Saturday, February 14, 2009
TAG Peanut Gallery COMMENT HERE
All people interested in the TAG debate other than Sye and yours truly should post in the commentary for this thread. Sye and I may wish to go into this thread and reply, but if either of us do so, what we post is fair game to quote and criticize in the main thread :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
@Truthseeker,
ReplyDeleteTyro:I'm not sure what about math would be axiomatic.
Truthseeker:Do you believe that 2 + 3 = 5 ? If so why?
Remember that after saying that, my next sentence was: "Some things are definitional, such as the various operations, which are close to axioms. The numbers and the numberline are a mix of axioms and conclusions."
For addition, we start with the definition of the natural numbers, N. From there, to define addition we use the 'successor' function (adding '1'):
A1: a + 0 = a
A2: a + S(b) = S(a + b)
A3: S(0) defined as 1
Therefore:
L1: S(a) = S(a+0)
= a + S(0)
= a + 1
From this recursive definition, we can derive all of the attributes of addition and we can calculate the value of any 'a+b' value.
So yes, '2+3=5' (in base 10, usual caveats) but this isn't axiomatic, it can be proved using our initial definitions.
Maybe that's more detailed than you hoped for, but does it help?
Normally I don't think my beliefs are an issue since I'm happy to change them or defend them with evidence and not just state "well I believe X" but since it could help with your discussion of worldview, I'll follow:
Do you have a religion?
Are you an Atheist?
Yes.
If so what kind?
Are there different kinds? I don't believe a god exists and while I think 'god' isn't well defined, I'm strongly convinced that should anything be demonstrated to exist, it will lack key elements of a 'god'. I'm open to something existing, I'm highly dubious that it could be a god. So strong atheist but, as always, open to convincing counter arguments & evidence.
Are you a skeptic?
I try to think critically about issues and avoid blind faith but I'm human and no doubt I have blind spots. In general I try to question most the things I want to be true.
I'm not sure how this helps but I'm keen to learn :)
Math is objective - there's no need for it to be axiomatic.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I'm a cautious deist, and I'm also a relativist. I'm generally skeptical about many things, including my own perception. But these things aside, I think it's possible to chart your way though life/existence without having access to absolute knowledge.
(I was previously a Baha'i)
@Tyro and Whateverman
ReplyDeleteWow,
Interesting!!!
I hope interact with both of you. I had a busy weekend and at this time I am very behind with work. I will try to post something if time permits.
The different worldviews between the three of us should make interesting conversation.
I really enjoy this thread, but maybe it's best if we continue this discussion in another thread (for Darrin's sake). My email addy is available through my profile; either of you, please feel free to chat any old time you want. Alternately, you're more than welcome to set up a SMRT account, and join Darrin there.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what you decide, I've liked this thread over the last ~150 posts... Cheers
@Tyro
ReplyDeleteTyro:I'm not sure what about math would be axiomatic.
Truthseeker:Do you believe that 2 + 3 = 5 ? If so why?
Your response was appreciated but not what I had in mind.
I understand what you wrote but was thinking more generally, and that's why I choose something as simple as 2+3=5. I could have even used 1+1=2 but I have the feeling I would have received the same answer. :)
Maybe a real situation will help as to why I think some people see math as axiomatic in the first and even second definitions that you gave, but I do have some questions about your qualification about definitions. I would argue that there is an even more gereral use of the word axiom that would fit the bill as well.
I have an atheist friend that I asked the very question of why 1+1=2 and he simply grabbed two apples and put the first one on the table and said "one" and then put the other one buy it's side and said "two". You see 1+1=2! And my cousin who is a theist said to me "thats dumb" what do you mean why does 1+1=2?
The way it seems to me is that these two people believed that 1+1=2 was axiomatic in that it was accepted without proof, considered self-evident and was something so obvious(axiomatic in the general sense) that I was crazy even to ask the question.
"Some things are definitional, such as the various operations, which are close to axioms.
What do you mean difinitional, are you talking about the law of identitiy? I'm not sure what you mean.
For addition, we start with the definition of the natural numbers, N. From there, to define addition we use the 'successor' function (adding '1'):
I'm still not sure what you are communicating. Where do the definitions of natural numbers come from? Again are you thinking identity?
A1: a + 0 = a
A2: a + S(b) = S(a + b)
A3: S(0) defined as 1
Therefore:
L1: S(a) = S(a+0)
= a + S(0)
= a + 1
I don't see a problem with these equations but I don't see how this answers the question. Are you saying that we make the definitions?
Normally I don't think my beliefs are an issue since I'm happy to change them or defend them with evidence and not just state "well I believe X" but since it could help with your discussion of worldview, I'll follow:
Thank you for playing along. I'll try to get to this part later.
Do you think we should discuss this somewhere else as Whateverman suggested?
@Truthseeker,
ReplyDeleteI have an atheist friend that I asked the very question of why 1+1=2 and he simply grabbed two apples and put the first one on the table and said "one" and then put the other one buy it's side and said "two". You see 1+1=2! And my cousin who is a theist said to me "thats dumb" what do you mean why does 1+1=2?
Despite labelling as atheist and theist, I doubt that their responses had anything to do with their religious worldviews and everything to do with their lack of knowledge of mathematical fundamentals. Not terribly surprising as we're all taught math as a performance skill - follow these route rules, get the right answer, get a gold star. Few of us ever contemplate the underlying meaning or mechanism. Indeed, when did you first learn how feared and reviled 'zero' was and how recently this was added to our understanding? Your friends can't give an answer because they've never thought about it and because math is something that's just done, not because of a considered philosophical stance.
The way it seems to me is that these two people believed that 1+1=2 was axiomatic in that it was accepted without proof, considered self-evident and was something so obvious(axiomatic in the general sense) that I was crazy even to ask the question.
I think you're wrong. You can ask people all sorts of things like why you invert and multiply fractions when you divide, why you change the oil in your car or why the sun rises in the east and you can get exactly the same blank, unresponsive "it's just like that". These aren't axioms, they're aspects of the world about which people are ignorant. Addition is more accessible but it doesn't change the fact. We take it for granted today but these questions were far from obvious as we can see when we study other cultures and the history of math in our own culture. It did not just appear without argument or evidence.
What do you mean difinitional, are you talking about the law of identitiy? I'm not sure what you mean.
No, as I've said many, many, many times, Identity is NOT axiomatic or definitional, it arises from the definitions and is a derived "law" in one logical system.
I mean that we define how addition works, we define operations like "successor", we define the number line and what a number represents.
I'm still not sure what you are communicating. Where do the definitions of natural numbers come from? Again are you thinking identity?
No idea how you keep getting "identity" in here, I'm certainly not mentioning it :)
I'm not sure I understand the question about where the definitions of natural numbers come from. It's a definition. We start with what can be counted: {1,2,3,...}. From this starting point we can extend it to positive integers {0,1,2,...} which can be extended to integers {...,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} which can be extended to Reals which can be extended to Complex which can be extended to N-space, Irrational numbers, and on and on. We start with an abstraction of the concrete world around us by counting physical objects and progressively layer on more complexities. They "come" from the need to store, operate and reason about abstractions of the world.
I don't see a problem with these equations but I don't see how this answers the question. Are you saying that we make the definitions?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying!
For instance, if I asked you for the diameter of a circle with radius 1m, you would tell me 2*pi m which is an irrational number. If you were given a circular object with a radius of 1m and I asked to tell me its radius, you would measure it and tell me 6.3m because real-world objects don't have measurements which are irrational. If you ever had instruments detailed enough to give more than a few decimals of precision, the ridges and granules of the material's surface would quickly overwhelm any influence of pi. And yet we still say that diameter = 2r * pi because in an abstract, perfectly smooth, mathematical world it is. So yes there is a correspondence between our abstractions and reality but the abstraction is not the thing itself.
Re the axiomatic state of some laws, let's start with the excluded middle:
ReplyDeleteIt is derived.
To start, I don't have as good a background in logic so if someone has better definitions, I'd appreciate it.
To start, we define the permissible space of values, x in {0, 1} or {F, T}
We define some operations using truth tables:
AND (^), true only if both are true:
A ^ B:
T ^ T = T
T ^ F = F
F ^ T = F
F ^ F = F
OR (v), true if at least one is true:
A v B:
T v T = T
T v F = T
F v T = T
F v F = F
NOT (~, !), inversion:
~A:
~T = F
~F = T
We can also define exclusive or (XOR) as true only if exactly one of A or B is true, and the reasoning operators "implies", "if and only if", "exists", "for all", etc. For the moment, let's leave them.
So with this, what is "A ^ ~A"?
A ^ ~A:
T ^ ~T = T ^ F = F
F ^ ~F = F ^ T = F
Therefore for every x in {T,F}, (x ^ ~x) = F, and we can call this the Excluded Middle.
For more depth, check out this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_classical_logic
ReplyDeleteIt explains nicely how you start with a simple set of definitions and then can derive the other "laws" so that you aren't dealing with axioms. A set of higher-level "laws" are built using truth tables or earlier "laws".
@Tyro:
ReplyDelete"Despite labelling as atheist and theist, I doubt that their responses had anything to do with their religious worldviews and everything to do with their lack of knowledge of mathematical fundamentals.
I agree my point was that they both seemed to understand 1+1=2 to be a given and that in this case they both held the same position regardless of there religion or lack there of.
"Your friends can't give an answer because they've never thought about it and because math is something that's just done, not because of a considered philosophical stance.
Could be. On the other hand I would claim that mathematics are theistic.
"I think you're wrong.
I agree that in and of themselve they are not axiomatic, but I disagree that my friends did not consider them to be axiomatic. I think that they did, even though wrong.
"You can ask people all sorts of things like why...why you change the oil in your car or why the sun rises in the east and you can get exactly the same blank, unresponsive "it's just like that". These aren't axioms, they're aspects of the world about which people are ignorant."
I don't think you can compair oil changes and the rising of the sun to mathematics. People may not know *why* you change the oil in your car but they know that there is a reason why, and the same with the sun. I would like to know if you believe that mathematics existed before man arrived on the scene, or if man invented them?
"No, as I've said many, many, many times, Identity is NOT axiomatic"
Try telling that to an atheist who is an Objectivist! Or Bertrand Russell. Or atheist George Smith who simply says A is A is a self evident truth.
"I mean that we define how addition works, we define operations like "successor", we define the number line and what a number represents."
Again is mathematics something that existed prior to mankind?
"We start with an abstraction of the concrete world around us by counting physical objects and progressively layer on more complexities. They "come" from the need to store, operate and reason about abstractions of the world."
I want to try to get back to worldviews and TAG if at all possible. I agree that we abstact. How do you account for things such as abstractions given your worldview? I hope to elaborate on this.
"So yes there is a correspondence between our abstractions and reality but the abstraction is not the thing itself."
So are mathematics from your understanding something that is extended in space or not? Or maybe both?
"Re the axiomatic state of some laws, let's start with the excluded middle:
It is derived.
