harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/13/09 at 07:17 AM | Reply with quote | #61 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Logical necessity is metaphysical, and therefore refers to a collection of metaphysical algorithms (or God such as a pantheistic god). If there are blind processes that exist, then if they are not metaphyscial algorithms, then they are not necessary but contingent processes. I am dumbfounded at the idea that you imagine that logic is metaphysical. If by metaphysical you mean the supernatural, then you're simply wrong-headed. It seems you are arguing for a position that allows you to be atheist and a god-believing Christian at the same time without admitting it.
On the other hand, metaphysical is ontic. It means that there is something that exists which is above and beyond the material realm (i.e., space, time, matter, energy). In fact, the material is dependent on this Other class of objects. Logic ought to be considered metaphysical since a purely material world operates according to logical algorithmic behavior that ought not to be seen as contingent. The mathematical world we live in, for example, would not make any sense if it were by dumb luck that math works in this world. It points to a metaphysical realm which is mathematical, and therefore a material realm naturally emerges in this setting.
This is perhaps the biggest fault of atheists. They get lost between the ontic and epistemic, the metaphysical and the material.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/13/09 at 07:40 AM | Reply with quote | #62 |
|
Wonderer,
You're a great guy, and an intelligent one, but I'm afraid you possess some basic, basic misunderstanding about the world. Let me try though...
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Since you've essentially defined metaphysical necessity as necessitating pantheism, deism, or theism I'll just say a sort of necessity which we don't currently comprehend, and possibly are not capable of comprehending.
I can't accept that position since you're using terms without any justification whatsoever.
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
...then there is no necessary contradiction between being an atheist and being a pantheist. However, I get the impression that you wish to disallow such a point of view without any real argument for doing so.
It's a minority position from what I can tell. You might check out philosophical encyclopedias (e.g., Routledge, Stanford) that do designate a difference between atheism and pantheism.
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Do you agree that metaphysical necessity doesn't contradict atheism?
Atheism mostly presupposes the world to be rational, and in that sense there is metaphysical necessity in their view. For example, it is metaphysically necessary that "all there is" is "all there is." It is metaphysically necessary that if there is some thing that could exist, then it is possible that that thing exist. Etc. These are examples of the kind of metaphysical necessity that atheism is compatible with.
However, atheism is not compatible with metaphysical necessity as an ordering principle, or as providing the universe with intentionality, or as providing the universe with some kind of metaphysical requirement to have properties X instead of properties Y. This falls outside of atheism and into the pantheistic or theistic catogory of thought.
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
As far as I can see, all that paper says is that things in the universe react to things in the universe. The paper doesn't say anything about the necessity of consciousness to be involved.
No, it says that there is an ontological requirement that observing a system without physical interaction of that system causes change. Observation is a mental phenomena, hence the mental influences the physical. Mental intention to observe is enough to trigger changes in physical systems. Thus, it is not justified to deny the view that objective intention exists when it is written in the laws of physics themselves.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/13/09 at 07:58 AM | Reply with quote | #63 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: It says that even if the rules of reality were such as they are to bring about a highly structured universe as we see, there are just some very wonderful things about life that shine through all the dark moments that make it worthwhile to live. There are things that we have which natural selection could play no role. For example, natural selection could still exist and we could have lived in a very unpleasant world where there is only two or three things which we can eat, where nature is completely incomprehensible to us beyond our ability to survive, where our primate instincts rule so that every day is a day in a concentration camp, etc. No, the world is not like that. Kindly support the bolded statement. It's odd that you don't do so just after making it - especially given that you say "for example" while then meandering on about how this world might have turned out less pleasant, (presumably even for those children from Mali). What has saying the world might have turned out differently got to do with your bolded statement?P.S Still waiting for you to explain what you even mean by 'perfect' and other questions I asked on page 2.
