physical state (in which case, we have left physicalism by accepting the non-physical; you have suggested that you accept the non-physical though) we are left with a profound problem.
Now, you obviously accept logic and values and so on, as well as states of mind. You claim that these are all correlated with physical reality, and I agree to a large extent. However, are you claiming that they are causally connected to physical reality? Because, if so, you have this non-physical realm arising from physical reality, and you need to account for that. In what sense does this non-physical reality exist? Is it real?
Lastly, the issue of the Bible being self-affirming. In what way is this a weak statement? Is it a weak statement if I say, "This post was written by Dominic Bnonn Tennant"? Obviously it is true, and thus self-affirming. It seems that your concern is that there is no external corroboration for the Bible's claim about itself—but what external corroboration could be provided? If there was some higher standard by which to judge Scripture, then Scripture would not be the first principle of the Christian worldview. So your concern doesn't make sense. The issue isn't whether the proposition that the Bible is the word of God can be externally proved; it is whether it can be deduced from the biblical first principle (itself), since if it could not, then the biblical worldview would be self-refuting just like yours is.
A similar error you make is in assuming your own worldview's epistemology in critiquing the biblical one. You say that since the Bible is a material object, and so must be read to come to knowledge of it, we must therefore assume a materialist (empirical) worldview before we can even come up with the biblical one. But clearly that is fallacious, since we cannot come to a justified, true belief in Scripture if we are assuming an empirical worldview. As I have already shown, no knowledge of the universe is possible at all if we are relying on our senses, since we cannot validly infer from "I perceive the Bible" to "therefore, there is a Bible as I perceive it".
Basically, you are confusing chronological and logical priority of beliefs. We may certainly assume that we are perceiving correctly, and reading an actual Bible which actually says what it seems to say. The question is how to justify that belief. We think it is true—now we must be able to show that it is true. This is impossible with an empirical metaphysic and epistemology, since we cannot know anything at all about reality if we assume those. However, the Bible says that knowledge is placed directly into the mind by God (Job 38:36), and so knowledge-acquisition is, as it must be, a non-physical process; albeit one which is correlated to the occasion of physical events. I assume the biblical epistemology and metaphysic in order to justify my belief that I am reading a physical Bible. No other epistemology and metaphysic can yield any justified, true belief. I would encourage you to acquaint yourself more closely with epistemology. The chronological order of beliefs is not relevant to the logical priority of the propositions within a worldview. There is certainly no need to assume empiricism to be able to come to the Christian worldview!
Steve—
What I have said above should address the majority of your comment. To respond to your specific numbered points:
1. The immaterial is that which is not material. If something is not physical, then it is immaterial, or non-physical.
2. I use the term matter-energy, because in a physicalist worldview, the two are indeed the same basic thing (E = mc^2).
3. As I have asked JC already, in what sense are values and knowledge a product of physical things? They are not intelligible as applied to physical things, and no mechanism has been offered by which physical things give rise to them. They are, by nature, non-physical. I agree that there is often a correlation between the physical and non-physical, but are you claiming a causal correlation? That could lead into an interesting discussion of causality in general, which opens another avenue to demonstrate the absurdity of the physicalist worldview.
4. The laws of logic are descriptions of the way in which God thinks; 4b, the rules of linguistics are based on the laws of logic.
5. I recognize no irrationality and immorality in the Bible in the sense you seem to mean: that is, in the sense of them being advocated in some way. I really can't respond to an allegation without content. You'd have to cite some specific example of an instance where you think that the Bible is irrational or immoral.
Regards,
Bnonn
- Bnonn
[Contrary to your claim, the proposition I exist does not imply that the universe exists. You are assuming that you must exist in a universe; but why? Please, show me the inference that you used to deduce this.]
1. I exist.
2. (Everything that exists, exists in the universe)
3. Therefore, the universe exists
I will give you the definition of universe as I use it since you appear to be confused about what I mean when I say universe. I like the Princeton University WordNet definition since it is short and to the point: [Universe; everything that exists anywhere]. So by this definition you should be able to understand how if (1) is self affirming (as you have agreed) that it also affirms (3).
[Regarding the law of noncontradiction, P does not need to represent a physical object. It can simply be a mental object having no relation to physicality. P is not a physical thing; it is P. There is no reason to assume that it represents something physical if you are not trying to redeem a physicalist worldview.]