I don't have a problem with logic per se, or the truth tables I believe they work given correct input. That's not what I'm getting at.
I'm supprised that you believe that the law of excluded middle is axiomatic but not the law of identity. There are some systems that deny the law of identity as axiomatic but your the fisrt one that I met that actually rejects it. If I am misunderstanding you please correct me.
Look up Law of Identity.
Prior to the debate starting David Ellis said:
ReplyDeleteI'd also suggest a more formal debate with opening statements, rebuttals, counterrebuttals and closing statements of specified length.
Otherwise you're just going to find the TAG proponent repeatedly asking you questions (account for this, prove that) but never actually defending their own views---making you do ALL the work.
And this is exactly how the debate is going.
Sye has not offered any kind of defence of his own views but is just continually asking questions of Darrin's.
The debate needs to be re-structured to force Sye to answer Darrin's points, not just reiterate the same stuff again and again (IMHO).
@Darrin
ReplyDelete"Truth is what corresponds to reality."
rhiggs says:
Sye has not offered any kind of defence of his own views but is just continually asking questions of Darrin's
As you know Christian are aways asked to defend their views, as stated earlier in this post what the TAG aims to do is first expose the presuppositions of other systems of thought and from there show that from the particular worldview that the person espouses does not comport with reality.
I'm not sure what Sye has in mind but I would imagine that he is trying to pinpoint some of these presuppositions by asking questions.
This may seem like a silly question but I think it's a serious one.
Given the worldview of someone that says all things came from nothing and intelligence came from non-intelligence and that these things just came about naturally, why do you trust reality?
Woundn't you have to assume the uniformity of nature and reality in order for you to arrive at truth?
Darrin,
you know who the Truth is in order for us to even know what truth is.
John 14:6
Col 1:17
Heb 1:3
I would argue that without God you could not even know what truth is or reality for that matter:
Acts 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
Truthseeker said...
ReplyDeleteGiven the worldview of someone that says all things came from nothing and intelligence came from non-intelligence and that these things just came about naturally, why do you trust reality?
Because it works most of the time.
Woundn't you have to assume the uniformity of nature and reality in order for you to arrive at truth?
Yes but most people accept 'truth' as being 'beyond a reasonable doubt' not as 'absolute'.
I assume that the uniformity of nature holds beyond a reasonable doubt. This allows me to make decisions and predictions about the future. Do I think that my predictions will always be correct? No. If they are wrong I will incorporate that information into my next prediction and thus improve my personal interpretation of reality.
Certainty is not essential for existence. Of that I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
@rhiggs
ReplyDeleteI think letting those comments stand on there own says much to those who understand TAG.
Truthseeker and other presuppers,
ReplyDeleteI have given some reasons why TAG is ultimately an argument from ignorance. See my blog here:
Presuppositionalism and the Argument from Ignorance.
I touch on some aspects of the so-called 'problem of induction' in the comments section following the blog, in which a presuppositionalist attempted to tackle me on this matter. It was clear to me that he did not have any awareness of Dr. David Kelley's response to Hume. Kelley's response to Hume is quite different from others that are commonly considered (see for instance James Anderson’s Secular Responses to the Problem of Induction, which nowhere mentions Kelley’s answer to the PoI). Kelley’s approach is unique in that he actually examines the premises of Hume’s argument for inductive skepticism, something that a vast majority of treatments of the problem do not do (including Bahnsen’s). In doing so, Kelley discovers several fundamental errors in Hume’s argument, errors which pretty much guaranteed his skeptical conclusions. Kelley then shows how these errors are properly corrected and informs an objective understanding of the inductive process. Of course, at no point does Kelley invoke any invisible magic beings to shore up any remaining skepticism, because his answer leaves no remaining skepticism. I’ve never seen any refutation of Kelley’s answer to the PoI, but I can understand why presuppositionalists are threatened by its very existence: it blows the lid off their chicanery.
Regards,
Dawson
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
David Kelley! There's a name for sore ears (eyes)!
ReplyDelete>>Truthseeker
I will be responding to the "universe came from nothing" question over the next day or so - perhaps tonight.
Ostensible Bahnsen Burner
ReplyDeleteI actually know of you from years ago and have read your blog. When doing searches on Bahnsen it's not difficult to come across your blog.
I'm sorry but I'm not convinced!
Much of what you have written has been interacted with prodigiously including The Argument from the Fact of Existence.
Example: Just go to Trialogue and search for Dawson.
For those interested read both sides and come to your own conclusions. On Dawsons blog he links to some of these for you to follow along. I found the interchange with Paul Manata to be enlightening, even though Manata is probably bad word around here.
ave given some reasons why TAG is ultimately an argument from ignorance. See my blog here:
Earlier in this blog I gave a reason why TAG was not an argument from ignorance not as detailed as yours but none the less I think that you diminish TAG into something that it is not.
Trialogue=Trialblogue
ReplyDeleteSorry it's Triablogue
ReplyDeleteTruthseeker: “I actually know of you from years ago and have read your blog. When doing searches on Bahnsen it's not difficult to come across your blog.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s good news! I’m glad my stuff is coming up on internet searches.
Truthseeker: “Much of what you have written has been interacted with prodigiously”
“Much”? I’ve seen a few attempts here and there, but it seems that most Christian apologists tend to shy away from my stuff.
Truthseeker: “including The Argument from the Fact of Existence.”
I’ve seen a number of attempts to challenge the argument from existence, but I’ve seen none which are successful in defeating it. The most developed interaction with the argument from existence that I have seen was published by a guy named Phil Osborne, and shortly after Thorn posted his response to Osborne, Osborne removed his critique from his website. I wonder why.
Truthseeker: “Example: Just go to Trialogue and search for Dawson… For those interested read both sides and come to your own conclusions. On Dawsons blog he links to some of these for you to follow along. I found the interchange with Paul Manata to be enlightening, even though Manata is probably bad word around here.”
Yes, you can see my responses to Paul Manata’s stuff here. There are a few on my website as well.
Truthseeker: “Earlier in this blog I gave a reason why TAG was not an argument from ignorance not as detailed as yours but none the less I think that you diminish TAG into something that it is not.”
Yes, I saw your earlier comments. I guess I’m just not convinced.
By the way, Truthseeker, in regard to the problem of induction, have you examined David Kelley’s answer to it? Do you think it’s at all possible that his treatment really does answer it?
Regards,
Dawson
Bahnsen Burner:
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I have not read Kelly's argument against Hume on induction. But I have read some of Ayn Rand's teachings which I would imagine Kelly elaborated on.
I would say that Ayn Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of concepts which blind them in understanding the problem of induction.
Example:
Is Ayn Rand a Good Philosopher? Rand on the Primacy of Existence
Read the follow up articles as well.
Truthseeker: “I must admit that I have not read Kelly's argument against Hume on induction. But I have read some of Ayn Rand's teachings which I would imagine Kelly elaborated on.”
ReplyDeleteActually, he applies them rather than elaborates on them. I’ve examined a lot of treatments of the problem of induction, and I’ve seen nothing that compares to Kelley’s.
Truthseeker: “I would say that Ayn Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of concepts which blind them in understanding the problem of induction.”
Really? What do you think is wrong with Rand’s theory of concepts? Have you read her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
What alternative theory of concepts would you endorse (if any)? What exactly do you understand a concept to be, and what do you think its purpose is?
Truthseeker: “Example: Is Ayn Rand a Good Philosopher? Rand on the Primacy of Existence Read the follow up articles as well.”
I have. In fact, I’ve responded to them already. See my 22 Jan. 2009 comment in this blog’s comments section. It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Objectivism, that Vallicella’s attempts to discredit it are poorly informed.
Regards,
Dawson
@Bahnsen Burner
ReplyDeleteReally? What do you think is wrong with Rand’s theory of concepts? Have you read her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
I have not read any of her books but as I said I have read some of her teachings, there all over the internet. Bahnsen Burner I am a Christian and come from the presuppositional perspective, I hope that answers your question about objectivist epistemology.
From my worldview the reason we can conceptualize is because our minds reflect the thinking of God, from your worldview it would seem that life would of had to come from non-life and then intelligence come from non-intelligence(through nature and evolution) in order to conceptualize only to discover that exitstence exist and that is where one must start. I think that process is false. I don't think there are abstract concepts that can exist like the Laws of Logic in and of themselves without God. But you already know this at least I assumed since when you fisrt addressed me it was as Truthseeker and other presuppers. I sorry I thought that since you respond to presuppers you would know what we think is wrong with Rand's theory of concepts even though you think we are wrong.
Yes I know that you have responded to the article, I view your blog. The link is for others to read and come to there own conclusions. Anyone can give a response to just about anything and argue just about anything but it does not make it cogent.
It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Objectivism, that Vallicella’s attempts to discredit it are poorly informed.
It would seem that anyone who disagree's with your conclusions and I'm sure you know there are including other atheist so I really don't see the point in dragging this on with you, I'm afraid my time will be consumed more than I would like.
I think we would just be repeating much of what has already been discussed on your blogs and those that have answered you.
It is my opinion that your arguments do not hold up. As I said before the correspondence between Paul Mananta and yourself was enlightening. I think his arguments made sense. Sorry
Maybe as you say I'm just poorly informed. :)
Truthseeker: “I am a Christian and come from the presuppositional perspective, I hope that answers your question about objectivist epistemology.”
ReplyDeleteOh, there’s no question this says it all. You adhere to a subjectivist epistemology.
Truthseeker: “From my worldview the reason we can conceptualize is because our minds reflect the thinking of God, from your worldview it would seem that life would of had to come from non-life and then intelligence come from non-intelligence(through nature and evolution) in order to conceptualize only to discover that exitstence exist and that is where one must start.”
This of course does not address my questions (namely: “What alternative theory of concepts would you endorse [if any]? What exactly do you understand a concept to be, and what do you think its purpose is?”). But it does raise an interesting question. If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all. For you’d be pointing to exactly what you’ve been called to explain, which is life. It’s what I call Tape-Loop Apologetics, and it’s as humorous as it is viciously circular. Anyway, instead of some storybook view of life, I’ll go with science on that one.
Truthseeker: “I think that process is false.”
I’m not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that the process of conceptualizing data which we perceive in the world is false?
Truthseeker: “I don't think there are abstract concepts that can exist like the Laws of Logic in and of themselves without God.”
Which only tells me that you don’t have any good understanding of abstractions. Neither does Van Til. For instance, in his book A Christian Theory of Knowledge, he nowhere discusses the process of abstraction. How can one present a theory of knowledge without discussing the process of abstraction? Statements to effect that “abstract concepts” (a redundant phrase) cannot exist “in and of themselves without God” is simply an empty claim. It may appeal to the believer’s imagination, but it only betrays a profound ignorance of how the mind works.
Truthseeker: “Yes I know that you have responded to the article, I view your blog. The link is for others to read and come to there own conclusions.”
I see. So, you knew about my responses to Vallicella, but did not include reference to them when you posted links to his articles, saying “the link is for others to read and come to there own conclusions.” Did you want readers to see only one side of the picture?