What I meant is that natural selection could play no role in there being many enjoyable niceties that have even recently been discovered. Take, for example, the enjoyment that comes from eating at a fine restaurant and sampling many different exquisite tastes in our meal. We wouldn't be less capable of surviving if we still lived on nuts and berries. However, our experience of the world would be less meaningful given that our diet would be limited to two or three staples of food. Or, take as an example the joy that comes from being able to write and say what you believe to be true, and giving reasons for that. Surely, we could all have lived in a human society that was much more repressive, and that as long as we survived natural selection has nothing to say. North Koreans regularly live in such a society, so we know that there is no violation of natural selection. But, for many humans, we are seeing the joy that comes from having this ability, so we discover the rich world in which we live. Or, take music. We could all have easily survived had there been minimal interest in music. There's no evidence as far as I know that Neaderthal's had an interest in music, but they had the same size brains as us.
What this shows is that we live in a world where we can experience rich joys in life that aren't physically necessitated by natural laws, but in fact we have them anyway. And, it's not just that we are susceptible to exploring for those niceties, they emerge with our society in unexpected ways (e.g., with the invention of aircraft we are able to travel to distant locations so that one person can enjoy many different habitats in one lifetime).
Thus, I would argue that the world is made to be like this. It is a world of rich opportunity and discovery. We unlock it's hidden treasures because those things are actually waiting for our discovery. It's a garden of Eden, built with the tree of knowledge of good and evil where we need to guard against using our discoveries in ways that would do us harm.
|
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/13/09 at 08:10 AM | Reply with quote | #64 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1
Logic ought to be considered metaphysical since a purely material world operates according to logical algorithmic behavior that ought not to be seen as contingent.
I know that it's quite a common view, but I don't see a justification for considering logic prescriptive rather than descriptive.
Saying it "ought" to be considered that way isn't a position that can be gotten to using logic starting from what is, so I take this as a statement of faith in a presupposition.
Quote: This is perhaps the biggest fault of atheists. They get lost between the ontic and epistemic, the metaphysical and the material.
Well then, to hell with them, for being lost.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/13/09 at 08:14 AM | Reply with quote | #65 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: It says that even if the rules of reality were such as they are to bring about a highly structured universe as we see, there are just some very wonderful things about life that shine through all the dark moments that make it worthwhile to live. There are things that we have which natural selection could play no role. For example, natural selection could still exist and we could have lived in a very unpleasant world where there is only two or three things which we can eat, where nature is completely incomprehensible to us beyond our ability to survive, where our primate instincts rule so that every day is a day in a concentration camp, etc. No, the world is not like that. Kindly support the bolded statement. It's odd that you don't do so just after making it - especially given that you say "for example" while then meandering on about how this world might have turned out less pleasant, (presumably even for those children from Mali). What has saying the world might have turned out differently got to do with your bolded statement?P.S Still waiting for you to explain what you even mean by 'perfect' and other questions I asked on page 2. Sorry, Snakeystew, it's tough to respond to everything being written in reply.
What I meant is that natural selection could play no role in there being many enjoyable niceties that have even recently been discovered. Take, for example, the enjoyment that comes from eating at a fine restaurant and sampling many different exquisite tastes in our meal. We wouldn't be less capable of surviving if we still lived on nuts and berries. However, our experience of the world would be less meaningful given that our diet would be limited to two or three staples of food. Or, take as an example the joy that comes from being able to write and say what you believe to be true, and giving reasons for that. Surely, we could all have lived in a human society that was much more repressive, and that as long as we survived natural selection has nothing to say. North Koreans regularly live in such a society, so we know that there is no violation of natural selection. But, for many humans, we are seeing the joy that comes from having this ability, so we discover the rich world in which we live. Or, take music. We could all have easily survived had there been minimal interest in music. There's no evidence as far as I know that Neaderthal's had an interest in music, but they had the same size brains as us.
What this shows is that we live in a world where we can experience rich joys in life that aren't physically necessitated by natural laws, but in fact we have them anyway. And, it's not just that we are susceptible to exploring for those niceties, they emerge with our society in unexpected ways (e.g., with the invention of aircraft we are able to travel to distant locations so that one person can enjoy many different habitats in one lifetime).
