Warr_E_Er
Newbie
Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 49
|
 |
« on: December 13, 2007, 08:10:06 AM » |
|
Several materialists on this forum have disputed the necessity of God (specifically Daedalus & Iamme). Please explain this position and why you believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I think, therefore I am loved
“Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered... If permitted to continue in the self-centered world of infancy, ... every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.”
-Minnesota Crime Commission
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2007, 08:25:21 AM » |
|
I have asked if generally all the theists on this board consider God Necessary in the Philosophical sense. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/Allow me to raise an interesting dilemma for the Theist who believes that God is Necessary and the Universe, is therfore, Contingent. If everything in the Universe and/or the universe itself is Contingent upon God, then there is no logical way that there can be Universal truths - only contigent truths based on Gods whim. From Tremblay: Posit X is a feature of human understanding. 1. X is necessary or has a necessary part. 2. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains. 3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary. 4. If theism is true, then no X can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3) 5. Theism is false. (from 1 and 4) That is, X, could be scientific principles, physical laws, morality, logic, etc. Anything humans understand. This means that they are not Necessary, but Contingent and therefore it is impossible for them to be Absolute, or even principles since they all are contingent on Gods whim. So, I claim that logic is a Necessary part of the Universe, it is an aspect that, if logical laws didn't reign, then the universe wouldn't exist (certainly as we know it). The theist will have to explain that if logic is contingent, then how can he use logic? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 09:33:44 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2007, 09:39:41 AM » |
|
Several materialists on this forum have disputed the necessity of God (specifically Daedalus & Iamme). Please explain this position and why you believe it.
Hi Warr_E_Er, glad to see you back - good luck for the results! I think think your lead in may be a litle brusque. I would guess that barney and IamMe both simply asserted a lack of belief in god's necessity - a lack of belief in god is enough to make this reflexively true. And barney has set out a set of questions, starting with 'why do you think god is necessary?', that he has derived from RFs series of posts on logic.... perhaps if you could at least answer those before demanding a la RF a full and detailed argument about something that materialists consider trivial. (Later) Actually, barney seems to have found a nice article in the Stanford . Given that it is pretty even-handed, and comes to an open verdict, is that enough for you? BTW the suggestion of haecceity being the definition or rather the essence or (thereby) the necessary property of an entity is at the heart of philosofear's new theory of truths... but he is a dualist.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2007, 09:49:04 AM » |
|
Cal, I know you enjoy the little logical constructs as I posted above. I am not claiming it as a truth, but as a fun mental exersize. Maybe we can use this as a learning opportunity to show how these constructs are to be thought about, not used as proofs? I know I could use the help in debating specific aspects of premises, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2007, 01:56:42 PM » |
|
I have asked if generally all the theists on this board consider God Necessary in the Philosophical sense. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/Allow me to raise an interesting dilemma for the Theist who believes that God is Necessary and the Universe, is therfore, Contingent. If everything in the Universe and/or the universe itself is Contingent upon God, then there is no logical way that there can be Universal truths - only contigent truths based on Gods whim. Indeed all truths would be subject to God, just as the universe is subject to God, therefore universal truths would in fact be subject to God. I see no issue with this. From Tremblay:
Posit X is a feature of human understanding.
1. X is necessary or has a necessary part.
2. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If theism is true, then no X can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3)
5. Theism is false. (from 1 and 4)
That is, X, could be scientific principles, physical laws, morality, logic, etc. Anything humans understand.
This means that they are not Necessary, but Contingent and therefore it is impossible for them to be Absolute, or even principles since they all are contingent on Gods whim. It is still possible that some or all could be absolute. If God is true therefore everything is contingent on God but if God is absolute then things that are contingent on God can also be absolute. If God exists and is absolutely truthful and absolutely logical then those characteristic could carry forward. In Tremblay's posit, the error is that postulate 1 is not a given. It is not a given that any feature of human understanding is necessary in any way with or without God. It is possible that a feature of human understanding is correct, but it is not necessarily so. So, I claim that logic is a Necessary part of the Universe, it is an aspect that, if logical laws didn't reign, then the universe wouldn't exist (certainly as we know it).
The theist will have to explain that if logic is contingent, then how can he use logic?