Truthseeker: “Anyone can give a response to just about anything and argue just about anything but it does not make it cogent.”
That’s true. Take for example your own comments...
I wrote: It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Objectivism, that Vallicella’s attempts to discredit it are poorly informed.
Truthseeker: “It would seem that anyone who disagree's with your conclusions and I'm sure you know there are including other atheist so I really don't see the point in dragging this on with you, I'm afraid my time will be consumed more than I would like.”
That two people identify themselves as atheists does not mean that they share a common worldview. Many self-professing atheists adhere to worldviews that are heavily influenced by Christianity. Marxists, Leninists, socialists, etc. are a case in point. I would not expect such individuals to agree with my position.
Truthseeker: “It is my opinion that your arguments do not hold up.”
Any in particular?
Truthseeker: “As I said before the correspondence between Paul Mananta and yourself was enlightening. I think his arguments made sense. Sorry”
No need to be sorry. I’m used to Christians saying things that are baffling. But your comments make me wonder if you really did read my end of the dialogue though. Paul has a habit of sticking his foot as far into his mouth as one possibly could. For instance, in response to my position Paul Manata insisted that his god “doesn’t wish.” I then showed how even the bible affirms that its god wishes, and pointed to statements from Van Til himself which assume that the Christian god wishes. (See here.) In another instance, Paul attempted to argue that the axiom of existence was insufficient to imply the primacy of existence in terms of the subject-object relationship. Clearly he did not understand that the axiom of existence stands all by itself, but that there are other discoveries (such as the recognition that one is conscious!) which, along with the axiom of existence, necessarily implies a fundamental relationship. Basic blunders like this characterized so much of Paul’s responses to my writings, and I have shown exactly where they are in error and have corrected them. But still you think that his “arguments made sense”?
The Force is strong with this one.
Regards,
Dawson
@Bahnsen Burner
ReplyDeleteWell I guess I'll play with you but hopefully only awhile.
This of course does not address my questions (namely: “What alternative theory of concepts would you endorse [if any]What exactly do you understand a concept to be, and what do you think its purpose is?”?
I understand there to be more than one connotation for concept.
For this purpose I guess we could go with perceiving or perception.
When you ask what it's purpose is, do you believe it has purpose?
For my worldview looking into yours I really can't see purpose. For me for something to have a purpose would need someone with an intention which does not comport with your worldview.
The purpose would be to function and interact with God's creation. This makes sense in my worldview in your it does not.
If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.
I see this as a non sequitur. Let me explain. You believe that human beings evolved from non-life if you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree at its begining root unaided by intelligence. It just somehow happened given the right circumstances in mother nature. Chance,coincidence, randomness, luck(and you talk about purpose).
I say that an intelligent Being gave rise to us by design.
I believe that one day mankind could through intention possibly figure out how to make some form of biological life. After all we are made in Gods image.
I could account for that biological created life without having to account for my human life.
In the same way I can account for biological life on earth in the same way without giving an account for God which is another question.
Also from my worldview life on earth had a beginning, God did not. Life on earth was created and God is uncreated. But even if HE was not uncreated He would at least account for us if He is the Creator of our world. And if He is the Creator of our world and us you we will have to answer to Him.
Anyway, instead of some storybook view of life(that life came from non-life unaided), I’ll go with science on that one.
Are you saying that the process of conceptualizing data which we perceive in the world is false?
No, I'm saying I don't believe in the storybook view that life on earth came from non-life unaided by intelligence and then this life evolved to be able to conceptualize data which in turn was able to perceive the world.
How can one present a theory of knowledge without discussing the process of abstraction?
Easy, by assuming that it was understood what an abstraction was. AS Bahnsen wrote:
"The second obstacle that reader encounter is Van Til's style of writing. Frequently he used generaliztions and passing allusions that presumed a thorough acquaintance with the history and development of Western philosopy, which most reader do not posses.
John Frame says:
"But teaching the process of analysis was not Van Til's gift. Therefore even today there are many-both friends and enemies of Van Til's ideas-who have extremely confused notions of what he actually taught"
Statements to effect that “abstract concepts” (a redundant phrase) cannot exist “in and of themselves without God” is simply an empty claim.
It's only redundant if you don't understand the differences between the two words and in what sense they are used.
Truth seeker wonders if Bahnsen burner has ever heard of a physical concept which would be different from an abstract one?
It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Presuppositionalism, that attempts to discredit it by claiming that it is simply an empty claim that abstract concepts such as the laws of logic cannot exist “in and of themselves without God” are poorly informed.
It may appeal to the unbelievers imagination, but it only betrays a profound ignorance of how the mind works when affected by sin.
Almighty man(in general) thinks he thinks without God.
Did you want readers to see only one side of the picture?
No. Sorry I'll fix that.
Everyone go to:
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/01/do-objectivists-try-to-define-god-out.html
I encourage everyone to follow both blogs!
Truthseeker: “Anyone can give a response to just about anything and argue just about anything but it does not make it cogent.”
That’s true. Take for example your own comments...
I don't see the relevance. My point was that I disagree with you. Ive read your responses and they have not convinced me that you are right. The comment wasn't an argument against your responses to be cogent in the first place.
Any in particular?
I'll start with the problem of induction. I still think that the Christian worldview accounts for this. I read appendix c in "Without A Prayer Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System" by John Robbins. The Chapter is called "The Evidence of the Senses" and is a critique of David Kelly. Even though I may not agree with all of John Robbins works he does a fairly good job at pointing out Kellys inconsistencies. He actually moves away from Ayn Rand at major points. If you think Kelly has a solid argument against Hume and Kant then present it in it's basic form for this blog and let it be scrutinized.
Clearly he did not understand that the axiom of existence stands all by itself
I read this part and I think your assumptions here are wrong. You ask:
“How will making an argument cause “existence exists” to no longer be axiomatic?”
How does one make an argument for something that is axiomatic if it's axiomatic?
I have shown exactly where they are in error and have corrected them
Yes in your mind you have and in Pauls mind he has done the same, I guess let the reader decide.
The Force is strong with this one.
I'm not a JW who believes that God has an active force. It's the Holy Spirit man! :)
I have shown exactly where they are in error and have corrected them.
Truthseeker: “I understand there to be more than one connotation for concept.
ReplyDeleteI’m not asking for a connotation here, but what you understand the concept ‘concept’ to denote in terms of an alternative theory of concepts, since you say Rand’s theory of concepts is faulty. You answered:
Truthseeker: “For this purpose I guess we could go with perceiving or perception.”
No. Perception gives us awareness of particular objects in our immediate awareness. When you perceive a ball, you have direct, immediate awareness of a particular entity. This is not the same thing as a concept. The concept ‘ball’ includes every ball that exists, has ever existed, and will exist. That is why when we use the concept ‘ball’ to refer to a specific ball, we need to modify it, e.g., “this ball” as opposed to any other ball.
Truthseeker: “When you ask what it's purpose is, do you believe it has purpose?”
Absolutely. I’m asking what purpose concepts have in *your* theory of concepts (whatever it might be), since you reject Rand’s for being somehow faulty.
Truthseeker: “For my worldview looking into yours I really can't see purpose.”
That’s because your worldview package-deals purpose with sacrifice. Purpose in my worldview has to do with goal-orientation.
Truthseeker: “For me for something to have a purpose would need someone with an intention which does not comport with your worldview.”
Not all purpose is underwritten by intention. Purpose is concurrent with life. Not all life functions are volitional. There is such a thing as autonomic processes, such as respiration, blood circulation, metabolism, etc. These processes clearly have a purpose in an organism, but they are not guided by anyone’s intention.
Truthseeker: “The purpose would be to function and interact with God's creation.”
What’s the purpose of functioning and interacting with “God’s creation”?
Truthseeker: “This makes sense in my worldview in your it does not.”
It doesn’t make sense at all. In the context of a fantasy you formulate such expressions in order to appear to have an answer, but it’s just an idle, empty claim with no objective meaning whatsoever. It is based on a fantasy and “makes sense” only in the context of a fantasy. I know, I was there myself at one time in my life.
I wrote: If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.
Truthseeker: “I see this as a non sequitur. Let me explain. You believe that human beings evolved from non-life if you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree at its begining root unaided by intelligence. It just somehow happened given the right circumstances in mother nature. Chance,coincidence, randomness, luck(and you talk about purpose).”
Who said anything about “chance, coincidence, randomness, luck”? Not I. This is your mischaracterization of my position, for the purposes of easily discrediting it. No, my worldview recognizes the law of causality: identity applied to action. We do not say this happened due to “chance” or “luck.”
Truthseeker: “I say that an intelligent Being gave rise to us by design.”
We know. But that removes any actual “account for” life from your purported “account.” You begin with something that is already said to be “living” as an explanation for living things. You’ve shown no non sequitur in my analysis above. The rest of what you said on this point does not justify your charge of non sequitur either. For example:
Truthseeker: “I believe that one day mankind could through intention possibly figure out how to make some form of biological life.”
This is irrelevant to my point above.
Truthseeker: “After all we are made in Gods image.”
More fantasy. Next:
Truthseeker: “I could account for that biological created life without having to account for my human life.”
This misses the point of my statement above. Keep trying:
Truthseeker: “In the same way I can account for biological life on earth in the same way without giving an account for God which is another question.”
But if your god is supposed to be a living being, but you point to your god in order to “account for” life, you’re simply moving the peg back a step, without actually presenting an account for life. You’ve been asked to give an account for life, but you point to something that’s (allegedly) alive. You’re just going around in circles. It’s a tape-loop.
Truthseeker: “Also from my worldview life on earth had a beginning, God did not. Life on earth was created and God is uncreated.”
This can only mean that your dogma necessarily confines you to tape-loop mode on this matter. You can’t give an account for life as such. And yet you fault other positions for drawing on science to do so. I almost feel sorry for you if you don’t see this. Almost...
Truthseeker: “But even if HE was not uncreated He would at least account for us if He is the Creator of our world.”
One could say this about any invisible magic being he imagines. The Lahu have a very similar position with their Geusha.
Truthseeker: “And if He is the Creator of our world and us you we will have to answer to Him.”
Ah, there it is, the theistic threat, right on schedule. Frustrated with your inability to defend your position, your fear pulses through your veins, so you lash out with a threat. Go ahead, Truthseeker, bring your god on. It does not frighten me.
I wrote: Are you saying that the process of conceptualizing data which we perceive in the world is false?
Truthseeker: “No, I'm saying I don't believe in the storybook view that life on earth came from non-life unaided by intelligence and then this life evolved to be able to conceptualize data which in turn was able to perceive the world.”
How about the scientific view? Obviously you reject that as well in favor of a primitive fantasy.
I wrote: How can one present a theory of knowledge without discussing the process of abstraction?
Truthseeker: “Easy, by assuming that it was understood what an abstraction was.”
I see. Put on as if you were about to present a theory of knowledge, but assume that you’re readers already understand how the process of abstraction works. You think that’s a responsible way of presenting a theory of knowledge? Amazing!