What is a mental object? Please give me an example of what a mental object is. Are you referring to an imaginary object? I’m waiting for a specific example where you actually specify where P represents something that is not material or in relation to something material. Please, if you have a specific example I would like to see it.
[In the same vein, I deny that it is a subjective claim that murder is bad. However, even if it is, it still references the concept of value, which I have discussed at some length above. How do you describe or account for value within a physical worldview without begging the question? It is clearly not a physical concept. Since you affirm only the existence of the physical, do you then deny that value exists altogether? If so, the proposition that murder is bad is less than subjective within your worldview—it is in fact meaningless: since value itself does not exist, the word "bad" cannot mean anything.]
You have answered your own question by referring to “value” as a concept. Concepts are abstract in that they are only a product or symbol of the mind. Since the mind is its self a product of a physical brain it is easy to account for this from my worldview; Physical brain > Mind > Value. Now, I do not claim to have a thorough understanding of the workings of the brain however I would suggest that value is directly related to emotion. Emotions seem to be very directly related to the physical body since they can be altered by physical damage or chemical adjustments to the physical brain.
[If the mind is purely physical, in the sense that there is nothing more to it than the physical brain, then we cannot say that a state of mind is true or false any more than we can say that my water bottle is true or false, or my keyboard is true or false. It is meaningless to describe matter (or energy) in this way. We can say that matter and energy exist (and this is itself a truth statement), but we cannot say that they are true, or that they are false. What would this mean, after all? Truth and falsehood are not qualities of the physical universe. They are qualities of states of mind. For example, the state of mind "matter and energy exist" can be described with the quality "true"; and the state of mind "I don't exist" can be described with the quality "false".
But if states of mind are actually merely states of physical matter, then we are deceived to say that truth and falsehood are qualities that can be intelligibly applied to them. Unless we have some way to explain how a state of physical matter could produce a non-physical state (in which case, we have left physicalism by accepting the non-physical; you have suggested that you accept the non-physical though) we are left with a profound problem.]
I do agree that matter or energy do not have the property of true or false. You are also correct in saying that true or false only really apply to statements or thoughts. I do not see where this gets you though since statements and thoughts are themselves a product of the mind which is a product of the physical brain. I think you mischaracterize my view a bit by suggesting that I hold that only physical objects exist. I tried to point out in my last post to you that I do account for non-physical things but only in that they are all derived from physical things. For example, I would say that there is such a thing as “orbit” but it does not exist in the same way the objects that orbit exist. It is the process of two physical objects, one moving around the other. This would be much the same for thoughts. Thoughts exist only by the process of the brain thinking which is a physical process. So there are non-physical things that exist but only as products of physical things that exist.
[Now, you obviously accept logic and values and so on, as well as states of mind. You claim that these are all correlated with physical reality, and I agree to a large extent. However, are you claiming that they are causally connected to physical reality? Because, if so, you have this non-physical realm arising from physical reality, and you need to account for that. In what sense does this non-physical reality exist? Is it real?]
I think my above statement addresses this.
[Lastly, the issue of the Bible being self-affirming. In what way is this a weak statement? Is it a weak statement if I say, "This post was written by Dominic Bnonn Tennant"? Obviously it is true, and thus self-affirming. It seems that your concern is that there is no external corroboration for the Bible's claim about itself—but what external corroboration could be provided? If there was some higher standard by which to judge Scripture, then Scripture would not be the first principle of the Christian worldview. So your concern doesn't make sense. The issue isn't whether the proposition that the Bible is the word of God can be externally proved; it is whether it can be deduced from the biblical first principle (itself), since if it could not, then the biblical worldview would be self-refuting just like yours is.]
You have yet to show that my worldview is self-refuting. I would also disagree that your statement; "This post was written by Dominic Bnonn Tennant" is self affirming since I cannot know for sure that you are in fact Bnonn Tennant. Based on your standard the following sentence would be self affirming and therefore true.
“This sentence was written by George Clooney.”
You must believe that the sentence was written by George Clooney. If you do not then you need to explain how one statement that claims authorship is self affirming and another similar statement is not.
We could also go so far as to take the first principle of “The paragraph below is the truth about the universe”.
“The universe is without a god. This is the truth about the universe.”
