Opinions

[Woodruff]

Oh, and Woodruff et. al.
I know you're taking the piss, but c'mon, this guy has very little in common with Scotty.

I'm afraid I disagree. I mean, sure...there are differences. puppydog is like a weird
sort of Phatscotty-Lionz coalition. But there's a lot of Phatscotty in there, particularly
the "ignoring responses" part.

[crispybits]

As a final point (and this probably won't be answered either), you said that you wanted to know why your proprosal that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way should be any less valid than any other proposal.

You do realise that regardless of whether you agree or not, you are invoking reason. X should be Y because Z.

If you wanted a debate without reason then you wouldn't even formulate that question, as that question relies on reasoning to make any more sense than me saying "dbwi cbi wwduiyg qswhuiqs qwiod dnqio moe qns" does.

Instead you'd just do something like:

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."

Oops, did I just pull out scripture which says we are to reason together? My bad

Isaiah 28:9
“To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast?"

Daniel 1:17
"As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams."

Proverbs 18:15
"An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."

Proverbs 12:1
"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid."

Psalm 119:66
"Teach me good judgment and knowledge, for I believe in your commandments."

Proverbs 4:7
"The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight."

Wow - God seems pretty clear on this point doesn't he?

[puppydog85]

Crispy,

I obviously want to reason, but you are insisting that an ultimate authority is illogical.

[jonesthecurl]

he's asking you to show that it isn't.
Further, to show that your own, personal, understanding of the divine is as valid as logic which does not rely on a personal revelation from god.

[crispybits]

No, I am asking you to show me why, logically speaking, "something created everything" must lead to "God created everything".

I'm not denying that this is true, I'm simply asking you to show me why it is true using valid logical reasoning. Because if you want to use it in a logical debate that's your first step.

[crispybits]

Scripture justifies reason, therefore if you want to claim scripture as your ultimate authority then you have to accept that reason is valid.

Reason does not (as far as I have every seen) justify scripture, therefore if I want to claim reason as an ultimate authority (and I still don't accept that I do, but I'll suspend that for the purposes of this argument) then I do not have to accept that scripture is valid unless scripture can be shown to be valid by good reasoning.

I don't have to play basketball, but by reference to your own authority you do have to play football.

[BigBallinStalin]

I got too excited, so pardon me, but:

Crispy,

I obviously want to reason, but you are insisting that an ultimate authority is illogical.

From what I understood,
Crispybits isn't insisting that an ultimate authority is illogical. He's implying that your appeal to authority to your particular Christian God (and not an ultimate authority/deistic thing) will remain a fallacy until you fulfill the following requirements:

When you bring in a "God says this is true" element to a logical argument, then you have to be able to demonstrate beyond logical doubt that he does indeed say that. Ignoring the question of his existence in the first place, which we know is something that cannot be logically proved or disproved because it's been attempted in both directions over thousands of years by better minds than either of us, you then have the logical doubt over who he said it to, when he said it, evidence that he did say it, evidence that the person who he said it to is being totally honest about what exactly God did say, that God is always truthful, etc etc.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176322&start=30#p3851148

OK quick reply (not so quick in the end, but we're not talking about simple concepts here). I do not set up science as anything. I set up objective self-evident truth (I have 3 oranges) as the thing which is not an authority, because that would invite the logical fallacy, but as the thing by which assumptions and derivations in a logical argument must adhere to. If any part of a logical assumption or proposal is not based on objective self-evident truth, then a logical argument cannot be based on that assumption or proposal, and that assumption or proposal cannot be used in logical debates about other things. It's not necessarily wrong, but it is outside of the scope of a logical discussion.

(insert "strawberry ice cream is the nicest flavor" argument)
(compared that with an improved "strawberry ice cream is the nicest [due to the established] objective and self-evident truth/[facts]")

And therein lies the problem with "because God says so" in a logical debate. You have to backtrack and prove that he can theoretically exist (not so much of a problem), that he must exist in the character that your scripture describes him (getting more difficult), and that his messages have not been corrupted over the last 2-4000 years by any fallible human agent and the bible is the true word of god (good luck!)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176322&start=30#p3851556



[u]Tangent:
I haven't seen anyone fulfill these requirements on behalf of the Christian God; therefore, I have rejected their claims. The only stumbling block is that concept of the deistic god/unknown thing, which (probably?) doesn't intervene in the universe. But at that point, it seems reasonable enough for me to abide by atheism, or whatever that atheism is called which allows for the possibility of the existence of that deistic unknown thing, a.k.a "The Big Electron" -George Carlin.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis, thanks for responding.