Truthseeker: “AS Bahnsen wrote: ‘The second obstacle that reader encounter is Van Til's style of writing. Frequently he used generaliztions and passing allusions that presumed a thorough acquaintance with the history and development of Western philosopy, which most reader do not posses.’”
I can understand this applying in a topic briefly touched in a larger discussion. But it doesn’t work in the case of an entire book purportedly devoted to the presentation of a theory of knowledge. I can only suppose that Van Til did not understand how crucial an understanding of the process of abstraction is to a genuine theory of knowledge, if he thinks it’s okay simply to assume that his readers already understand it. What would be left to present?????
Truthseeker: “John Frame says: ‘But teaching the process of analysis was not Van Til's gift. Therefore even today there are many-both friends and enemies of Van Til's ideas-who have extremely confused notions of what he actually taught’"
So Van Til had a gift for confusing his readers rather than informing and enlightening them. No wonder Vantillian presuppositionalism is so messed up! He didn’t understand the importance of abstraction to knowledge (how can you have knowledge without abstraction????), he thought it was fine to simply assume that his readers understood what he was trying to say (not much skill at articulating a thought, that’s for sure), he wrote in a garbled fashion (maybe he was trying to hide the fact that he really didn’t know what he was talking about?), etc. No wonder Bahnsen thought he needed to publish a blow-by-blow commentary of Van Til’s writing.
I wrote: “Statements to effect that ‘abstract concepts’ (a redundant phrase) cannot exist ‘in and of themselves without God’ is simply an empty claim.”
Truthseeker: “It's only redundant if you don't understand the differences between the two words and in what sense they are used.:
No, it’s redundant because concepts by their very nature are abstract. They are formed by a process of abstraction. One does not need to qualify the concept ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” because they’re already abstract. So for those who do not understand this, what is actually a redundancy seems necessary. It’s not.
Truthseeker: “Truth seeker wonders if Bahnsen burner has ever heard of a physical concept which would be different from an abstract one?”
Exactly! If there were “physical concepts” as well, then the qualifying ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” might be necessary to clarify this in the context of a certain point. But since concepts are by their nature abstract, you wouldn’t need to do this. You make my point for me, TS!
Truthseeker: “It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Presuppositionalism, that attempts to discredit it by claiming that it is simply an empty claim that abstract concepts such as the laws of logic cannot exist ‘in and of themselves without God’ are poorly informed.”
Presuppositionalism has a habit of trying to defend one empty claim with a set of other empty claims. The above statement is a case in point. When a position is dismissed as empty, insult those who do the dismissing. They’re “poorly informed.” Well, if that’s the case, inform us, TS! I’ve asked you to identify an alternative theory of concepts, since you reject Rand’s for being faulty. But where is it? Where’s the beef? You have the opportunity to inform us with your great Vantillian wisdom and knowledge. But it all seems to reduce to “God did it!” Why believe that? You give us no reason to believe it.
Truthseeker: “It may appeal to the unbelievers imagination, but it only betrays a profound ignorance of how the mind works when affected by sin.”
If our minds really are disabled by some invisible force called “sin,” then wouldn’t you expect us not to understand anything you have to say? If that’s the case, why not just say “you won’t understand” and leave it at that? At this point, you only demonstrate that you really have nothing intelligent to offer on the topics of the present discussion. That’s why you keep trying to drag the discussion off onto other matters, like “how the mind works when affected by sin.”
Truthseeker: “Almighty man(in general) thinks he thinks without God.”
So, you think with your god’s assistance, is that it, Truthseeker? Your god is supposed to be infallible and omniscient, right? Can you demonstrate this power of thinking, if in fact your god really does assist your thinking? Look, anyone can imagine that a supernatural being is helping him along. But it’s a fantasy, through and through. Imagination, not knowledge, is what informs your worldview. Look at how much correction your statements need in just this one comment! If your mind truly were being assisted by an omniscient and infallible being, I don’t think that is what we would be seeing here.
Truthseeker wrote: “Anyone can give a response to just about anything and argue just about anything but it does not make it cogent.”
I responded: That’s true. Take for example your own comments...
Truthseeker: “I don't see the relevance.”
The relevance is that your own responses are a case in point. You give responses, but that does not make them cogent. For instance, above you equated perception with conceptualization. And you suggest that I’m “poorly informed”? Good grief!
Truthseeker: “My point was that I disagree with you.”
I realize that. I’m simply looking for some substance behind your disagreement. I’ve asked for you to present it, but to quote Gertrude Stein, “there’s no there there.”
You then cited John Robbins’ book Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System, which is full of amazing errors, crass misrepresentations, circuitous trifling, etc. I remember debating Robbins personally back in the ‘90’s. The guy was so much puff! Anyway, you might want to check out Brian Register’s review of Robbins’ book since you seem so impressed with it.
Regards,
Dawson
I had to break from my above comments earlier this morning as I had to get ready for work. I wanted to continue on the last remaining bit of Truthseeker’s last response to me.
ReplyDeleteTruthseeker had written: “It is my opinion that your arguments do not hold up.”
In response to this, I asked: Any in particular?
Truthseeker responded: “I'll start with the problem of induction.”
Is there a particular argument of mine, either on my blog or on my website that you think “do[es] not hold up”? That was my original question. I have not posted a full treatment of the problem of induction on either site, so I don’t think it could be this that you had in mind with your above statement. But I did point out in my initial comment to you that David Kelley has produced an answer to the problem of induction, and you have admitted that you are not familiar with it. So you’re obviously in no position to present an informed critique of Kelley’s answer. So I would say that your choice to “start with the problem of induction” is ill-fated at this time.
Truthseeker: “I still think that the Christian worldview accounts for this.”
I certainly don’t, unless the call to “account for” something is satisfied by a appeals to an invisible magic being. In that case, I could say Geusha “accounts for” induction.
Fundamentally, however, the standard presuppositionalist treatment of induction proves that it has no good answer to the problem of induction, because it takes Hume's conclusion at face value, including all his errors. Can you find one point where Bahnsen disputes Hume's argument for inductive skepticism? On the contrary, Bahnsen is more than happy to point to Hume as if he represented some kind of standard everyone needs to honor:
The Christian apologist should be interested to find out from the intellectual despisers of Christian faith who it is, then, that has provided the rational rebuttal to the skepticism of Hume. Perhaps to his surprise he will find that most contemporary philosophers - having little taste for idealism (with its speculative complexities and flights from common sense) - acquiesce to Hume (and thus to skepticism), either by trivializing the problems he raised ("Nobodoy can answer them, so they are not important") or by giving up on epistemological certainty in favor of "pragmatic" aproaches to knowledge or science. (Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 359n.188)
At no point in this or other statements quite similar to it does Bahnsen ever point out to his readers that the premises which support Hume's skeptical conclusions are full of errors. Either Bahnsen himself did not know that Hume's conclusions were unsound, or he did know and deliberately kept it out of view, so that he could push a religious agenda. Either way, Bahnsen's own endorsement of Hume as some kind of authority on the matter simply discredits him as a thinker.
Moreover, there are solid reasons to conclude that god-belief could only destroy one’s confidence in his inductive inferences. I remember one Christian saying that dogs do not type on computers. But how could he know this? How could he know that somewhere his god is having a pack of dogs typing on computers? What Christian would deny his god’s ability to empower a dog to type on a computer? How do you know that no dog right now is typing on a computer? How do you know that I’m not really a dog typing on a computer? In fact, he was borrowing from *my* worldview in affirming the statement that “dogs do not type on computers.” His Christian mysticism cannot consistently support such statements.
Truthseeker: “I read appendix c in "Without A Prayer Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System" by John Robbins. The Chapter is called "The Evidence of the Senses" and is a critique of David Kelly. Even though I may not agree with all of John Robbins works he does a fairly good job at pointing out Kellys inconsistencies.”
Actually, he does a very poor job of interacting with the material. In my last message I gave a link to Brian Register’s review of John Robbins’ book, which points out a number of Robbins’ errors, including some that he makes in his critique of Kelley’s book. Jim Peron has also written a good review of Robbins’ book, titled “John Calvin vs. Ayn Rand, Or The Theological Theatrics of John Robbins,” originally published in The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 4, No 14, April 3, 2000. I did not have time this morning to check to see if this is still available online. I cannot find it now, but I do have a couple electronic copies of it. If you are still interested, once you’ve read Register’s piece, please let me know and I might post it on my website or make it available to you in some other way. Both articles shed light on a scurrying cockroach. (It is interesting, how Vantillians are suddenly buddy-buddy with John Robbins when the going gets tough...)
Truthseeker: “If you think Kelly has a solid argument against Hume and Kant then present it in it's basic form for this blog and let it be scrutinized.”
I won’t, and for a few good reasons. One, I don’t see any need to do this. Kelley’s book is still in print and available if you are interested in knowing its contents. He is certainly able to defend his own points. Also, Kelley’s book covers a lot of ground, and frankly I don’t think you’re ready for it, especially if you do not recognize the significant differences between perceptual awareness and conceptualization. You have a lot of homework to do yet before you’re ready for anything like Kelley’s The Evidence of the Senses. Lastly, I somewhat doubt you’re really interested in learning what Kelley has to say, since many of your statements make it crystal clear that you’re confessionally motivated to suppose he’s wrong no matter what. He must really pose a threat!
I had written: Clearly he did not understand that the axiom of existence stands all by itself
Truthseeker: “I read this part and I think your assumptions here are wrong.”
Specifically which assumptions of mine do you think are wrong????
In regard to my interactions with Paul Manata, you quoted one of my statements: How will making an argument cause “existence exists” to no longer be axiomatic?
Then asked: “How does one make an argument for something that is axiomatic if it's axiomatic?”
I agree that an axiom is not inferred from prior truths. But Paul did not specify that this is what he had in mind. He had written:
To the extent that an argument can be made, “existence exists” will not be axiomatic anymore and hence subject to all the epistemological missiles who choose to launch at it.
Notice that Paul does not say what the argument he mentions is supposed to conclude. He just says “to the extent that an argument can be made, ‘existence exists’ will not be axiomatic.” We make arguments for all kinds of things, and there is a great extent to which we can make arguments for many, many conclusions. But Paul did not specify an argument seeking to conclude “existence exists” (which I never presented in the first place!), so my question was valid. All he needed to do, if that is what he had in mind, was point correct his earlier statement. Instead, he went on to give more errors. See the above-linked post for details. It’s actually pretty humorous watching him bang his head against the wall over and over and over again.
I wrote> The Force is strong with this one.
Truthseeker: “I'm not a JW who believes that God has an active force. It's the Holy Spirit man! :)”
The point still applies. You do think that “the Holy Spirit” is an active force, do you not? Christians are always telling me about the “power” of the “Holy Spirit.” Do you think it’s inert?
Regards,
Dawson
@Bahnsen burner
ReplyDeleteWow, Paul was right when he said:
“You got no substance. You write a lot and hope that you’re opponent will not have the time or desire to wade through thousands of words just to fine the needle in the haystack, i.e., the one or two things you say that are actually worth responding to.”