Now it must be true since it says so right there in the second sentence. Now you have a problem, because you have on one hand the first principle of “The bible is the word of God” that you claim is self affirming since the bible says it is the word of God. On the other hand you have the first principle that “The paragraph below (its above now :) is the truth about the universe” which by your standard is self affirming since it says that it is the truth about the universe. Both of these first principles contradict each other but are again by your standard both self affirming. This is a huge issue for you and I am interested to see how you would explain this problem.
[A similar error you make is in assuming your own worldview's epistemology in critiquing the biblical one. You say that since the Bible is a material object, and so must be read to come to knowledge of it, we must therefore assume a materialist (empirical) worldview before we can even come up with the biblical one. But clearly that is fallacious, since we cannot come to a justified, true belief in Scripture if we are assuming an empirical worldview. As I have already shown, no knowledge of the universe is possible at all if we are relying on our senses, since we cannot validly infer from "I perceive the Bible" to "therefore, there is a Bible as I perceive it". I assume the biblical epistemology and metaphysic in order to justify my belief that I am reading a physical Bible. No other epistemology and metaphysic can yield any justified, true belief.]
Again you are mischaracterizing my world view. You seem to want to place my worldview into some category that it does not necessarily fit. Nowhere have I suggested that I hold a strictly empirical worldview. What I will say, is that the mistake you say I make by assuming my worldview to critique yours is not a mistake at all but rather it is the only way in which one is able to make a critique at all. What you seem to miss is that your first principle; “The bible is the word of God” is actually making two assumptions. The first assumption is that the bible exists as a material object. This assumption is only justifiable from the worldview I have outlined. The second assumption is that there is a God. The problem you have is that you cannot show that God is necessarily what you assume. In other words, if there was a god, that god could be different than what you assume it to be. In fact I would say that once you introduce a god into your epistemology, you create a whole new problem for your self and you end up not being able to account for anything. I am of course making some assumptions about the abilities of a god but if you assume a god that is the creator of the universe and has control over everything within the universe including the ability make you see, feel, and hear certain things then you have no way of ever knowing that anything is real at all. It could all just be an illusion. You also could never know that what think you know about that god is true since a god would not necessarily need to be an honest god.
I think we are out growing this comment board. :)
-JC
JC—
If you are taking the universe simply to be the definition of everything that exists anywhere, then your argument is of little use. Since the only thing that you can know exists is yourself, what benefit do you have from using the term universe at all? You cannot argue for the existence of the physical universe which we all believe in, and you presumably would not argue that you are, yourself, the universe—so why introduce the term at all?
Now, I have already given you an example of a mental object. Numbers are mental objects. They do not exist as physical things. They can be represented by physical things; but that is not the same as being physical things. Counterfactuals are also mental objects. Values are mental objects. However, if one of your presuppositions is that mental objects cannot exist, and are just "extensions" of physical objects, then I am very unlikely to convince you of their existence, aren't I? We should investigate your presuppositions themselves, instead of focusing on beliefs which rely upon them.
Nonetheless, regarding concepts, value, truth; etc—you have still given no account for their existence. You have said that they are products of the physical, but without addressing the arguments I gave which demonstrate how this is impossible, and how they are meaningless things in a physical worldview. The same question can be asked of orbit, of course—if you affirm the existence of things other than the physical, then in what sense are you affirming their existence? You say that you do account for non-physical things; but then, if non-physical things exist, where and how do they do so? You can't simply say that they exist as products of the physical, because the fact still remains then that they exist, and they are non-physical. You are, in effect, affirming a mental realm of non-physical things, but then denying that this mental realm is real by merit of the fact that it was produced by the non-mental, physical universe. Your worldview seems very confused in this regard.
You have yet to show that my worldview is self-refuting.
Well, I've shown that you can't know that the physical universe exists. Since your worldview accepts only the existence of the physical, and you can't know that the physical exists, that is a fairly conclusive self-refutation.
I would also disagree that your statement; "This post was written by Dominic Bnonn Tennant" is self affirming since I cannot know for sure that you are in fact Bnonn Tennant.
The fact that the statement was written by me, and I am Dominic Bnonn Tennant, makes it self-affirming. I agree that if it were not true, then it would not be self-affirming (ie, it would be false; a tautology). But since it is true, it is self-affirming.
