tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post3860660082219481444..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: How useful is faith for obtaining knowledge?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14808084034076411362011-01-12T15:11:35.207-06:002011-01-12T15:11:35.207-06:00I am not disagreeing with you that the universe be...<b>I am not disagreeing with you that the universe behaves in logical ways. I am just asking why it does</b><br /><br />This sparked a thought, so let me just touch on this a bit.<br /><br />Short answer: <br />Because things are what they are, no matter what they are.<br /><br />Long answer: <br />It seems like you think there's some magical quality to the universe that makes it act in accordance with logic. That's completely backwards. That's what I tried to explain a few comments up.<br /><br />If the universe didn't behave the way it does, it would behave in some other fashion. And if human existed in that universe, they'd try to figure out what the rules of it were, no matter what they were. Logic conforms to the universe, not the other way around.<br /><br />There must be some sort of rules for the universe, since for something to truly follow no rules, it would have to break the most fundamental rules of logic: A=A and A!=not-A<br /><br />Try to imagine what it would mean for something to break those rules. It would mean that it is what it isn't. <br />Think on what that really means. It's not just that things <i>appear</i> different than they are, it's that they truly <b>are not what they are</b>.<br /><br />If we reject that scenario, then some rules will apply to the universe and given the specific nature of each object (a nature which is now fixed, whatever it is), further rules would follow. Rules that sentient beings could discover and put into words.<br /><br />Thus, logicLukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34318329845619779372011-01-12T10:29:35.281-06:002011-01-12T10:29:35.281-06:00@J. K. Jones
you said,
... why does it not change...@J. K. Jones<br />you said,<br /><br /><i>... why does it not change in a universe where everything else is changing?</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>The universe is consistent.</i><br /><br />Which is it?MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73571862048912564212011-01-10T13:35:08.385-06:002011-01-10T13:35:08.385-06:00Consistency is a hallmark of design
"God is ...Consistency is a hallmark of design<br /><br />"God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and <i>unchangeable in his being</i>...", i.e. God is consistent.<br /><br />God was designed.<br /><br /><br />Also, are you claiming that consistency (without qualifications, apparently) can <i>only</i> come from design? If yes, you need to back that up. If not, your argument fails.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48487112692256715972011-01-10T12:49:17.679-06:002011-01-10T12:49:17.679-06:00Oh yeah, and what happened to faith?Oh yeah, and what happened to faith?Justin B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06430484429517190406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72701010918284609932011-01-10T12:48:40.887-06:002011-01-10T12:48:40.887-06:00"Consistency is a hallmark of design."
..."Consistency is a hallmark of design."<br /><br />I don't really know what this means, how it's relevant, and whether or not it's true. I could just as easily say failure is a hallmark of design. What does that mean? I don't know.<br /><br />Failure is a hallmark of design.<br /><br />The universe has not failed.<br /><br />The universe was not designed.<br /><br />No design, no designer.Justin B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06430484429517190406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84821776013362314332011-01-10T12:43:38.157-06:002011-01-10T12:43:38.157-06:00Since we don't have a complete understanding o...Since we don't have a complete understanding of the universe, I think it makes sense to say that logic, an interpretation of our observations about the universe, has to evolve. Everything else humans have created does.Justin B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06430484429517190406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90862682635263008562011-01-10T12:40:07.146-06:002011-01-10T12:40:07.146-06:00Consistency is a hallmark of design.