It may be that logic is a consistent and therefore apparenly universal, but it is not necessarily the case and even it it is universal it can still be contingent on God but also unchanging. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2007, 03:21:59 PM » |
|
In Tremblay's posit, the error is that postulate 1 is not a given. It is not a given that any feature of human understanding is necessary in any way with or without God. It is possible that a feature of human understanding is correct, but it is not necessarily so. You really shold read barneys ref to the Stanford encyclopedia. In the spirit of enquiry rather than dogmatism, the writers they get are sympathetic, not confrontational, to their topics - and are generally considered among the experts in the field. Now, if we posit human understanding as something non-physical i.e. existanty in its own right as dualists must, then ther eis the problem of how it can be 'free-standing'. This is achieved by assigning it a property of essentiality or this-ness - a sort of of label for the substancethat it represents independent of any other properties. It is this idea of haecceity (this-ness) that is is problematic. For A human's understanding - yours for example - to exist it has to have something about it that marks it as yours and as the faculty of undestanding... you would probably choose some notion of 'soul' (though, of course, would not agree to define or discuss it). It bis this precise quality that would give the 'soul' its substance - and yet you say it is not necessary. So, your soul would not exist. Aha, say you, but my soul is contingent upon gods doing/being something. But if god is necessary, the 'contingent' relation is not contingent in any fashion we use or understand. Things that are entailed by necessary things are themselves necessary. So either your 'soul' is necessary or god isn't - we are back to Tremblays argument. You can't duck out the way you are trying to. So, I claim that logic is a Necessary part of the Universe, it is an aspect that, if logical laws didn't reign, then the universe wouldn't exist (certainly as we know it).
The theist will have to explain that if logic is contingent, then how can he use logic?
It may be that logic is a consistent and therefore apparenly universal, but it is not necessarily the case and even if it is universal it can still be contingent on God but also unchanging. No, read the article which explains it in terms even you could understand. The relationship between co-universals is problematic. You cannot use either the simplistic or the Leibnitzian arguments. The best you can do is accept a common univesality - which means that logic can exist without god. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2007, 03:46:31 PM » |
|
Rf:
1. So you agree that Morality, Logic, etc are subject to God's Will. That they are Subjective.
2. So, how can you know if your statement "God is logical" is a logical statement, if God can make logic anything he wants?
3. By claiming that God is Absolutely logical, is to say god is unable to make illogical statements? Isn't he more powreful than us? I find it this shocking.
4. Certainly, even if God was perfect/absolute there is no reason that his creation must likewise conform. That is, he MAy have absolute morality, but that it is absent in his creation. Can you show otherwise?
5. Are you claiming that God created logic, or that logic is a part of Gods nature?
Matin:
1. "Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true.”
2. “However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.”
3. “But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary—it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them… So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.”
RF will assert that his god is unwavering but this is irrelevent. It is just an assertion. He claims this, but God may change the laws of logic so that A doesn't equal A and while he may believe this, it is because god makes him believe it.
So, in his world view he can't account for logic, morality or physical laws except to appeal to a higher god: RF's assertion that his god is Absolute - and even this is at the mercy of his postulated god's whim.
That is, all RF knows is by the whim of his God. All laws, all inference, all logic and all morality could change tomorrow and we'd be none the wiser. It may be a slim chance, but because his world includes it, Logic, morality, etc. become untenable.
Materialism, however, asserts that the laws of logic are axiomatic - they are part of the universe and absolute in any measure that humans would ever need to interact with them.
Logic is something to be trusted in Materialism, however, in RF's view they are not - only insofar as you trust his Cartoonist in the sky.