Thus, I would argue that the world is made to be like this. It is a world of rich opportunity and discovery. We unlock it's hidden treasures because those things are actually waiting for our discovery. It's a garden of Eden, built with the tree of knowledge of good and evil where we need to guard against using our discoveries in ways that would do us harm.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/13/09 at 08:43 AM | Reply with quote | #66 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1
Wonderer,
You're a great guy, and an intelligent one, but I'm afraid you possess some basic, basic misunderstanding about the world.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Since you've essentially defined metaphysical necessity as necessitating pantheism, deism, or theism I'll just say a sort of necessity which we don't currently comprehend, and possibly are not capable of comprehending. I can't accept that position since you're using terms without any justification whatsoever.
I realize that you can't accept my position, but I don't consider that to be my problem. You are, without justification, defining terms so that only positions you consider acceptable can be discussed. I'm afraid I'm not interested in fitting one of the pigeonholes available in your mind.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
...then there is no necessary contradiction between being an atheist and being a pantheist. However, I get the impression that you wish to disallow such a point of view without any real argument for doing so. It's a minority position from what I can tell. You might check out philosophical encyclopedias (e.g., Routledge, Stanford) that do designate a difference between atheism and pantheism.
Harvey, the wikipedia intro that I excerpted, references this entry from the Stanford EoP. But let me excerpt directly from the SEP entry:
Quote: At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism. Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Do you agree that metaphysical necessity doesn't contradict atheism? Atheism mostly presupposes the world to be rational, and in that sense there is metaphysical necessity in their view. For example, it is metaphysically necessary that "all there is" is "all there is." It is metaphysically necessary that if there is some thing that could exist, then it is possible that that thing exist. Etc. These are examples of the kind of metaphysical necessity that atheism is compatible with.
Okay, then why do you seemingly wish to disqualify atheists from assuming metaphysical necessity?
Quote: However, atheism is not compatible with metaphysical necessity as an ordering principle...
Why?
Quote: ...or as providing the universe with intentionality...
Not a problem for atheism.
Quote: ...or as providing the universe with some kind of metaphysical requirement to have properties X instead of properties Y...
Why?
Quote: This falls outside of atheism and into the pantheistic or theistic catogory of thought.
Your pigeonholes again.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
As far as I can see, all that paper says is that things in the universe react to things in the universe. The paper doesn't say anything about the necessity of consciousness to be involved. No, it says that there is an ontological requirement that observing a system without physical interaction of that system causes change. Observation is a mental phenomena, hence the mental influences the physical. Mental intention to observe is enough to trigger changes in physical systems. Thus, it is not justified to deny the view that objective intention exists when it is written in the laws of physics themselves.
Hmmm. I may have mistakenly thought that paper was written in English, and failed to realize that it was actually written in Harvish. I suppose that if it was actually written in Harvish, then I have little choice but to accept your interpretation of it, but on the off chance that it was written in English, please post the excerpt from that paper that says what you say it does.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/13/09 at 06:38 PM | Reply with quote | #67 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gtbarronWhat people have done in the name of Christianity is not the same as Christianity.
Sorry, sir, but you can't change the rules of dialogue just to suit your religion. You supplied the phrase "Christians as a group," and I worked with it. Across history, "Christians as a group" includes mostly people other than evangelical. In today's world, if you look at Christians as a group percentage wise, evangelicals are in the minority.
Theologically, only God is in a position to judge who is a true Christian. I am of horse and buggy Mennonite stock and they are the True Christians if ever there were any. People with TV and internet access--especially evangelicals--are supposedly the children of the devil. If you want to talk to me you're better off to leave out the "True Christian" card because you fail big time.
Of course, the Mennonite God is a God of grace and does not expect more of people than they have. Since you're such a misguided and uneducated evangelical of the world with only TV and a worldly education to draw from, I will condescend to speak to you so long as you don't pretend to be a True Christian. (Just because I'm an atheist now does not mean that I have lost my feeling of loyalty to my own people.)