I certainly do not have massive amounts of time for you as stated earlier is this blog:
Truthseeker: “I really don't see the point in dragging this on with you, I'm afraid my time will be consumed more than I would like.”
My reason was also stated:
Truthseeker: “I think we would just be repeating much of what has already been discussed on your blogs and those that have answered you.”
Well I decided to entertain you which was my mistake.
I will address a few misunderstandings on your part and misstatements on mine.
You said: ”I’m not asking for a connotation here but what you understand the concept ‘concept’ to denote in terms of an alternative theory of concepts, since you say Rand’s theory of concepts is faulty.”
A few things need to be cleared up here. I think you have misunderstood my original intent. You keep saying that I said that Rand’s theory of concepts it faulty. That is not what I originally said from the beginning. Here is what I said:
“I would say that Ayn Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of concepts which blind them in understanding the problem of induction.”
I was not thinking of “theory of concepts” (that’s not to say that I don’t think there is still a problem as far as comporting with the overall Objectivist worldview) or that Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of every concept that there is, I was thinking about certain concepts. So from the get go you misunderstood me.
Truthseeker said: “For this purpose I guess we could go with perceiving or perception.”
I made a mis-statement here. I did not want to equate perception with concept. I understand a concept to be a mental unit of denotation, or an idea derived from a particular instance which we use when perceiving or understanding things.
No. Perception gives us awareness of particular objects in our immediate awareness. When you perceive a ball, you have direct, immediate awareness of a particular entity. This is not the same thing as a concept. The concept ‘ball’ includes every ball that exists, has ever existed, and will exist. That is why when we use the concept ‘ball’ to refer to a specific ball, we need to modify it, e.g., “this ball” as opposed to any other ball.
I don’t see a problem with that.
Truthseeker: “When you ask what it's purpose is, do you believe it has purpose?”
Absolutely. I’m asking what purpose concepts have in *your* theory of concepts (whatever it might be), since you reject Rand’s for being somehow faulty.
I answered this as to what the purpose is below.
Truthseeker: “For my worldview looking into yours I really can't see purpose.”
That’s because your worldview package-deals purpose with sacrifice.
I’m not sure what you are getting it here. Are you talking about the sacrifice of Jesus? It’s true that there was a purpose in the sacrifice of Jesus but what does that have to do with what the purpose of concepts are in the first place.
Purpose in my worldview has to do with goal-orientation.
Who organized these goals? Who gives things purpose? How do you account for purpose and goal-orientation in you worldview? Again I don’t see any purpose or goals standing from your worldview shoes just things that happen with no intelligence behind them. How is that goal-orientation or purpose?
Not all purpose is underwritten by intention. Purpose is concurrent with life. Not all life functions are volitional. There is such a thing as autonomic processes, such as respiration, blood circulation, metabolism, etc. These processes clearly have a purpose in an organism, but they are not guided by anyone’s intention.
You just said purpose in your worldview has to do with goal-orientation. The very processes you mention certainly do have a purpose, you are right, but they were *made* for a purpose they did not make themselves, to me this is absurd. They may be autonomic but they were made that way with intention and purpose. Without intention, purpose does not comport with your worldview.
Truthseeker: “The purpose would be to function and interact with God's creation.”
What’s the purpose of functioning and interacting with “God’s creation”?
To be created beings made in Gods image and likeness:
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
If we were not functional we would not be made in the image and likeness of God and we would not be able to rule over the earth.
Truthseeker: “This makes sense in my worldview in your it does not.”
It doesn’t make sense at all. In the context of a fantasy you formulate such expressions in order to appear to have an answer, but it’s just an idle, empty claim with no objective meaning whatsoever. It is based on a fantasy and “makes sense” only in the context of a fantasy. I know, I was there myself at one time in my life.
It does make sense. You assume that what I believe is a fantasy that I formulate when it is actually truth that God Himself communicates and says that people like you are the ones in fantasy and empty claims:
“Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
“Rom 1:22-23 Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
In the context of your fantasy what you say does not even “make sense.” If you were there at one time in your life you just moved away from light into darkness putting your trust in fallible man instead of the incorruptible God. You are the one who lives in make believe subjective world and can’t even logically be objective without borrowing from my worldview.
John 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
John 8:12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."
I wrote: If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.
Truthseeker: “I see this as a non sequitur. Let me explain. You believe that human beings evolved from non-life if you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree at its begining root unaided by intelligence. It just somehow happened given the right circumstances in mother nature. Chance,coincidence, randomness, luck(and you talk about purpose).”
Who said anything about “chance, coincidence, randomness, luck”? Not I. This is your mischaracterization of my position, for the purposes of easily discrediting it. No, my worldview recognizes the law of causality: identity applied to action. We do not say this happened due to “chance” or “luck.”
Again I’m speaking of intent vs. chance, coincidence, randomness, luck similar to what I stated above. Looking at your worldview as a whole I think this characterizes your position well. In your worldview things happen because other things cause them to happen and other things cause them to happen ad nauseam. Is there an overall purpose for these happenings from your worldview? I don’t think so it’s just the chain of chance. You seem to be adding personification to things which are not personal to make your worldview appear coherent and then call mine a fantasy to easily discredit it. No, my worldview recognizes intent while yours does not but tries to make it appear that there is purpose.
Truthseeker: “I say that an intelligent Being gave rise to us by design.”
We know. But that removes any actual “account for” life from your purported “account.” You begin with something that is already said to be “living” as an explanation for living things. You’ve shown no non sequitur in my analysis above. The rest of what you said on this point does not justify your charge of non sequitur either. For example:
It’s non sequitur because we were talking about “life on earth.” Here is what you said:
If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.
Logically if “the living God” exist which I believe He does, and if He did create “life on earth” which I believe He did. Then life on earth would be accounted for. So yes I have an explanation for life on earth. You also are committing the fallacy of equivocation, not understanding the difference between the Living God and life on earth.
Truthseeker: “I believe that one day mankind could through intention possibly figure out how to make some form of biological life.”
This is irrelevant to my point above.
Only if you don’t understand the argument! The life that mankind would make would be accounted for by mankind even if we did not know where mankind came from.
Truthseeker: “After all we are made in Gods image.”
More fantasy. Next:
It’s actually fantasy to say that we’re not! You have to borrow from my worldview to even attempt to argue against it. I suppose you won’t understand that.
Truthseeker: “I could account for that biological created life without having to account for my human life.”
This misses the point of my statement above. Keep trying:
No, you miss the point of the argument of my statement above.
Truthseeker: “In the same way I can account for biological life on earth in the same way without giving an account for God which is another question.”
But if your god is supposed to be a living being, but you point to your god in order to “account for” life, you’re simply moving the peg back a step, without actually presenting an account for life. You’ve been asked to give an account for life, but you point to something that’s (allegedly) alive. You’re just going around in circles. It’s a tape-loop.
Again we are talking about life on earth. Life on earth would be accounted for. Yes the peg does go back one step but the step before it is accounted for. Again you misunderstand the Living God vs. life on earth and have committed the fallacy of equivocation. Your position makes life magically come from non-life. It’s a culdesac.
Truthseeker: “Also from my worldview life on earth had a beginning, God did not. Life on earth was created and God is uncreated.”
This can only mean that your dogma necessarily confines you to tape-loop mode on this matter. You can’t give an account for life as such. And yet you fault other positions for drawing on science to do so. I almost feel sorry for you if you don’t see this. Almost...
No I already accounted for life. This just shows you don’t have a clue who God is, and that your dogma necessarily confines you to culdesac mode on this matter. A being that is uncreated and eternal would account for Himself because there is nothing beyond or higher than Himself. That is why God swears by Himself. God is eternal life and the origin and source of life. And please show me where science shows how life came from non-life.
God is life:
John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Life is intrinsically from God and He is eternal:
John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Truthseeker: “But even if HE was not uncreated He would at least account for us if He is the Creator of our world.”
One could say this about any invisible magic being he imagines. The Lahu have a very similar position with their Geusha.
Yes and one can say anything they want about anything and sound and fury signify nothing! The God I speak of in not an imagined being. He has revealed Himself in the flesh.
Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Truthseeker: “And if He is the Creator of our world and us you we will have to answer to Him.”
Ah, there it is, the theistic threat, right on schedule. Frustrated with your inability to defend your position, your fear pulses through your veins, so you lash out with a threat. Go ahead, Truthseeker, bring your god on. It does not frighten me.
Unless you’re omniscient, what makes you think I’m frustrated? You’re hilarious. I’m not by the way. You can’t even get that right! My fear pulses through my veins? LOL. It seems that you are the one frustrated with silly comments like that. Why don’t you tell God to put up His dukes while you’re at it!
I wrote: Are you saying that the process of conceptualizing data which we perceive in the world is false?
Truthseeker: “No, I'm saying I don't believe in the storybook view that life on earth came from non-life unaided by intelligence and then this life evolved to be able to conceptualize data which in turn was able to perceive the world.”
How about the scientific view? Obviously you reject that as well in favor of a primitive fantasy.
Please point me in the direction where science demonstrates how life came from non-life. It looks like you are the one in favor of a primitive fantasy. This is your cul-de-sac problem where you try to make people think that science has an answer for which we know it doesn’t.
Put on as if you were about to present a theory of knowledge, but assume that you’re readers already understand how the process of abstraction works. You think that’s a responsible way of presenting a theory of knowledge? Amazing!
Truthseeker wonders if when Dawsin read Van Til if he understood how the process of abstraction worked?
“Statements to effect that ‘abstract concepts’ (a redundant phrase) cannot exist ‘in and of themselves without God’ is simply an empty claim.”
Really? So from your worldview when life did not exist yet where did concepts exist?
No, it’s redundant because concepts by their very nature are abstract. They are formed by a process of abstraction. One does not need to qualify the concept ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” because they’re already abstract. So for those who do not understand this, what is actually a redundancy seems necessary. It’s not.
That was not really what I was trying to communicate. I’ll try again. Some concepts have a corresponding reality like a ball for instance, while some concepts do not like the laws of logic. The laws of logic are conceptual in nature while a ball is not.
Truthseeker: “Truth seeker wonders if Bahnsen burner has ever heard of a physical concept which would be different from an abstract one?”
Exactly! If there were “physical concepts” as well, then the qualifying ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” might be necessary to clarify this in the context of a certain point. But since concepts are by their nature abstract, you wouldn’t need to do this. You make my point for me, TS!
See Physical Concept
The structure “abstract concept” has been used the way that I used it. Just google it. But your point is taken. Look up abstraction on Wikipedia and you will find it there are well referring to something that is abstract vs. concrete. But you point is taken. I understand that the concrete is not the actual concept, but I think you understand what I’m getting at.
Truthseeker: “It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Presuppositionalism, that attempts to discredit it by claiming that it is simply an empty claim that abstract concepts such as the laws of logic cannot exist ‘in and of themselves without God’ are poorly informed.”