The universe...Consistency is a hallmark of design.<br /><br />The universe is consistent.<br /><br />The universe was designed.<br /><br />Design requires a designer.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5886728052118550892011-01-10T12:24:51.519-06:002011-01-10T12:24:51.519-06:00Hmm, technically that should be "not a valid ...Hmm, technically that should be "not a valid argument", actually.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4568541346049994372011-01-10T12:21:24.208-06:002011-01-10T12:21:24.208-06:00What Justin said. Also, I don't agree that &qu...What Justin said. Also, I don't agree that "everything" is changing. Most things have stayed pretty stable at least in the time period relevant for this point.<br /><br />Now, again, are you going to be answering my questions? I'll post them again:<br /><br /><b>My point is that we have to assume logic works... Since logic undeniably works...</b><br /><br />You seem to be contradicting yourself here, first saying that we must <i>assume</i> that logic works, then that it <i>undeniably</i> works. <br />Please clarify.<br /><br /><b>Since logic undeniably works to help us evaluate the data we perceive, then God must exist.</b><br /><br />Allow me to rewrite that a bit. You seem to be making an argument along these lines:<br />1. Logic undeniably works<br />2. Therefore God must exist<br /><br />2 doesn't follow from 1, at least not without additional premises, so please expand on this. As it stands, this is not a sound argument.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84769645133766993522011-01-10T12:20:02.359-06:002011-01-10T12:20:02.359-06:00Justin B. and Lukas,
How have the laws of logic e...Justin B. and Lukas,<br /><br />How have the laws of logic evolved? Have the fundamental rules such as the law of non-contradiction changed? The law of excluded middle? Have these laws changed or just their interpretation in select cases?<br /><br />Lukas,<br /><br />I am not disagreeing with you that the universe behaves in logical ways. I am just asking why it does. Consistency is a hallmark of design, and design needs a designer.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82141973000703026382011-01-10T09:04:08.592-06:002011-01-10T09:04:08.592-06:00Who says logic doesn't change? A quick search ...Who says logic doesn't change? A quick search turns up a couple of books on the evolution of logic. Why would anyone think that the logic we use today is identical to the logic of 100 or 1000 years ago?Justin B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06430484429517190406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85503510445853051082011-01-10T08:56:07.876-06:002011-01-10T08:56:07.876-06:00Lukas,
If logic is a human construct, why does it...Lukas,<br /><br />If logic is a human construct, why does it not change in a universe where everything else is changing?J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76344294376652464522011-01-09T11:24:48.735-06:002011-01-09T11:24:48.735-06:00Short answer: Because if it didn't we would ha...Short answer: Because if it didn't we would have changed it.<br /><br />Long answer: Logic is a human construct. It's an intellectual system that we've invented to help us make sense of the world. <br />The world works a certain way. Human notice that the world works this way. Humans try to formally describe how the world works. Thus we get logic, science, mathematics and so on.<br /><br />Logic is simply a description of the world. We've noticed that certain things are true and that certain things are not. If the world worked a different way, any way, we would have come up with rules to describe that instead.<br /><br />We've noticed that some kinds of arguments give us correct answers. We call these arguments "sound logic". We've noticed that other kinds of arguments do not reliably give us the right answer. We've called these types of arguments "fallacies".<br /><br />I see no reason to conclude any kind of god from this, since this process remains true, <i>in any conceivable world</i>. Any world that contains sentient beings will have those beings invent a "logic" to describe how that world works.<br /><br />Now that I've answered your question, are you going to answer mine?Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79809168421885607282011-01-08T19:33:38.177-06:002011-01-08T19:33:38.177-06:00Okay, Lucas, why does logic work?