(To assert that god is unchanging is the same result of what materialism asserts except materialism doesn't have the opening that a Will (God's whim) can change the laws of logic at any point.)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 07:15:51 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2007, 06:47:27 AM » |
|
In Tremblay's posit, the error is that postulate 1 is not a given. It is not a given that any feature of human understanding is necessary in any way with or without God. It is possible that a feature of human understanding is correct, but it is not necessarily so. You really shold read barneys ref to the Stanford encyclopedia. In the spirit of enquiry rather than dogmatism, the writers they get are sympathetic, not confrontational, to their topics - and are generally considered among the experts in the field. I am not having a discussion with them. Now, if we posit human understanding as something non-physical i.e. existanty in its own right as dualists must, then ther eis the problem of how it can be 'free-standing'. This is achieved by assigning it a property of essentiality or this-ness - a sort of of label for the substancethat it represents independent of any other properties. It is this idea of haecceity (this-ness) that is is problematic. For A human's understanding - yours for example - to exist it has to have something about it that marks it as yours and as the faculty of undestanding... you would probably choose some notion of 'soul' (though, of course, would not agree to define or discuss it). It bis this precise quality that would give the 'soul' its substance - and yet you say it is not necessary. So, your soul would not exist. Aha, say you, but my soul is contingent upon gods doing/being something. But if god is necessary, the 'contingent' relation is not contingent in any fashion we use or understand. Things that are entailed by necessary things are themselves necessary. So either your 'soul' is necessary or god isn't - we are back to Tremblays argument. You can't duck out the way you are trying to. If as you say that apearently contingent things that depend on necessary things are necessary, then in Tremblays argument in number 3 the universe is also necessary and indeed all is necessary. Either way Tremblay's argument is problematic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2007, 07:12:36 AM » |
|
It certainly IS problematic - for you and Theists in general. You almost got out of the problem but you didn't pursue it. You said that "you had no problem with logic and morality being contingent on god" (I'm paraphrasing), since you presuppose god is perfect and would act AS IF logic and morality were Necessary and Absolute. I addressed this - which you didn't respond to. In fact, all the numbered points directly address #3. Remember, at any time you can cry uncle and say, "It's Faith" or "The Bible says..."edit: In the interest of philosophical dialogue, I will pick up where RF can't. Here is a response to TANG (The Martin argument: Trancendental argument for the Non-Existence of God). Now, If one wishes to believe these rebuttals, fine, but let's admit, they are weak (he even admits that TAG presupposes a Xian God!) A Brief Response to Michael Martin's Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God
By John M. Frame
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Frame is professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, Escondido California. His published books include The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Apologetics to the Glory of God, and Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of His Thought. The following is his brief reply to Michael Martin's caricature of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God which he has labeled his Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God. Frame's comments were contained in a letter to the maintainer of this site.
Other Replies to Martin's article are in the works at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, as well as by the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.
In the comments which follow, Frame follows Martin's convention of labeling the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God "TAG", and labeling his Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God as "TANG."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Barlow,
Thanks for sending me the Martin piece. Here's my response, in brief:
1. Logic is neither above God nor arbitrarily decreed by God. Its ultimate basis is in God's eternal nature. God is a rational God and necessarily so. Therefore logic is necessary. Human logical systems don't always reflect God's logic perfectly. But insofar as they do, they are necessarily true.
2. (a) Science does not presuppose any absolute uniformity of nature; indeed modern science allows for areas of randomness in the universe. (b) Miracles are not necessarily violations or exceptions to natural law; sometimes they even have natural explanations (e.g. Ex. 14:21, the "strong east wind"). (c) There is no scientific consensus that scientific explanations must never presuppose God. This supposition is entirely groundless. Of course, divine providence is not in itself a scientific explanation. But there is no scientific rule to the effect that proper scientific explanations may not in turn presuppose divine providence.
3. (a) The question of morality is like that of logic. Morality is first based in God's nature, not on his arbitrary fiat, nor on some principle independent of Him. God could not will that cruelty is good, for cruelty is not good; it is incompatible with God's own nature. (b) To say that there "is no rational way" to deal with the differences between Bible, Koran, etc., is an arbitrary assumption. This is an assumption which most all Christians and Muslims reject. The Bible, at any rate, teaches that there is sufficient evidence for the Christian revelation. So at this point Martin is rejecting the Christian revelation without argument, by a bare assumption.
I do agree that a full defense of TAG would require a more complete apologetic. That's why in my two apologetics books I warn against using TAG as a "magic bullet." TAG presupposes a whole system of definitions and sub-arguments. But it is good in that it describes the fundamental direction of any legitimate apologetic, namely to show that any meaningful thought presupposes the Christian God.
I addessed #! which realtes to #3 of the Tremblay argument. So, until that is addressed, we need not consider it. #2 (a)We are getting away from the original argument, but lets address it. Randomness is not a violation of uniformity. When something acts in a manner in which we don't know the reason, we call it random. And while truly random things/events may exist, they don't violate the concept of Uniformity of Nature. (b)Miracles: I believe he has simply redefined a miracle into any event that someone wants to call a miracle. Not a powerful argument at all. (c)An Argument from Ignorance. The weakest argument. #3. Here is, frankly, a clusterfuck of thinking. (a)Morality, like logic, would be contingent on gods will. To assert that God's will is constant is irrelevent. God has no obligation to listen to a believer and act as the believer thinks he should act. To claim this is to act as an authority of God, even over God. It is not an explanation of God's character but an assertion that relies on the believer to reject a premise he can't reject: namely, how does he know that God isn't telling him this and it is a lie, but makes the beleiver believe it? "Because God wouldn't do that" How do you know? (b) is not part of this discussion |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 09:21:32 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2007, 09:08:26 AM » |
|
RF will assert that his god is unwavering but this is irrelevent. It is just an assertion.
snip . . .