But you don't get to change the meaning of common English words, such as Christian, at your will and wish. People who self-identify as Christian ARE Christian. You don't get to decide whether or not they qualify because you aren't God.
As for the word insist. You know full well what the word insist means. When military power and/or physical neediness are used to impose Christianity on nonChristians, that is a strong form of insistence. As I said in my first post to you:
If you do not accept that this is Christians insisting as a group that everyone believe in their God, then you are simply being thick-skulled and I do not take responsibility for your mental state.
You demonstrate a strong case of nonacceptance.
You wrote a lot more but I don't talk to stupid people.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/13/09 at 09:32 PM | Reply with quote | #68 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Logical necessity is metaphysical, and therefore refers to a collection of metaphysical algorithms (or God such as a pantheistic god). If there are blind processes that exist, then if they are not metaphyscial algorithms, then they are not necessary but contingent processes. I am dumbfounded at the idea that you imagine that logic is metaphysical. If by metaphysical you mean the supernatural, then you're simply wrong-headed. It seems you are arguing for a position that allows you to be atheist and a god-believing Christian at the same time without admitting it. What do you mean by supernatural? Supernaturalism is often ill-defined, so we have to know what we are talking about. My general view is that supernatural refers to epistemic rather than ontic conceptions. That is, supernaturalism refers to those processes happening in nature that we have absolutely no physical explanation. It may conform to physical processes, or it may not, but it is supernatural because it appears to violate nature.
No, that is not what supernatural means in any literature or doctrine I have ever come across, Christian or atheist. I forget specifically who it was--an atheist if I'm not mistaken, but the definition agreed with what I learned from Christians of all stripes. Supernatural simply means above the natural world that all of us know about, i.e. above nature. That may not be the exact words but something to that effect. "Super" means above, better than, etc.--in this case "above/better than the natural."
Anyone who follows the work and discoveries of natural scientists knows full well that there are many things in the natural world that "appear to violate nature," or the known laws of nature. Theists like to stick God on there. That's where you get the "God of the gaps."
Anyone cognizant of the history of thought knows that this God of the gaps has kept moving from one gap to another these past several centuries.
Quote: On the other hand, metaphysical is ontic. It means that there is something that exists which is above and beyond the material realm (i.e., space, time, matter, energy).
Okay, now I looked up the word metaphysics in Answers.com and I see that you may have some grounds for what you're saying. Here is the first sentence of the article part-way down the page:
Branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution of reality — i.e., of that which is real, insofar as it is real.
God is also mentioned. I had thought any reference to metaphysics meant God or the supernatural. Logic, on the other hand, is not supernatural. Logic is simply that which makes sense, given the five senses humans possess, along with the human intellect and emotion, in the context of the universe as we experience and know it. Can't get much more down-to-earth than that and it's not supernatural in the least.
Now if you wish to make claims about the ancient Greek term Logos, you need to do more than simply use the present-day English term logic. The term Logos does not translate into any present-day English word, and it does not mean what we normally mean by logic. I understand that it refers to a supernatural understanding of "Word," as in "The Word became flesh and dwelt among humans" (John).
But you still have not provided evidence of this "something" that you claim exists "above and beyond the material realm." In keeping with the topic of this thread, why do you think that you should not provide evidence for this?
Quote: In fact, the material is dependent on this Other class of objects. Logic ought to be considered metaphysical since a purely material world operates according to logical algorithmic behavior that ought not to be seen as contingent. The mathematical world we live in, for example, would not make any sense if it were by dumb luck that math works in this world.
So you are saying the world we live in is mathematical and that this is proof that there is an "Other class of objects that is supernatural"? And that if people do not accept this hypothesis, then the only alternative is "dumb luck"? But that is ridiculous.