Presuppositionalism has a habit of trying to defend one empty claim with a set of other empty claims. The above statement is a case in point. When a position is dismissed as empty, insult those who do the dismissing. They’re “poorly informed.” Well, if that’s the case, inform us, TS! I’ve asked you to identify an alternative theory of concepts, since you reject Rand’s for being faulty. But where is it? Where’s the beef? You have the opportunity to inform us with your great Vantillian wisdom and knowledge. But it all seems to reduce to “God did it!” Why believe that? You give us no reason to believe it.
I answered this partially above. FYI, I do not think myself to be a great Van Tillian with his wisdom and knowledge, so you get it wrong here as well. To ask why one should believe God did really shows you still don’t get it. With the Eternal God in the equation all the things we have been talking about makes sense within the Christian worldview, without Him your left with a worldview that does not comport with itself.
Truthseeker: “It may appeal to the unbelievers imagination, but it only betrays a profound ignorance of how the mind works when affected by sin.”
If our minds really are disabled by some invisible force called “sin,” then wouldn’t you expect us not to understand anything you have to say? If that’s the case, why not just say “you won’t understand” and leave it at that? At this point, you only demonstrate that you really have nothing intelligent to offer on the topics of the present discussion. That’s why you keep trying to drag the discussion off onto other matters, like “how the mind works when affected by sin.”
Just because the mind is affected by sin does not mean that things can’t be understood. You have God given intelligence and then turn around and say things that are unintelligent like intelligence came from non-intelligence. This is rebellion against God. Speaking from your worldview about some invisible force called “intelligence” in a world of matter makes no sense and we would not even be able to have this present discussion. If what you believe is true then what you say is just fizz and what I say is just fizz and is not intelligent but means nothing.
Truthseeker: “Almighty man(in general) thinks he thinks without God.”
So, you think with your god’s assistance, is that it, Truthseeker? Your god is supposed to be infallible and omniscient, right? Can you demonstrate this power of thinking, if in fact your god really does assist your thinking? Look, anyone can imagine that a supernatural being is helping him along. But it’s a fantasy, through and through. Imagination, not knowledge, is what informs your worldview. Look at how much correction your statements need in just this one comment! If your mind truly were being assisted by an omniscient and infallible being, I don’t think that is what we would be seeing here.
No, without God there would be no thinking at all period. I already stated that anyone can imagine anything and that sound and fury signify nothing. The God I believe in is not some imaginary supernatural being that I made up but has revealed Himself and many of His creatures acknowledge Him. The very fact that we exist and have capacity to know and think demonstrates this truth. Atom’s banging around is what would inform your worldview if it were true but it’s not. It comes from the imagination of “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” Romans 1:18 “who even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations , and their foolish heart was darkened.” Romans 1:21 “Professing to be wise, they became fools” Rom 1:22 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Truthseeker: “My point was that I disagree with you.”
I realize that. I’m simply looking for some substance behind your disagreement. I’ve asked for you to present it, but to quote Gertrude Stein, “there’s no there there.”
Only from your faulty perception and what you think about reality.
Regards,
Truthseeker
@Bahnsen Burner,
ReplyDeleteTruthseeker had written: “It is my opinion that your arguments do not hold up.”
In response to this, I asked: Any in particular?
Truthseeker responded: “I'll start with the problem of induction.”
Is there a particular argument of mine, either on my blog or on my website that you think “do[es] not hold up”? That was my original question. I have not posted a full treatment of the problem of induction on either site, so I don’t think it could be this that you had in mind with your above statement. But I did point out in my initial comment to you that David Kelley has produced an answer to the problem of induction, and you have admitted that you are not familiar with it. So you’re obviously in no position to present an informed critique of Kelley’s answer. So I would say that your choice to “start with the problem of induction” is ill-fated at this time.
No there is not just a particular argument but there are many. If you want one out of the many I’ll give one. How about your view of Christianity as a cartoon universe Here
If you think Kelley has a good argument against Hume I’m challenging you to present the case! When you first started commenting on this blog you asserted that “Kelley’s approach is unique in that he actually examines the premises of Hume’s argument for inductive skepticism” and that “Kelley discovers several fundamental errors in Hume’s argument, errors which pretty much guaranteed his skeptical conclusions.” Show us this examination for us to examine to see it it has any merit.
Truthseeker: “I still think that the Christian worldview accounts for this.”
I certainly don’t, unless the call to “account for” something is satisfied by a appeals to an invisible magic being. In that case, I could say Geusha “accounts for” induction.
You could say anything you want but that proves nothing! You misrepresent that which you claimed to have been. The Christian worldview does not simply appeal to an “invisible magic being” made out of the imagination. It appeals to His own revelation of Himself in the flesh and His written word:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
John 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained {Him.}
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Tim 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Fundamentally, however, the standard presuppositionalist treatment of induction proves that it has no good answer to the problem of induction, because it takes Hume's conclusion at face value, including all his errors. Can you find one point where Bahnsen disputes Hume's argument for inductive skepticism? On the contrary, Bahnsen is more than happy to point to Hume as if he represented some kind of standard everyone needs to honor:
The Christian apologist should be interested to find out from the intellectual despisers of Christian faith who it is, then, that has provided the rational rebuttal to the skepticism of Hume. Perhaps to his surprise he will find that most contemporary philosophers - having little taste for idealism (with its speculative complexities and flights from common sense) - acquiesce to Hume (and thus to skepticism), either by trivializing the problems he raised ("Nobodoy can answer them, so they are not important") or by giving up on epistemological certainty in favor of "pragmatic" aproaches to knowledge or science. (Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 359n.188)
At no point in this or other statements quite similar to it does Bahnsen ever point out to his readers that the premises which support Hume's skeptical conclusions are full of errors. Either Bahnsen himself did not know that Hume's conclusions were unsound, or he did know and deliberately kept it out of view, so that he could push a religious agenda. Either way, Bahnsen's own endorsement of Hume as some kind of authority on the matter simply discredits him as a thinker.
You misrepresent Bahnsen and at the same time claim to discredit both Bahnsen and Hume as thinkers. I suppose you think Immanuel Kant is discredited as a thinker as well for agreeing with Hume. I guess I will have to educate you a bit. Whether or not you think Hume demonstrated a problem of induction many other great thinkers(Kant) believed that he did. Bahnsen on the other hand did not believe there to be a problem given the Christian worldview. And I have heard him give the answer to Hume on this. So you are wrong. Since you claim to know so much about Bahnsen lets see if you can state it.
Bahnsens claim about Hume was concerning the atheist worldview which you should know. I still doubt given an atheist worldview that you can show Hume’s supposed errors. I again challenge you to show it instead of calling on someone else. Just repeat the argument I don’t mind.
Moreover, there are solid reasons to conclude that god-belief could only destroy one’s confidence in his inductive inferences. I remember one Christian saying that dogs do not type on computers. But how could he know this? How could he know that somewhere his god is having a pack of dogs typing on computers? What Christian would deny his god’s ability to empower a dog to type on a computer? How do you know that no dog right now is typing on a computer? How do you know that I’m not really a dog typing on a computer? In fact, he was borrowing from *my* worldview in affirming the statement that “dogs do not type on computers.” His Christian mysticism cannot consistently support such statements.
He could know this, because God did not make dogs in His own image and likeness with intelligence the way that He made mankind which is not only able to type on computers but was the maker of computers. Would it be possible for God to empower a dog to type on a computer? Sure, but it’s not probable. As far as borrowing from your worldview I don’t think so. From your worldview how do you know that a pack of dogs on planet Bone a billion light years away are not typing away one computers where dogs evolved different then they did here on earth because of different variables that caused them to be the dominant life form with intelligence. I mean come on from your worldview intelligence can come from non-intelligence. Where do you get that from induction?
You would in fact have to borrow from my worldview in which God tells us that He made mankind and not dogkind after His own image and likeness an from this we would know that dogs do not have the intellect to type on a computer.
(It is interesting, how Vantillians are suddenly buddy-buddy with John Robbins when the going gets tough...)
Now this is logical. I’ll use an argument from you if it’s logical. It has nothing to do with things getting tough. Like I said I may not agree with everything Robbins says but I agree with some of the points that he makes.
Truthseeker: “If you think Kelly has a solid argument against Hume and Kant then present it in it's basic form for this blog and let it be scrutinized.”
I won’t, and for a few good reasons. One, I don’t see any need to do this. Kelley’s book is still in print and available if you are interested in knowing its contents. He is certainly able to defend his own points. Also, Kelley’s book covers a lot of ground, and frankly I don’t think you’re ready for it, especially if you do not recognize the significant differences between perceptual awareness and conceptualization. You have a lot of homework to do yet before you’re ready for anything like Kelley’s The Evidence of the Senses. Lastly, I somewhat doubt you’re really interested in learning what Kelley has to say, since many of your statements make it crystal clear that you’re confessionally motivated to suppose he’s wrong no matter what. He must really pose a threat!
You bring up Kelly as the one that has the argument that refutes Hume’s problem of induction and don’t even give the argument. Amazing! It must really not be that big of a threat if you won’t even summarize it. Maybe you are afraid it will be seen for what it really is. I can’t even find it on your website which I would think that you would at least restate the position if you rely on it so much in refuting Hume.
I had written: Clearly he did not understand that the axiom of existence stands all by itself
Truthseeker: “I read this part and I think your assumptions here are wrong.”
Specifically which assumptions of mine do you think are wrong????
You assume that the physical existence is all that exist and that it exist on it’s own in and of itself.
You do think that “the Holy Spirit” is an active force, do you not? Christians are always telling me about the “power” of the “Holy Spirit.” Do you think it’s inert?
Yes you are correct. My point was that the Holy Spirit is personal not just some impersonal force that is active like the one that you ascribe to as you say:
“my worldview recognizes the law of causality: identity applied to action. We do not say this happened due to “chance” or “luck.”
I probably won’t be responding to you anymore unless you show the argument showing there really is no problem of induction. I somewhat doubt you’re really interested repenting from your rebellion, since many of your statements make it crystal clear that you’re a hater of the God of the bible.
I certainly don’t, unless the call to “account for” something is satisfied by a appeals to an invisible magic being. In that case, I could say Geusha “accounts for” induction.
ReplyDeleteYou could say anything you want but that proves nothing! You misrepresent that which you claimed to have been. The Christian worldview does not simply appeal to an “invisible magic being” made out of the imagination. It appeals to His own revelation of Himself in the flesh and His written word.
You are still left with an invisible magic book and a book some people wrote about him.
>>Truthseeker
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, my friend! I'll leave BB to answer on his own accord, but I think my own semi-Objectivist views may help out here.
//“I would say that Ayn Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of concepts which blind them in understanding the problem of induction.”//
Ahhh, you Van Tillians are in love with Hume.
The problem of induction is, at its base, a metaphysical one, not an epistemological one. It's solved easily: if one states that one cannot reach conclusions about the future based on observation of the past, then one is stating (to simplify it) that an action of a metaphysical entity with identity A upon a metaphysical entity with identity B that has produced effect E under context C, then if A acts upon B under context C again, E does not logically follow.