The issue of whether the Bible is true is a matter of epistemological necessity. Since it is impossible to know anything about reality without it being revealed to us by an objective knowledge-giver, and since it is impossible to not know anything if we are to function, we investigate the various alleged revelations held by various religions which claim an objective knowledge-giver, and we critique them for internal consistency. Taking it as a requirement that at least one of them is indeed genuine revelation, we determine whether they are internally consistent, and whether they provide an adequate foundation for a working metaphysic and epistemology which make the world intelligible. We find that the Bible alone is able to do these things. One of the criteria which it must fulfill in order to be shown as genuine is to be self-affirming. If it is not, it cannot be used as a basis for knowledge-claims, because we cannot deduce it as a first principle from its own contents.
Your argument regarding the statement the universe is without a god; this is the truth about the universe is frankly bizarre. I am not certain what the basis for this argument even is. You seem to think that firstly it is a self-affirming statement (but affirmed by who?); and that secondly, since it is self-affirming, it therefore constitutes a first principle for some (my?) worldview. But why? The first principle that the Bible is the word of God is sensible and intelligible because, from that first principle, we can deduce every proposition within Scripture. It allows us to formulate an epistemology and metaphysic that work; and, therefore, to have a justified belief in communication, values, and so on. Even if your statement is self-affirming, what metaphysic and epistemology can be derived from it? Indeed, what other proposition of any value at all can be deduced from it?
“The bible is the word of God” is actually making two assumptions. The first assumption is that the bible exists as a material object. This assumption is only justifiable from the worldview I have outlined. The second assumption is that there is a God.
You are wrong, because both of these "assumptions" are deducible from the first principle itself (which is why it is called the first principle!) But all right, let's deal with this one assumption at a time. Please show me how it is justifiable to believe in the existence of the Bible, a physical object, from the worldview which you have outlined.
Regards,
Bnonn
- bnonn
Sorry for the delay in response. I’ve been out of town.
What exactly do you think “Universe” means?
Non-physical “things” exist only as products of matter and energy within the universe. They are NOT transcendent since they only exist as part of the universe. They do not “exist” the same way physical objects exist. Where physical objects exist independent of anything non-physical, the non-physical could not exist without the physical. You seem to want to imply that there are independent non-physical things of some sort floating around somewhere but you provide no example to back that up. Things like thought would not “exist” without a physical brain to think. You refer to “mental objects” such as counterfactuals and numbers but you fail to be able to show that they exist independently of anything physical. It really comes down to this; I hold a worldview where everything is dependent on the physical; you hold a world view where you say non-physical things can exist independent of the physical. I am able to provide many examples that support my worldview and you have provided no examples for yours. If you can provide one example of something non-physical that exists independent of anything physical, please do.
-JC
JC—
Whether or not mental things are dependent on physical things is a presupposition. I wonder how you would propose that a proof one way or the other be established. It seems to be a matter of causation versus correlation. I would challenge you to prove that causation ever occurs, let alone between the physical and the mental. But that is rather tangential to the main issues which arise from your view.
In particular, I am still uncertain precisely what your view is. You appear to be agreeing that propositional attitudes (and presumably qualia) are not completely reducible to physical states, since this would entail the absurd situation in which we cannot genuinely speak of mental states as being true or false. Assuming this is the case, you would then be affirming a situation in which there is a dualism of properties, but a monism of substance. Ignoring for now the very tricky question you face of how mental states inhere in physical states, we can still examine their supervenience upon those physical states. Particularly, we can look at that question of causality.
If mental states are supervient upon physical states, and are simply epiphenomenal, then in what sense are they able to influence physical states? You have already argued that non-physical things are not independent of physical things, and do not exist in the same way that they do, which means that you presumably do subscribe to an epiphenomalist conception of the mental. In other words, although a belief is non-physical in terms of its properties (it cannot be described in physical terms), it is still a physical state of the brain. There is a duality of properties, but no duality of substance; no mental substance as well as physical substance. But if this is so, then the mental can have no causal power of its own. It is purely a phenomenon arising from the physical, being caused entirely by the physical, and supervenient entirely upon the physical.