Things in the natural world work the way they do because of the environment in which they evolved. That we have not yet, after five centuries of study and research, figured out exactly how everything in the universe works and where it all comes from, in no way proves that there is a Creator or supernatural Mind behind it. It only proves that we humans have not yet figured out all there is to know. And am I ever glad that something remains for our late generation to learn, discover, or invent. How very dull life would be if there weren't!
Quote: It points to a metaphysical realm which is mathematical, and therefore a material realm naturally emerges in this setting.
This is perhaps the biggest fault of atheists. They get lost between the ontic and epistemic, the metaphysical and the material.
I dunno, Harvey, but this makes absolutely no sense. I don't have a mathematical mind but I most certainly can enjoy and appreciate the wonderful beauties of our planet and skies. I have limited vision but I enjoy that which I can see, hear, and smell--and most of the time that seems to be more than the average person. I don't know the definitions of your big words, nor do I know enough math to prove you wrong, but lost is one thing I am not. Lassie couldn't read a GPS, either--not to mention the thing wasn't invented yet, but she found her way home despite of this handicap (see Lassie Come Home).
Possibly my deep appreciation and respect for the beauties and power of the elements of our planet are what convinced me on the most basic level since earliest childhood that the natural world cannot be evidence of God. More than that, Christianity preaches that evidence for God must come from outside of anything with natural explanations. That's simply the way things work. I've always been convinced of this.
Like everyone else, you claim that such and such could not possibly have come to pass or exist were it not for the existence of God or Something beyond the natural. The only thing needed to prove/disprove such a statement is one experiment to prove that a natural explanation is possible. These have been provided for every single argument you present here.
So why don't you as a Christian have to provide hard evidence for your claims? All you provide is philosophical arguments, and philosophical arguments can neither heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, shelter the cold, or in any other way contribute practically to real life. For these we need science, math, etc. not to mention good old hard work.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
gtbarron
Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 43
|
| | 08/13/09 at 10:37 PM | Reply with quote | #69 |
|
Quote: I will condescend to speak to you so long as you don't pretend to be a True Christian.
You are kind and merciful.
Quote: You don't get to decide whether or not they qualify because you aren't God.
No, I'm not God. But since you seem to think you are entitled to tell me whether or not I am Christian then YOU must be God. I wish you had told me before hand.
Quote: You wrote a lot more but I don't talk to stupid people.
Good. You've been talking to me. Whew, glad I'm not stupid or anything.
Now I know why I was warned not to try to converse with you. I didn't listen. Experience is the best teacher sometimes. I've learned my lesson. |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/13/09 at 10:44 PM | Reply with quote | #70 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gtbarron
Now I know why I was warned not to try to converse with you. I didn't listen. Experience is the best teacher sometimes. I've learned my lesson.
LOL
Bill, Bill, Bill, you didn't tell him that RS stands for Rip Saw?
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/13/09 at 10:51 PM | Reply with quote | #71 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by gtbarron
Now I know why I was warned not to try to converse with you. I didn't listen. Experience is the best teacher sometimes. I've learned my lesson. LOL Bill, Bill, Bill, you didn't tell him that RS stands for Rip Saw?
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/14/09 at 08:45 AM | Reply with quote | #72 |
|
Wonderer, in response to your post #66: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
You are, without justification, defining terms so that only positions you consider acceptable can be discussed. I'm afraid I'm not interested in fitting one of the pigeonholes available in your mind.
That's not being very reasonable. We allow people to use terms as long as they define what they mean by those terms (e.g., recently I allowed a poster to use "preterphysical" instead of metaphysical as long as we understood together exactly what they meant by using that term). In your case, however, I asked you what you meant by the term necessary, and you came back with saying that you had no idea what you meant by that term. If so, then why the heck are you using that term instead of "fiddlesticks" or "bishbossum" or whatever letters you wish to use to form a word. Words, in order to have meaning, must be associated with certain well-defined concepts. If you can't provide those well-defined concepts, then the word you are using is meaningless. Theists reading this know this, and I don't see how you can be convincing to them under these circumstances.