Notice I didn't even change nonessentials here. I repeated the exact same thought experiment about metaphysics, which very likely cannot be done in such exactness more than once. Hume can't afford a repeat here, even, because it doesn't logically follow under his rules even under the assumption of a repeat of an identical case.
What Hume failed to realize was that A acting on B necessitates E under condition C, due to the identities of A, B, and C in this interaction. A cause/effect relationship itself has an identity, and since it must have metaphysical referents, its identity must come from the identity inherent in those referents. Even if you were to appeal to God, God has an identity and pulls said puppet strings on the action of A to B, making God a part of the context of action C, so this even works in this case. Hume is refuted. No epistemological depth needed. ;)
//Truthseeker: “For my worldview looking into yours I really can't see purpose.”//
Purpose to whom? If atheism is the case, this question has no referent. It's like asking "What is two to the power of?" Power of what?
//Who organized these goals? Who gives things purpose? //
"Are you still beating your wife?" =P
//You just said purpose in your worldview has to do with goal-orientation. The very processes you mention certainly do have a purpose, you are right, but they were *made* for a purpose they did not make themselves, to me this is absurd. They may be autonomic but they were made that way with intention and purpose. Without intention, purpose does not comport with your worldview. //
You're confusing what he meant. He means that although breathing is automatic, breathing has a purpose according to the person who breathes - it keeps he or she alive. A rock, likewise, has no inherent purpose, but in a context with a violent conflict between men, a rock could be objectively assigned the purpose of a defensive tool.
//You are the one who lives in make believe subjective world and can’t even logically be objective without borrowing from my worldview.//
One does not borrow without consciously asking permission. The correct term is "without using something only my worldview can explain properly."
//I wrote: If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.//
We have zero epistemic means about how life began on Earth, because we do not know what the setup was back then in the early atmosphere and on the surface. For all we know, spontaneous generation could have been as probable as the high degree of organization a tornadic supercell takes from the high degree of random chaos of the warm, moist air that the instability lifts and shear shapes into beautiful storms if the dynamics of the atmosphere are correct.
How can water come from non-water? Hydrogen and oxygen are both gasses. Continuous examples of which there are explanations abound. I am personally agnostic to how life began - if a God exists who hit the spark, fine, it's an entity in reality and I'll deal with it accordingly. But going on and on about life coming from non-life is a clear example of the fallacy of composition.
//Is there an overall purpose for these happenings from your worldview?//
Purpose TO WHOM!?!?
//Your position makes life magically come from non-life. It’s a culdesac.//
Your position has creation out of nothing, which is itself very ... magical. Besides, as mentioned above, the "life comes from non-life" counter is the fallacy of composition ;)
// God is eternal life and the origin and source of life. And please show me where science shows how life came from non-life.//
Under your precedent declaration here, we could have been as much rational toasters as rational men, since if the identity of the body has nothing to do, ultimately, with life, the content of our body does not matter.
//Please point me in the direction where science demonstrates how life came from non-life. It looks like you are the one in favor of a primitive fantasy. This is your cul-de-sac problem where you try to make people think that science has an answer for which we know it doesn’t.//
Here's the key to why I hear this all the time. What would you do if conditions of the early Earth were assessed, recreated, and boom, organisms began to exist from a pool of RNA and flourished? The result is agnostic to God's existence, but I don't think it's agnostic to the God of presuppositionalism.
Well, I guess you could always say they're affirming the consequent. ;)
//Put on as if you were about to present a theory of knowledge, but assume that you’re readers already understand how the process of abstraction works. You think that’s a responsible way of presenting a theory of knowledge? Amazing!//
The process of abstraction works from identifying identical qualities in percepts, omitting the quantitative range of measurement for these qualities, separating the set of these similar objects from other objects by isolating qualities unique to said objects, and then integrating all this information into a new concept. This also works when abstracting new concepts from ones based on percepts, or even ones based on other concepts already, as cmmonly occurs in mathematics - whose ultimate perceptual basis is the concept of addition, corresponding to perceptual grouping and organization.
//Truthseeker wonders if when Dawsin read Van Til if he understood how the process of abstraction worked?//
Essentially: all that man has in common with God's knowledge is the fact that his points of reference are the same as God's points of reference. No detail is the same except if God chooses to reveal what He eternally knows to man, hence: God and man qua man meet in knowledge at no point at all.
You know very well Clark raked Van Til on the coals for this and won. It was the whole Clark case relative to his ordination, and on the surface seems a lot more silly than it actually is. At least Clark took that man was deficient in quantitative knowledge, meaning that we could at least meet with God, qua man, on more than just the "points of reference." Clark wrecked men's perception, but Van Til did worse: he destroyed man's ability to know anything at all on his own, making him literally a completely helpless cretin without any intervention from God. Man's mind is not just faulty, it's totally nonexistent to Van Til. Considering we're made in the image of God, this is heresy to the highest degree, not to mention Biblically unsupported and completely absent from the Reformation or early fathers. Clark's much more reasonable view of concepts isn't.
//Really? So from your worldview when life did not exist yet where did concepts exist?//
Concepts did not exist when life did not exist, but the metaphysical constituents which inherently share the aspects of identity that would have entailed the formation of a concept still exist. So even though concepts did not exist, the metaphysical, logically precedent basis for concepts - the fact that to exist means to possess an identity - still existed.
//That was not really what I was trying to communicate. I’ll try again. Some concepts have a corresponding reality like a ball for instance, while some concepts do not like the laws of logic. The laws of logic are conceptual in nature while a ball is not. //
This means: the ball has a basis in reality, but the laws of logic do not have a basis in reality.
Unfortunately, the ultimate Law of Logic - identity - is based in reality - in fact, it's based in everything that exists. I'm a metaphysical Spinozist (i.e. the only possible world is the actual world, sans human action) but let's play modal logic for a bit: we can imagine a ball-less Universe, but unless we exist tabula rasa as the only entity in the Universe (which means no knowledge at all is possible, even knowledge of the self, since there isn't even a "preloaded" content of consciousness to separate oneself from), then we will always conceptualize the Law of Identity given we have the capacity to do so.
Does the Law of Identity exist if no rational minds exist? No. It is a concept, and needs a rational mind to form it.
Does the basis for the Law of Identity exist without rational minds? Yes, in the fact that everything that exists has an identity, and that if rational minds were present, the action of a rational (conceptually-able) mind upon reality could do the ultimate omission of measurements of metaphysical percepts - i.e. the omission of all specific quality and quantity to the recognition that all percepts possess quantifiable qualities as such - i.e., that the concept "existent" is the same as the concept "identity."
Existence is metaphysical identity, whether there's a rational mind to conceptualize it into the logical law of Identity or not.
Let me illustrate and reiterate. Even if the universe had objects that shared no similar aspects of identity whatsoever in specific - like a universe in which an electron, a proton, and a neutron, and a rational disembodied mind were all that existed - then the one thing possible to abstract is the one thing that these disparate identities share: the omitted measurement of the quantity of all specific quality, i.e. the abstraction that forms the Law of Identity.
Here in the real world, that still holds - the fact that all qualities in specific can be omitted in measurement and abstracted to the most general fact that all that exist have some quality in some quantity provide our axiomatic concept of the law of identity. Non-contradiction and excluded middle derive similarly as axiomatic knowledge inherent in everything that exists, with the Law of Identity serving as its precedent axiomatic concept.
Propositional logic shows that all evaluations of propositions follows from these three concepts, once we grasp grouping elements ("and") or considering them separate ("or") in accordance to the context of our need for such consideration.
There, an account for the laws of logic. And it's agnostic to whether God exists or not, or even the Christian God, for if Christ is the Word and Logic of God (John 1:1) and God made the world through Christ (Hebrews 1:1) then the Creation that Christ made is therefore endowed with the ultimate Law: identity. Mystical? Yes. But it sure beats Van Til's wreckage of the human mind that God was supposed to have created good (not morally, but structurally).
//Truthseeker: “Truth seeker wonders if Bahnsen burner has ever heard of a physical concept which would be different from an abstract one?”//
If by abstract concept you mean: the concept has no basis in reality or no ties to an antecedent chain with ultimate basis in reality, then this is incorrect. Even such things like the concept of unicorn have their basis in reality, since it abstracts away from two aspects in reality and combines the two (a horse and a horn on the head, to be brief about it).
//Exactly! If there were “physical concepts” as well, then the qualifying ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” might be necessary to clarify this in the context of a certain point. But since concepts are by their nature abstract, you wouldn’t need to do this. You make my point for me, TS!//
Again, your notion of abstract concepts are always ultimately based antecedently on "physical concepts." If not, then they would be percepts by definition, since they are not abstractions of components of existence by definition. If they do not apply to any components of reality, the concept has no identity and does not exist. If they do apply to components of reality, then these components of reality by definition have inherent and unique qualities whose omission of quantification separates them from other existents, meaning the concept can be learned from reality. This gives the presupposed concept a basis in reality and our proof of the nonexistence of abstract concepts is complete, QED.
//Truthseeker: “It’s obvious to anyone who has any good understanding of Presuppositionalism, that attempts to discredit it by claiming that it is simply an empty claim that abstract concepts such as the laws of logic cannot exist ‘in and of themselves without God’ are poorly informed.”//
That's not what I say. I say that presup is incorrect because the Laws of Logic are epistemic concepts derivable from the objective, 100% absolute, immutable, irrefutable, and ultimately precedent (metaphysical) axioms of all: existence is, and existence is identity.
//I answered this partially above. FYI, I do not think myself to be a great Van Tillian with his wisdom and knowledge, so you get it wrong here as well. To ask why one should believe God did really shows you still don’t get it. With the Eternal God in the equation all the things we have been talking about makes sense within the Christian worldview, without Him your left with a worldview that does not comport with itself.//
Van Tillianism does not comport with reality. It denies that existence is identity, that man is inherently rational and capable of conceptualizing this immutable fact into the Law of Identity and the other Laws of Logic; it denies the axiomatic fact of man's ability to choose between two or more antecedent lines of reasoning for any given action; it deifies mysticism by its neo-Orthodox Shamanistic view of God as three persons and one person; it fights Evidential Apologetics tooth and nail not really because it puts God in the back of the bus for nature's sake (Paul in your oft-quoted Romans 1 even states God can be gleaned from nature), but instead fights them because if one person converted on reason it would completely eradicate predestination, Sola Gratia, and all the rest of Calvin's ideas; it turns man into a brute psychotic to a degree that would make Freud blush; and, last but not least, a great part of its followers advocate a forceful overthrow of the government to instill a rule of theocracy, the ultimate and logical end of Van Til's total eradication of the mind of man and subsequent supplanting of all knowledge from God and God alone.
For who rules a theonomy? Those who get the most knowledge from God, i.e. the most truth. How do you rule a society of birdbrained brutes who know only destruction apart from God's grace? Answer: Force. How do we know who has been granted the most knowledge of God to govern, when no Van Tillian can ever, EVER absolutely claim his knowledge that he supposes comes from God is true? Answer: Somehow.