This leads to absurdity. If mental states have no causal power, then rational inference itself does not occur. Although you might appear to believe that Socrates is mortal in view of the fact that Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal, these propositions in reality have nothing to do with the causal sequence involved in your belief. If the causal sequence is purely physical, because there is a monism of substance, then your mental states are irrelevant. The propositional content of your beliefs cannot in fact cause other beliefs, since propositional content is non-physical, but beliefs themselves are, in substance, physical. This ultimately is self-refuting. Your belief that the mental arises from the physical, and that no mental substance exists cannot actually be caused by the propositional content of any argument to that effect. Indeed, consider—
1. Your beliefs about the world are inferred from your experiences of the world.
2. Your experiences of the world, being non-physical qualia, cannot actually cause physical states of mind.
3. Beliefs are physical states of mind.
4. Therefore, your beliefs about the world cannot be inferred from your experiences of it (in contradiction to (1)).
Obviously this is a patently ridiculous state of affairs.
Regards,
Bnonn
-bnonn
I think I agree with you that what you described is ridiculous and it is also not my view at all since I do believe that all mental activity is purely a physical process. As I said before, I won’t pretend to be fully knowledgeable on the inner workings of the brain however I see much support for the proposition that it works as a completely physical process. Things such as brain damage, split brain studies, chemical imbalances, Alzheimer’s, etc… all seem to support my proposition. It seems like you are proposing the idea that a non-physical mind exists separate from the physical brain so I would only ask you to then explain how a non-physical mind is able to cause physical actions in the brain? It also seems like you are avoiding the challenge I put forth for you to give an example of something non-physical that exists independent of anything physical.
-JC
JC—
There are only three basic options in philosophy of mind, so far as I am aware: substance monism with property monism; substance monism with property dualism; or substance and property dualism. You seem to be denying all three. You say most recently that you do believe that all mental activity is a purely physical process—which sounds like you're advocating substance and property monism. But I've already covered the obvious faults with that, wherein truth and value are denied because they are not physical properties. Perhaps you should explicate precisely to which view you adhere.
I am certainly proposing that a non-physical mind exists separate from the physical brain, since that is what the Bible teaches. The correlation between physical and mental events is entirely governed by God's continual action. There is no such thing as genuine causation between secondary objects—only the correlation of events which God holds together.
I am not avoiding your challenge to name something non-physical; as I have already said, what constitutes the non-physical depends on your presuppositions. If you deny the reality of numbers, for example, I cannot cite numbers as an example of non-physical things, even if they are. Rather, I must show how being a non-realist about numbers leads to absurdity.
Regards,
Bnonn
-bnonn
I would say computationalism best fits my view on the subject of mind. I agree with you that truth and value are not physical properties. For example, you would probably agree that two basket balls and two base balls cannot have the property of true since objects cannot be true. Where truth does become possible is in the process of totaling the number of balls. So we can say that if you added all the balls together and your result is four that your result would be true. If your result was five then that would be false.
[The correlation between physical and mental events is entirely governed by God's continual action.]
So you are saying “Magic man does it”.
[If you deny the reality of numbers, for example, I cannot cite numbers as an example of non-physical things, even if they are. Rather, I must show how being a non-realist about numbers leads to absurdity.]
What do you mean by “deny the reality of numbers”? Please explain to me what you think numbers are and how they are independent of anything physical. Do you have any other examples other than numbers?
-JC
JC—
Computationalism does not engage with the question of philosophy of mind. To which of the three basic philosophies I described to you hold?
I do affirm realism about numbers, in the sense that these are non-physical things which exist in a real, eternal, infinite non-physical mind (God's mind). They can be applied to both physical and non-physical things. But again, please, stop asking for examples of non-physical things when, whatever examples I give, you will have presupposed a priori that they are somehow "products" of the physical! Rather, engage with the critique I have given of your presuppositions themselves.
So you are saying “Magic man does it”.
No, I am saying God does it. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent my position into something which seems ridiculous? If God genuinely does it, then in what sense is this a ridiculous explanation? If you are ruling out God from the beginning, you would again be better off engaging with my presuppositional arguments, rather than merely expressing your unsurprising incredulity.
Incidentally, you have yet to refute my previous arguments which show that knowledge of the physical universe is impossible given your worldview; nor, similarly, have you answered my challenge to show how it is justifiable to believe in the existence of the Bible, a physical object, from that worldview. You also have not engaged with the various items of discussion regarding epistemology and first principles; and particularly, you have failed to defend your first principle, the universe is logical, from the criticisms I raised.
Regards,
Bnonn
It's been a while...enjoying the dialogue Bnonn and JC. I have to say, I'm excited to study Philosophy of Mind further - challenging and engaging.