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererHarvey, the wikipedia intro that I excerpted, references this entry from the Stanford EoP. But let me excerpt directly from the SEP entry
Yes, that's why I said a minority position that some pantheism can be considered atheistic. The article on pantheism is contradictory since it states that atheism and pantheism are not conducive (as is an article in the Routledge Encyclopedia). I had an email exchange with Micheal Levine who wrote the pantheist article about this conflict, and he said that J.J. Smart who wrote the article on atheism and agnosticism is wrong on the historical usage. Levine is an expert on historical pantheism, whereas Smart is an expert on historical atheism. So, I think rather than getting into a historical debate on which philosopher is correct, it is better that we just clarify what we mean by "pantheism" in this case. So, to clarify, I mean pantheism as defined by the pantheist article in SEP and not pantheism as referred to in the atheist and agnostic article. If you want to call pantheism in Levine's article as Pantheism-A and call pantheism in Smart's article as Pantheism-B, then that's okay by me.
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Okay, then why do you seemingly wish to disqualify atheists from assuming metaphysical necessity?
I disqualify atheists or pantheists-B who reject a prescriptive metaphysical necessity for the reasons I gave in my arguments.
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: However, atheism is not compatible with metaphysical necessity as an ordering principle... Why?
See the reasons I gave in my arguments.
Quote: Originally Posted by wonodererQuote: ...or as providing the universe with intentionality... Not a problem for atheism.
It's a problem because atheists can't accept ordering principles -- this is beyond atheism and gets into pantheism-A or possibly deism or theism.
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: ...or as providing the universe with some kind of metaphysical requirement to have properties X instead of properties Y... Why?
Because if there is a cause for the universe having certain physical properties, then that cause is metaphysical (i.e., an ordering principle) which takes us outside of atheism and into pantheism-A or deism or theism.
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: This falls outside of atheism and into the pantheistic or theistic catogory of thought. Your pigeonholes again.
If you wish to defend pantheism-A, then that's okay, but you're not defending atheism in that case.
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Hmmm. I may have mistakenly thought that paper was written in English, and failed to realize that it was actually written in Harvish. I suppose that if it was actually written in Harvish, then I have little choice but to accept your interpretation of it, but on the off chance that it was written in English, please post the excerpt from that paper that says what you say it does.
This demonstrates your close-mindedness. You see, I can accept that I have misinterpreted the article and move on by saying that there is still other evidence for intentionality in the universe, and even if there is not, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. You, on the other hand, must be utterly locked into the view that objective intentionality cannot be demonstrated by such evidence because it train wrecks your whole atheistic view of the world.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/14/09 at 08:55 AM | Reply with quote | #73 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
So why don't you as a Christian have to provide hard evidence for your claims? All you provide is philosophical arguments, and philosophical arguments can neither heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, shelter the cold, or in any other way contribute practically to real life. For these we need science, math, etc. not to mention good old hard work.
Therefore, hard evidence is not an appropriate means to review whether God exists or not. First we have to look at what conceptual framework we ought to be using, and upon doing the proper philosophical homework, then we can entertain the hard evidence as it exists within that framework. Once one accepts the framework of theism, they will naturally see God's hand everywhere.
By the way, as I stated in my private mail to you, I would appreciate if we could keep my responses (etc.) here at this website only.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/14/09 at 11:54 AM | Reply with quote | #74 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
So why don't you as a Christian have to provide hard evidence for your claims? All you provide is philosophical arguments, and philosophical arguments can neither heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, shelter the cold, or in any other way contribute practically to real life. For these we need science, math, etc. not to mention good old hard work. The problem with this view, Ruby, is that once you frame the world in your particular conceptual framework, you will either see evidence or you will see no evidence.
Once again we have the Christian dictating what the atheist believes or thinks or sees. And the Christian is simply wrong. You pretend to know that I "framed the world" in "my" "particular conceptual framework."
Well, you're wrong, whether or not you admit it.