No, you are not repeating anything really. Crispy is saying that he is some form of dualist/pantheist (which is a novelty to say the least).

huh, that should be interesting.

You, I think, are a material atheist.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. Perhaps "physicalist" is the better term if you're planning on getting modern physics involved in the discussion.

I phrased it poorly regarding logic. We know they work. But if I say that they work because they are constructs of my mind then I think you will disagree with me. I say they work as an expression of the character of God. You say they work because ...? (they are an inherent part of the big bang? they just are? they are a reflection of an ideal (a la plato)?). Do you get what I am asking here? You said they work because they are designed that way, I don't think you mean that literally, are you saying that there is some form of Creator? Or are you saying that we are the creator?

I'm saying we are the creator. They are just tools we have perfected over the time to help us reason. They exploit patterns in the way our universe works. In a different universe we might well have different mathematics.

I don't believe in the platonic forms theory, no. I guess they are only inherent in the big bang in the sense that some degree of order and predictability may be inherent in the big bang. Actually, and this is moving rather far into baseless theorizing, if I had to guess I'd say that perhaps there have been quite a few big bangs and only the ones that produce order can sustain life. So perhaps it's not luck, but rather a necessary precondition to life that we can create systems such as mathematics.

I am proposing that logic and science are ironclad laws existing apart from human constructs. I can say that because in my view I have a supreme being holding them up. I have other proof that I would argue about God but I am at slight disadvantage not knowing what you think about logic (and other things). Hold off on lambasting me at length with regard to that point and I will explain it in fuller detail after I get your response.

I will withhold this hypothetical "lambasting", but I have to ask one thing. :p

In this framework, what do you make of things like Godel's incompleteness theorem or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Don't these sort of clash with this grandiose view of science/logic ?

[puppydog85]

Crispy,

Good point, if I understand you, you are saying that the Bible says to reason. Therefore, if I want to live up to my own authority I need to reason.

Note though what the Bible says is the beginning of reason in Proverbs 9:10 "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
(Proverbs 9:10 ESV)
This supports what I am saying, knowledge begins with an ultimate authority, and one moves from that to logic/science/ect.
So there is my football playing. Now to continue the analogy. You don't get to force basketball rules on me and insist that I need to use your rules. You want to use some standard over me (whether is be reason or experience or whatever). All I am asking is why I have to accept your standard when it cannot even make sense of itself, I would in fact state that even when you attempt lower levels of reasoning you use mine to get your results.(That is why I thought discussing you philosophy is relevant to the thread.)

[puppydog85]

BBS,

And therein lies the problem with "because God says so" in a logical debate. You have to backtrack and prove that he can theoretically exist (not so much of a problem), that he must exist in the character that your scripture describes him (getting more difficult), and that his messages have not been corrupted over the last 2-4000 years by any fallible human agent and the bible is the true word of god (good luck!)

In your scenario you are correct. That would be impossible for humans.
However, if what I say is true and there is a God, then it would be very easy for Him to guide the process and have a perfect transmission of His messages.

I am a little smashed for time here so I am not answering anything else you might have said (that one just jumped out at me)

[puppydog85]

In this framework, what do you make of things like Godel's incompleteness theorem or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Don't these sort of clash with this grandiose view of science/logic ?

Again, a quick reply here. Physics is not my specialty.

I did not mean to say that I believe in determinism. I fully support free-will, ect. Perhaps I should have said that the laws of science/logic are ironclad. In other words the Heisenberg principle will work every time. You will not all of a sudden start having things behave in non-random patterns.

Did I answer or is my total lack of physics showing through? If it is you don't have to give a massive answer I have a friend at church who is a physics major and I will ask him to clear up any points you think I might have misunderstood. (talking always go much easier than typing)

[crispybits]

You're mushing up the analogy a bit in that first post

But to address the point you're making, you cannot cite scripture and force it's values upon me, because my authority (and for the record I still don't recognise it as that but for the sake of clarity of argument I'll use the word) doesn't recognise scripture, nor does it need it to be what it is. The only reason I can force reason onto you is that your scripture states that it's part of things and should be used. So yes, I can force you to play football, without being forced to play basketball myself.

As for not being able to make sense of it, I thought we already had a "sense of it". Logic is not something that relies on my personal metaphysics for definition, it has a perfectly valid definition all of it's own already. A definition that has been largely consistent for a very long time. It's almost like you're saying that because we may have different definitions about the origin of things, that must change the nature of things. A spoon is a spoon, whether it was made by a craftsman in a workshop or by a machine in a factory or by some sort of natural erosion process or by God himself. The "spoon-ness" of the spoon doesn't change. (and in before anyone else - there is no spoon....)