So, in his world view he can't account for logic, morality or physical laws except to appeal to a higher god: Above we have barney complaining about and implying asertions are invalid. But notice below he says: Materialism, however, asserts that the laws of logic are axiomatic Now suddenly asertions are fine. You can't have it both ways barney. If you can demonstrate that your materialistic assertion is more sound, then perhaps you would be onto something. In the other threads you have been unable to show how logic is the absolute you claim it is. In the materialistic world we have some material constrained by natural low and bound to conform to the priciples of logic, while other material is able to make faulty use of logic unconstrained by the same laws. This is inconsistent with the materialistic assertions. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 07:38:32 PM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2007, 09:39:29 AM » |
|
RF, we have gone over that. You seem to be returning ad nauseum to a point that you can't seem to let go - that you are using the term "logic" in two different ways.
Stop it.
As for assertions: Make all the assertions you want, and I will. Assertions aren't good or bad, but the value of them relies on the argument that precedes, or follows it.
When I have accused you of simply making assertions, I mean that you have simply stated a belief without proper justification. I have built my case that I am asserting that logic appears to be axiomatic.
You are welcome to counter my assertion, as I have yours.
If we follow through, I'm sure we will both be more clear and concise with our language. We have the benefit of Callum being here to help make our use of terms more powerful and philosophically sound. I have no doubt that you will become better at your apologetics if you engage in the debates. It scares me that you will misinterpret and use them to preach to your bretheren and make them more annoying (see the Skeptical Christian blog if you want to see horible reasoning, but great Xian apologetics).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 09:43:31 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Warr_E_Er
Newbie
Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 49
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2007, 10:09:46 AM » |
|
So.....
Im taking the thread back.
I began this thread to address the following issue:
It seems as if a common materialist argument against the existence of God is that he is not necessary (thanks for the link btw D). This puzzles me. How can God's necessity (or lack thereof) be established if the existence or non existence of God has not been established? Why is Occam's razor applied in this particular case? How can it be?
Am I misinterpreting the athiest position?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 10:11:28 AM by Warr_E_Er »
|
Logged
|
I think, therefore I am loved
“Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered... If permitted to continue in the self-centered world of infancy, ... every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.”
-Minnesota Crime Commission
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2007, 11:17:00 AM » |
|
So.....
Im taking the thread back.
I began this thread to address the following issue:
It seems as if a common materialist argument against the existence of God is that he is not necessary (thanks for the link btw D). This puzzles me. How can God's necessity (or lack thereof) be established if the existence or non existence of God has not been established? Why is Occam's razor applied in this particular case? How can it be?
Am I misinterpreting the athiest position?
Well, since we all don't know, what we are doing is proposing arguments. We are each trying to create logical arguments for a position and then test them. The idea is that an atheist is some one who may have not even considered the Necessity of God, they may simply lack a belief in God. It is the Theist that is proposing an idea that they need to defend. And so, if They postulate a god, they say God is Necessary (not Contignet), this makes all things in the universe, and the universe itself Contingent, which means there is nothing absolute, as far as human understanding goes, and therefore Logic is unavailable to us since it is possible that God could be making us believe our logic is sound, but not that our logic is sound. Atheists don't believe in a god, therefore they don't consider god necessary. Theists posit that god is necessary so they avoid the "what made god?" question. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2007, 11:34:32 AM » |
|
I am not having a discussion with them. ... and apparently you are proud not have your thoughts sullied by those of others.... If as you say that apearently contingent things that depend on necessary things are necessary, then in Tremblays argument in number 3 the universe is also necessary and indeed all is necessary. Either way Tremblay's argument is problematic. I don't think there is any point continuing right now. My comment was made in the light of a careful discussion of god's necessity, and associated metaphysical problems. You choose not to read it (using your 'free will'!). Lacking a common context, and agreement of on terms, we will simply talk past each other, as in the 'logic' thread. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2007, 01:06:27 PM » |
|
Several materialists on this forum have disputed the necessity of God (specifically Daedalus & Iamme). Please explain this position and why you believe it.
(Wow this thread is long already. I'm just gonna wade right in without reading it all) The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate god's necessity. I have never seen this demonstrated. Further, there are lots of competing ideas of how the universe came to be. Also, I'm not a materialist per se. I just see no evidence on which to believe in anything non-material. I do not deny the possibility of it's existence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