John K., you ne...Okay, Lucas, why does logic work?<br /><br />John K., you need logic to develop the theory and then to interpret the experiment. <br /><br />Jeremiah, I have no problem seeking out the answers to the specific causes of the things we see in the universe. My God made the universe basically uniform, established the laws of logic, and then designed my brain to enable me to observe and interpret. You are the one with the problem here.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3223637880300856232011-01-06T01:24:19.366-06:002011-01-06T01:24:19.366-06:00My point is that we have to assume logic works... ...<b>My point is that we have to assume logic works... Since logic undeniably works...</b><br /><br />If logic <i>undeniably</i> works, then why do we have to assume anything?<br /><br /><b>Since logic undeniably works to help us evaluate the data we perceive, then God must exist.</b><br /><br />How does that follow? This is sounding more and more like an argument from ignorance, i.e. "science can't answer this, therefore god."Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40368670840335864242011-01-04T08:32:48.991-06:002011-01-04T08:32:48.991-06:00Why must science "provide an internally consi...Why must science "provide an internally consistent justification for the use of logic"? A theory can make a hypothesis, an experiment can be preformed, and the theory can be evaluated based on the result of the experiment. The theory then works or does not, why does the logic need to be reconfirmed? The logical process used can be observed to work, it does not need to be self-proving. <br /><br />If something is logical it is internally consistent, that is all. There is no guarantee that something internally consistent has anything to do with observable reality. I can create a model for behavior with a rigorously logical tool like mathematics, and the only possible way I can check if it accounts for reality is by observation. The logic itself has no power over observation.<br /><br />Science is the ever changing model created by human beings that describes the universe, it is not a list of rules that all things must follow. Even a very good theory that always correctly predicts outcomes has no power over the outcomes themselves. If science was a list of rules, why would it ever have to change? Why would there ever be a disconnect between observation and established models? Science is always changing, because it is a purely human endeavor.<br /><br />Our observations of the universe seem to be that it behaves consistently and rules can be applied. I see no reason to ascribe an all powerful intelligence to this observation. It would describe and predict nothing to do so.<br /><br />Science is not baseless, it is based in repeatable observation. What is the basis for your god?John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51333987740887531862011-01-03T21:45:37.686-06:002011-01-03T21:45:37.686-06:00Right. But why is reality the way it is?
…
Why doe...<b>Right. But why is reality the way it is?<br />…<br />Why does the universe behave that way? God designed it to behave that way.<br /> </b><br /><br />I don’t know why the universe has the properties it does, but saying that it does because god made it thus doesn’t really explain anything. Why would a god make the speed of light 186 thousand miles per second and not 185 thousand miles per second? Putting a ‘god did it’ out there doesn’t actually answer the question at all. Also it doesn’t address the issue of why the universe needs a god in order to be the way it is rather than just having those properties. It just is what it is.<br /><br />We seem to have gone in a circle here where you are saying that the proof that god exists is that the universe is the way that we currently observe it to be and that the reason the universe is the way we observe it to be is because god created it that way.<br /><br />I guess my main point is that any problems with the notion that the universe simply is what it is are not resolved by adding a sentient creator except in the most superficial sense. It is like saying that cars move because of gasoline. It answers the question in a very general sense but doesn’t really tell you anything about how combustion of fuels create force and powers the mechanical parts of an engine. A god wouldn’t tell us how a consciousness could exist outside of matter or by what parameters it must operate under or why those properties are they way they are or why a god would even exist at all. It doesn’t resolve the supposed issue of how something could exist ex nihlo with whatever properties it has, in my case the universe, in your case your god.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12697816973090747842011-01-03T20:34:38.769-06:002011-01-03T20:34:38.769-06:00Jeremiah said...