On your second point, yes if God exists it would be very easy for him to have a perfect transmission of his message, but to do so across so many human revisions across so many centuries he'd have to deny us the free will he has granted us, which is part of his message, and therefore the message becomes imperfect. Or we have no free will to start with and so the message is imperfect.

[jonesthecurl]

Puppy:
If your stance is simply "God says I'm right. Who says you are?",
(and I'm having difficulty finding anything else in your basic premise),
then it is impossible to debate - or engage meaningfully at all - with you.
Because whatever anyone says, God says your opinion (sorry, His opinion as you understand it) trumps theirs.

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, and my invisible friend says that your invisible friend is wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS,

And therein lies the problem with "because God says so" in a logical debate. You have to backtrack and prove that he can theoretically exist (not so much of a problem), that he must exist in the character that your scripture describes him (getting more difficult), and that his messages have not been corrupted over the last 2-4000 years by any fallible human agent and the bible is the true word of god (good luck!)

In your scenario you are correct. That would be impossible for humans.

Therefore, the believers can only logically (?) rely on the deistic Whatever concept, but could not rely on particular concepts of theistic gods.

However, if what I say is true and there is a God, then it would be very easy for Him to guide the process and have a perfect transmission of His messages.

I am a little smashed for time here so I am not answering anything else you might have said (that one just jumped out at me)

Well, there could be a "God," but it could only be that Deistic Whatever--assuming that we wanted to run with the "there must be a 'God' belief" while remaining in the logical arena (or football arena? I forget).


The underlined is possible, but you have to do the work as outlined in the quoted excerpt by crispybits. If you can't, then you have to fall back on the Deistic Whatever, a.k.a. The Big Electron

[puppydog85]

Jonas, I have once or twice alluded to what I hold to be the proof (the transcendental argument) for my "invisible" friend, but that discussion never goes anywhere because everyone else want to insist that their "invisible friend" can be used as an authority claim but mine cannot (ie. logic, reason). I will note that the last couple of posts are actually going somewhere in that they are attempting to conduct an internal critique of my position. I would love to conduct a similar critique of anyone elses but mostly my views are under the microscope here.

[puppydog85]

Crispy,
We were just going there with regard to logic (at least that is where I was going with the whole dualism thing). I would most certainly have loved to continue our discussion as you how you think logic can just exist. I have a reason why I think logic can exist, and I have not really found out why you think it can. The statement "largely consistent for a very long time" is very interesting. Are you saying that logic was not always consistent? Or are you saying that we labeled certain things logic that were not?

I am saying that my explanation is the only one that makes internal sense and externally matches what we see and that yours does not, hence any appeal to it on your part is
presupposing my worldview.

I will leave the whole free-will thing alone. That plus you don't have quite the most accurate definition of the infallibility of Scripture.

[puppydog85]

Stalin,

You are welcome to propose whatever deistic being you want, but what I am saying is that mine is the only one that is internally and externally coherent. I am quite willing to argue against any other idea of god but for now (being as I said, smashed for time) I will leave your big electron alone.

I don't think what I will continue to propose can be held as any other "being" than the one I hold to.

[GreecePwns]

Is your argument that the use empirical evidence is an appeal to authority?

[puppydog85]

Yes, and in the vast majority of times people submit to it and quite properly don't challenge it. What I object to is claiming its ultimate authority over non-empirical matters.

[GreecePwns]

From what I understand appeal to authority is the following:

Person/Organization XYZ says Fact ABC is true.
Person/Organization XYZ is a well-known expert in the field.
Therefore, Fact ABC is true.

I don't know how you can possibly alter this to make XYZ a certain observable fact. Discovered truths are truths in an of themsevles. No one says the atom has a nucleus because Bohr says so, they say it because we've seen it time and time again.

[puppydog85]

Your authority in your last phase is "we've" and you are putting forward "seen" as the basis, thus asking us to trust you with regard to what you have seen.


I will leave the truth is contained within the item itself statement be for now, as it sound a little Aristotelian to me.

[jonesthecurl]

I don't think I believe in your existence, puppy, so there seems little point in arguing.
Tell you what, rather than acting as a spokesman, why don't you invite your objective God to type for him/her self?

[puppydog85]

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum, jones?

I doubt even God in person would convince you jones.

*Edited just for Jones

[jonesthecurl]

Sum, ergo cogito.
At least he could probably spell my name right.