As I was reasding one of Bnonn's entries, a paragraph stood out for me and if I may disrupt the flow a little, I would like to comment on it.
["Since it is impossible to know anything about reality without it being revealed to us by an objective knowledge-giver,"]
How do we even know this is a true statement to begin with? How do we KNOW it is "impossible to know anything about reality" without revelation?
["...we investigate the various alleged revelations held by various religions which claim an objective knowledge-giver, and we critique them for internal consistency."]
One wonders what the criteria of "internal consistency" might be, and how the Bible would not fail completely; as well as why "external" data cannot be included in a critique - such as authorship, transmission, canonization, etc.
In addition, how are we supposed to know what these revelations are saying without another revelation to tell us? In other words, how do I know what II Timothy or Sura 34 are saying if ALL knowledge is given via revelation?
Stated another way perhaps: I can read Romans, and afterwards I have KNOWLEDGE of what this epistle says. Romans says X, Y and Z...regardless of whether it is true or not, I KNOW it says X, Y and Z. But now this knowledge was attained by reading, NOT revelation.
["Taking it as a requirement that at least one of them is indeed genuine revelation,..."]
Why must we do this? Perhaps they are all worthless.
["...we determine whether they are internally consistent, and whether they provide an adequate foundation for a working metaphysic and epistemology which make the world intelligible. We find that the Bible alone is able to do these things."]
I am curious to know if Bnonn has read the whole Bible - every word, every book...I'm pretty sure he has, but I'm not certain. Just curious to know what of these same books that I've read he has in mind.
I'm without a single doubt the Bible does nothing of what Bnonn says it does. Not only is it not Internally consistent (this wouldn't prove much anyway), but where does it ALONE supply a "working metaphysic" or an "epistemology" that makes the world intelligible?
And what parts of the Bible, specifically, make the world intelligible? The Exorcisms? The Miracles? The Talkig Snake? The Geocentrism? The Urim and the Thummim?
["One of the criteria which it must fulfill in order to be shown as genuine is to be self-affirming. If it is not, it cannot be used as a basis for knowledge-claims,"]
If I understand what Bnonn means when he says "self-affirming" I cannot conceive how the Bible is this. At best, only several authors affirm the ancient Jewish Canon to be inspired, and one author (supposedly "Peter") affirms Paul's writings to be "scripture" but how are these statements (a) validated to begin with, and (b) self-affirming? It is men claiming other men are inspired, and more men collecting these "affirmations" into one canon. The Bible is not "self-affirming" for the simple fact that it is not a "self;" in other words, it is not a SINGLE ENTITY with any existence at all if it wasn't fabricated by exterior volition.
["Since it is impossible to know anything about reality without it being revealed to us by an objective knowledge-giver,"]
How do we even know this is a true statement to begin with? How do we KNOW it is "impossible to know anything about reality" without revelation?
There is a ton of snags with this, too:
1. Since you can't know that the info you have is from objective knoweledge-giver, it is useless, even if "true"
And worse;
2. There can not be any "objective knoweledge givers", because omniscience is logically impossible.
Here's how:
Assume being X, that thinks it is omniscient (but is wrong), and being Y, that actually is omniscient.
From the point-of-view of the being itself, both their worldviews are completely consistent, and completely isomorphic.
I.e. it is logically impossible for the being itself to distinguish the two cases
a) I actually am omniscient
b) I just think I am omniscient (but I am in fact wrong)
Hence, Gods own claim of "omnsicience" in the Bible is - literally - not worth the paper it's written on. And doesn't even adress that Hyperbole is quite vividly used in the Bible, even by "God himself".
This means that "revelation" from any self-professed "omniscient creator" is useless as an epistemological foundation.
/Z
Bnonn and JC are continuing their discussion here:
http://bnonn.blogspot.com/
We might want to respond there...
Thanks jcateno.
Gentlemen—
I apologize, but I don't have the time to continue this discussion with you individually here. I have agreed to complete my dialog with JC in a formal debate, mooted The Christian God is a necessary precondition for human reason. I invite you to follow it, and to participate in the comments if you like. With regard to the issues you have raised about objective knowledge and revelation, I must direct you to my book, The Wisdom Of God (available in PDF at no cost), and specifically to chapter 2 on worldviews. While it does not interact with your objections specifically, the information presented there should equip you to answer them.
Regards,
Bnonn
Post a Comment