“… The laws of logic are not bas...Jeremiah said... <br />“… The laws of logic are not based on human thinking, they are based on the physical nature of the universe.”<br /><br /> But why are they properties of the universe? What would be necessarily true if the universe behaves in the way we find it behaves.<br /><br />“You are saying that logic or the nature of reality cannot be proven…”<br /><br />I did not say that. I said that the crude form of epistemology being propogated here cannot prove logic. Science provides no answer to the question of why logic works.<br /><br />“Logic really is just an observation about reality…. Logic is just the language we use to describe the properties of the reality that we inhabit.”<br /><br />Right. But why is reality the way it is? <br /><br />“…I mean your god could have just been screwing with everyone and created a 'logic' that is 'wrong' and how would we know being trapped inside it as we are?”<br /><br />My point is that we have to assume logic works, and that in turn requires us to assume other things. Since logic undeniably works to help us evaluate the data we perceive, then God must exist.<br /><br />You have also done me a service here. I never thought that we must assume that God is benevolent in order for logic to be assumed, but based on your assertion we must assume exactly that. Thanks.<br /><br />“I mean if you are basing your case on the idea that we can't know that 1=1 then I don't really know what to say to you Mr. Jones.”<br /><br />Why does 1=1? The universe behaves that way.<br /><br />Why does the universe behave that way? God designed it to behave that way.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60216392795036991392011-01-03T19:21:14.899-06:002011-01-03T19:21:14.899-06:00If the laws of logic are based on human thinking, ...<b>If the laws of logic are based on human thinking, then we have to realize that people are different and the laws may differ from person to person. They are no longer absolute. </b><br /><br />This is not correct. The laws of logic are not based on human thinking, they are based on the physical nature of the universe. We are just observing those properties of the universe. While people may differ, the universe does not. It is what it is. And one of the main tenets of the scientific method is independent confirmation. We use that because we do recognize our flaws as individuals and in order to consider that some fact is indeed a property of the universe and not some individual persons subjective delusion we make sure that the same conclusion can be reached by everyone independently.<br /><br /><b>"science cannot prove itself."<br /><br />"There must be a viable alternative, or I can logically assume that God worked in this fashion."</b><br /><br />You are saying that logic or the nature of reality cannot be proven, yet are attempting to say that god exists via logic. Saying that there was a god (or green troll) that created logic does not provide us any more tools in which to evaluate logic. This claim, like any other, would still be subject to any and all flaws encapsulated in the logic in which we operate and that is why I find this kind of argument so strange.<br /><br />Logic really is just an observation about reality. We observe that one instance of an apple is one instance of an apple. If we saw two instances of the apple we would contend that they are not equal to one instance because that is what we observe. 1=1, 1 != 2. Logic is just the language we use to describe the properties of the reality that we inhabit. I don't see what is so difficult about that, I think you have just lost yourself in a philosophical morass. I don't see how simply putting a 'god did it' in front of everything suddenly makes logic any more feasible and trustworthy. I mean your god could have just been screwing with everyone and created a 'logic' that is 'wrong' and how would we know being trapped inside it as we are? To argue that logic cannot be trusted because we can't evaluate it from some outside position is a futile endeavor and positing a god doesn't really do anything to relieve you of that.<br /><br />I mean if you are basing your case on the idea that we can't know that 1=1 then I don't really know what to say to you Mr. Jones.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49552306019403416372011-01-03T18:56:37.443-06:002011-01-03T18:56:37.443-06:00John K.,
“…I have already explained why more than...John K.,<br /><br />“…I have already explained why more than logic alone is needed with multiple examples.”<br /><br />For the second time: I agree. But logic is a pre-requisite for interpretation of what we see when we experiment. The epistemology you describe provides no justification for the laws of logic. It has no internal means of showing consistency. It is self-defeating.<br /><br />“…Your assertion that logic requires god is yet another baseless assumption.”<br /><br />Only if you accept the baseless epistemology you have been espousing. <br /><br />“…Physical models of the behavior of the universe… Outside evidence makes a theory stronger, and is not a problem or flaw. It is a strength that outside evidence is required.”<br /><br />This outside evidence cannot be interpreted without the laws of logic. <br /><br />“…descriptive social norms…”<br /><br />Wrong. The laws of logic are universal and absolute. No culture can interpret scientific evidence without using the same laws the other cultures do. There are not two or more ways to think that are consistent.<br /><br />“…the inability of something to prove itself is not a problem at all. If something can prove itself the reasoning seems like it must be circular, and in fact proves nothing at all.”<br /><br />Science must at least provide an internally consistent justification for the use of logic. I have. I can consistently use science just like all the countless, famous scientists who have claimed the Christian faith. <br /><br /><br />“…insisting on believing it until it is disproved.”<br /><br />Not exactly. I am asking for an internally consistent way of seeing the world that is an alternative to Christian theism. I have not heard one from you, or anyone else around here.<br /><br />“…Other bloggers are comically showing you other examples of why this does not work, but you are ignoring them…Justin's troll and Martin's hippo as much as any god.”<br /><br />The only way they can use the examples they are giving is to smuggle in certain attributes of the Christian God. Insofar as they have described that God (changeless, capable of design, immaterial, transcendent, etc.) the basic attributes fit the Christian God. We are just arguing about the name. The other attributes added are either unnecessary or impossible.<br /><br />“ "Scientific naturalism" can be shown to work by the computer you are using, religion has produced no such wonders.”<br /><br />For every ‘miracle’ of science I can show the positively changed life of a Christian believer. That is something. I can also show from history great evidence for a few miracles, but that should be taken up on another post.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66895164232766044192011-01-03T12:56:09.854-06:002011-01-03T12:56:09.854-06:00Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.
...Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.<br /><br />John K.-umm...well said!Justin B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06430484429517190406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51930042363934556462011-01-03T12:47:50.494-06:002011-01-03T12:47:50.494-06:00There have been many scientific models that did no...There have been many scientific models that did not work but were logically consistent. They did not work because they made predictions that did not line up with experiment, not because they were not internally consistent or illogical. I have already explained why more than logic alone is needed with multiple examples. The very nature of physics is to apply mathematical models to observation, it is no coincidence or great revelation that math must be applied correctly for the models to work. Logic alone does not guarantee a successful model. Your assertion that logic requires god is yet another baseless assumption. Physical models of the behavior of the universe are descriptive social norms, they do not cause anything, and are continuously changing to fit better with wider and wider observations.<br /><br />I stated quite clearly that the inability of something to prove itself is not a problem at all. If something can prove itself the reasoning seems like it must be circular, and in fact proves nothing at all. Outside evidence makes a theory stronger, and is not a problem or flaw. It is a strength that outside evidence is required.<br /><br />I gave you a clear example illustrating why an alternative is not needed, but you have not addressed it.<br /><br />You are making an untestable claim, assuming it is true, and then insisting on believing it until it is disproved. Of course an untestable claim cannot be disproved, and and thus you are doomed to forever believe in it. There are almost literally endless things that can be believed with this mindset. Other bloggers are comically showing you other examples of why this does not work, but you are ignoring them.<br /><br />You have been unable to address why you are not simply arguing from ignorance, and are starting to talk past people. I still have every reason to believe in Justin's troll and Martin's hippo as much as any god. "Scientific naturalism" can be shown to work by the computer you are using, religion has produced no such wonders.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90334744049900460092011-01-03T10:10:28.988-06:002011-01-03T10:10:28.988-06:00I contend that God designed the universe in such a...<i>I contend that God designed the universe in such a way as it behaves consistently, follows logical laws, and enables reason itself.</i><br /><br />And I contend that God was capable of designing this universe in this way because Gus the Magic Cosmic Hippo designed God to do so.<br /><br /><i>I'll go right on assuming that science is a good method because God designed the universe to make it possible.</i><br /><br />And I'll go right on assuming that your God was designed by Gus the Magic Cosmic Hippo.<br /><br />Man, this religion stuff is easy!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55907150759225960772011-01-03T08:25:14.867-06:002011-01-03T08:25:14.867-06:00My green troll is intangible, transcendent and imm...My green troll is intangible, transcendent and immaterial, whatever those words mean.Justin B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06430484429517190406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87692745950896663682011-01-03T08:20:57.903-06:002011-01-03T08:20:57.903-06:00John K.,
Logic is not a social convention because...John K.,<br /><br />Logic is not a social convention because science does not work unless the logical laws are followed. There is only one set of logical laws that works for science to work, and science does not justify them.<br /><br />You have not addressed the flaw in your epistemology. You have ignored the main point of my argument: science cannot prove itself.<br /><br />Establish your scientific naturalism by argument or stop insisting on it. I'll go right on assuming that science is a good method because God designed the universe to make it possible. <br /><br />You have to have an alternative to make an argument, and science is not one.<br /><br />Justin B.,<br /><br />A green troll would be physical. Nothing we see in the universe that is physical is unchanging. I have a deductive argument against your troll. <br /><br />There are similar arguments against all other concepts.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.com