No matter how often I tell Christians here, they refuse to believe me, and that makes all of you unbelievers and skeptics. I will tell you again: As a young child it made no sense to me that the world around me was evidence for God. From the first time I was told as a child about Jesus dying so we could get to heaven it made no sense.
Jesus said that UNLESS YE BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN YE SHALL IN NO WISE ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. These are the questions that came to me as a little child. They were never answered and I refused to let them go. Because if the questions were valid then, they are still valid. It would be so much easier to just go with the flow and accept what everyone else believes. But that is being intellectually lazy.
We all know that it is the dead fish that float on top of the flow of the stream; it takes a live fish to swim against the intellectual current. Likewise, it takes a living and active mind to ask the tough questions when most adults just "go with the flow" of mainstream Christian society.
And if you don't think that the bedrock of mainstream Western society is Christian, please explain to me:
- How come the highest holiday season of our society is based on the birth of Christ.
- And why the next highest holidays are based on his death and resurrection, and on thanking him for a bountiful year.
- And why does American money bear the words "In God we trust"?
- Also, why the strong Christian outrage when Michael Newdow won the case to remove the words "under God" from the American Pledge of Allegiance?
The over-arching mindset and culture of Western society is Christian alright. But--and this is extremely important--in order for a person to become a Christian, that person must first overcome those incredulous innocent questions of childhood: How do we know an invisible God exists? And how can we come alive again after we are dead?
So I have chosen not to "frame the world," but to retain the innocent and honest view children are born with. It is YOU who have "framed the world" with a "particular conceptual framework." And you had better come up with evidence that proves its validity or you're the laughing stock of the world for good reason. That includes all Christians. Because humans aren't born this way.
Quote: In my case, I see tons and tons of physical evidence for God. However, once your conceptual framework changes due to philosophical issues, then you will see no evidence at all.
As shown, it was your conceptual framework that changed. Now let's see your "tons and tons of physical evidence." If there is no evidence, and if all you have is philosophy, then it's just so much hot air. Prove me wrong if you can. Remember, we're both on the same planet in the same universe and we both share the same human characteristics.
You probably have very little that I don't have so far as concerns insight and knowledge. We share a common language so you should be able to explain in a way that makes sense to me even though I'm an atheist. We both know that heavy objects fall down, not up. And that hot air rises up, not down. That is how the physical material world works. You claim to have physical evidence.
Quote: Therefore, hard evidence is not an appropriate means to review whether God exists or not.
Really? How, then, do you claim to know he exists? You said you had "tons and tons of physical evidence." You also talk about changing a conceptual framework. Do you rearrange concepts to invent a sphere of existence that is nowhere but in your mind? If so, then even you must admit that it really does not exist--am I correct?
Quote: First we have to look at what conceptual framework we ought to be using,
Really? You don't want reality--you want concepts? Why would that be?
Quote: and upon doing the proper philosophical homework,
Why? Christianity is supposed to be such a simple religion that even children and uneducated slaves can understand it. Philosophy and conceptual frameworks sound like very sophisticated and educated perspectives. No child under ten or uneducated menial slave could possibly understand such things. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
Quote: then we can entertain the hard evidence as it exists within that framework.
So you say I need a doctorate in philosophy before I can possibly understand that Jesus died to save me from my sins? Wow! How did anyone before the 20th century ever become a Christian? I doubt your terms existed before 1900.
Quote: Once one accepts the framework of theism, they will naturally see God's hand everywhere.
So a person has to be a Christian before they can understand Christianity? Once again, you're just plain wrong. I took it on trust when I was seventeen and my trust was betrayed. Thus, becoming a Christian in order to understand Christianity doesn't work. Never again. Next time I'm going to read the fine print and insist on understanding all the details BEFORE I commit. So please explain. I'm listening.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/14/09 at 11:56 AM | Reply with quote | #75 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1
By the way, as I stated in my private mail to you, I would appreciate if we could keep my responses (etc.) here at this website only.
I got your pm and responded to it before coming to this thread.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