//If what you believe is true then what you say is just fizz and what I say is just fizz and is not intelligent but means nothing.//
Again, fallacy of composition.
//Rom 1:22 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Rom 1:20//
Emphasis mine. This passage sends Van Til to the dumpster, since God is gleaned through His creation, which was made by Christ, the Logos - not through revelation that we "think His thoughts after him" and all that weirdo stuff he came up with to make sure the clamp on man's mind was impossibly tight.
There ya go, my Presup rant and counterargument. Nothing against you personally TS, I like you and find you just as worthy as Sye, so no harm to the person - just a critical analysis of the beliefs. You're intelligent and I value that, although I wonder if you should be abandoning Van Til for at least someone with better consistency within Calvinism, like Clark or maybe even Sproul or Plantinga.
Please point me in the direction where science demonstrates how life came from non-life. It looks like you are the one in favor of a primitive fantasy. This is your cul-de-sac problem where you try to make people think that science has an answer for which we know it doesn’t.
ReplyDeleteThose sentences are heavy with dis-information and misconceptions, it's hard to know where to start.
First, when discussing the origins of life, I think that no serious or informed person would ever talk about "life" and "non-life" except as a lead-in to talk about how blurry and useless these terms really are. Even today when we try to ask the question "what is life" we have an extraordinarily difficult time drawing a clear, definite line. We can all agree that you and I are alive and that a rock is not, yet there are so many examples on the continuum between us that I think you have to be ignorant or wilfully blind to not see it.
Start by going through this good talk by Carl Zimmer about what is life.
When you do, you'll start to understand that the chemical process is no where near as difficult as you imagine.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif
For a start, do you understand that plants do not consume other living creatures to grow? They are constantly turning non-life into life. Nothing magical, nothing weird, just chemistry.
Anyone who's shown the slightest bit of interest in this question quickly realizes the interesting questions aren't how to get "life from non-life" (which is, frankly, trivial) but rather which of many possible paths life could have followed actually did.
"Life from non-life" is one of those nice-sounding rhetorical devices used by apologists to win over the simpletons who like black-and-white answers which appeal to their prejudices. You've generally shown yourself a real cut above these demagogues and I'm shocked to hear you repeat it. If you haven't looked into this before then you should have the intellectual integrity to research it before repeating it.
Truthseeker: “I was not thinking of ‘theory of concepts’ (that’s not to say that I don’t think there is still a problem as far as comporting with the overall Objectivist worldview) or that Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of every concept that there is, I was thinking about certain concepts. So from the get go you misunderstood me.”
ReplyDeleteThe understanding which Objectivists have of concepts is based on the objective theory of concepts. I figured that you would have known this. So when you say that “Ayn Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of concepts,” it appeared that you were implying that the objective theory of concepts is faulty. You state parenthetically that you are not disaffirming that “there is still a problem as far as comporting with the overall Objectivist worldview,” but it’s not clear what you mean here or what you have in mind. If you apply more care in expressing your points, it might help your interlocutors avoid misunderstanding what you’re trying to say.
Let me stress here that an understanding of concept theory is crucial to the discussion. I realize that most Christians lack this. In fact, I’ve not really found any who do have a good understanding of concept theory. The same is the case with most atheists I’ve encountered as well, so I’m not picking on Christians when I say this.
When you had stated your above statement (namely “I would say that Ayn Rand and her disciples have a faulty understanding of concepts which blind them in understanding the problem of induction”), I asked you to state what you think is wrong with Rand’s theory of concepts. Now you say that you were not “thinking of ‘theory of concepts’,” but parenthetically indicate that you still think there’s a problem somewhere.
Truthseeker before: “For this purpose I guess we could go with perceiving or perception.”
Truthseeker now: “I made a mis-statement here. I did not want to equate perception with concept. I understand a concept to be a mental unit of denotation, or an idea derived from a particular instance which we use when perceiving or understanding things.”
This is an improvement. But a couple points of correction are needed. We form concepts, not “from a particular instance,” but from two or more particular instances. Our awareness of two or more objects or attributes possessing some similar feature is crucial to our ability to form concepts, since concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission. The concept ‘ball’ for instance does not specify that every unit subsumed by that concept be two inches in diameter. Since measurements are omitted, a ball can be two inches or three feet in diameter; it can be red or white or a combination of colors; it can be solid or inflated; made of rubber or wood or plastic or metal, etc. The concept ‘ball’ includes all of these, as well as others which we have not yet perceived and those which we will never perceive. The concept is open-ended, and this open-endedness of concepts is the aspect we call “universality.” It has nothing to do with omniscience, it has nothing to do with a supernatural being. The “account for” universality which Bahnsen demanded from Stein is really extremely simple, but neither Bahnsen nor Stein seems to have understood it. (Especially Bahnsen, because he thought universality needs to be accounted for by the Christian god.)
Another point: We use concepts to identify objects which we perceive, and even ones which we do not perceive or have never perceived. I can talk with my friend about his son who was playing with a ball. I have never seen this particular ball, but I understand what is meant because I have already formed the concept ‘ball’. The concept ‘ball’ includes not only the particular entities from which I formed my concept ‘ball’, but also the ball which my friend’s son was playing with. Once identified, the objects so identified can be integrated into the sum of our knowledge. It is important that the sum of one’s knowledge be integrated without contradiction, as contradiction contaminates knowledge. People who lack a good understanding of concepts are highly vulnerable to accepting contradictions.
I had written: No. Perception gives us awareness of particular objects in our immediate awareness. When you perceive a ball, you have direct, immediate awareness of a particular entity. This is not the same thing as a concept. The concept ‘ball’ includes every ball that exists, has ever existed, and will exist. That is why when we use the concept ‘ball’ to refer to a specific ball, we need to modify it, e.g., “this ball” as opposed to any other ball.
Truthseeker: “I don’t see a problem with that.”
Okay. Good so far. Just keep in mind that I did not learn that from the bible. ;)
Truthseeker wrote: “When you ask what it's purpose is, do you believe it has purpose?”
I responded: Absolutely. I’m asking what purpose concepts have in *your* theory of concepts (whatever it might be), since you reject Rand’s for being somehow faulty.
Truthseeker: “I answered this as to what the purpose is below.”
Okay. I’ll be watching for it.
Truthseeker: “For my worldview looking into yours I really can't see purpose.”
I responded: That’s because your worldview package-deals purpose with sacrifice.
Truthseeker: “I’m not sure what you are getting it here. Are you talking about the sacrifice of Jesus? It’s true that there was a purpose in the sacrifice of Jesus but what does that have to do with what the purpose of concepts are in the first place.”
Let’s work together toward answering this. When you say you “really can’t see purpose” when you look into my worldview from yours, what specifically are you looking for that you cannot find?
I wrote: Purpose in my worldview has to do with goal-orientation.
Truthseeker: “Who organized these goals?”
In the case of autonomic biological functions (such as the digestive processes of an ameba, the beating of a heart, etc.), no one did. The goal-directedness of biological functions is inherent in biology as such. Life is conditional, and the goal of these functions is to preserve an organism’s life. They were not put in place by some magic worker. Contrast biological functions to a rock rolling down a hill. The rock has no goals; its existence does not require goal-directed activity. It just rolls until it comes to a stop. It can sit in one place for years and years and still be what it is, a rock. But when it comes to biological organisms, we’re dealing with entities which face a fundamental alternative: life vs. death. This fundamental alternative is the ultimate goal-setter for living organisms. Goal-directedness, or purpose in the broader sense, is concurrent with biology. An entity which faces no fundamental alternative of life vs. death would have no basis for one goal as opposed to any other goal. (Incidentally, this is why ascribing “purpose” to the Christian god commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.)
Truthseeker: “Who gives things purpose?”
Notice that your first two questions about “purpose” presuppose that they are assigned by an entity possessing consciousness (a “who”). The answer to your present question depends on what things we are talking about. I don’t think rocks exist for a purpose; they simply exist. They are part of the metaphysical given. As for biological organisms, as I pointed out above, purpose (or goal-directedness of self-initiated actions, including autonomic functions) is concurrent with biology, given the fundamental alternative (life vs. death, existence vs. non-existence) which they face. In the case of man-made objects, like paper, scissors, stereos, computers, skyscrapers, etc., their creators and users give them their purpose. Typically human beings give these things the purpose of helping them live and enjoy their lives. Again, no need to point to some invisible magic being to understand purpose.
Truthseeker: “How do you account for purpose and goal-orientation in you worldview?”
It’s not always clear what a Christian means by “account for” in such interrogations (since appealing to an invisible magic being settles the question in his mind). But I think the points I gave above will give you some indication of what I mean by purpose and its metaphysical basis. For more insight, I would suggest Dr. Harry Binswanger’s book, The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts. By “teleological concepts” Binswanger has in mind things like goal, purpose, end, etc., and he argues in this book quite clearly how these concepts have (as the title suggests) a biological basis (as opposed to a storybook basis, for instance).
Truthseeker: “Again I don’t see any purpose or goals standing from your worldview shoes just things that happen with no intelligence behind them.”
I don’t think you’re “standing from [in?] [my] worldview shoes” to begin with, if all this needs to be explained to you, as these points are pretty basic in Objectivism. I suspect you’re standing in your worldview’s shoes looking for what your worldview conceives “purpose” to be, which you have not stated for the record. It’s clear that your concept of purpose is underwritten by the primacy of consciousness, which is why you probably think there’s no conceptual problem in ascribing purpose to your god. But as I indicated above, the presence of a stolen concept at the root of one’s view of something invalidates that view in toto.
I had written: Not all purpose is underwritten by intention. Purpose is concurrent with life. Not all life functions are volitional. There is such a thing as autonomic processes, such as respiration, blood circulation, metabolism, etc. These processes clearly have a purpose in an organism, but they are not guided by anyone’s intention.
Truthseeker: “You just said purpose in your worldview has to do with goal-orientation. The very processes you mention certainly do have a purpose, you are right, but they were *made* for a purpose they did not make themselves, to me this is absurd.”
It does not necessarily follow from the fact that a thing did not make itself that someone made it for a purpose. Watch the non sequiturs which your worldview uses to entrap your thinking, Truthseeker. What is absurd is ascribing purpose without regard to the concept’s genetic roots. My worldview does not do this. But yours does. I didn’t realize this when I was a Christian, and you probably don’t either, being a Christian yourself.
Truthseeker: “They may be autonomic but they were made that way with intention and purpose.”
You have the burden of proving this claim. Where is it?
Truthseeker: “Without intention, purpose does not comport with your worldview.”
Here’s another claim for which you have the burden of proof. I suspect you make statements like this because you’re just not familiar with what my worldview teaches.
Truthseeker wrote: “The purpose would be to function and interact with God's creation.”
I asked: What’s the purpose of functioning and interacting with “God’s creation”?
Truthseeker: “To be created beings made in Gods image and likeness:”
What is the purpose of being “created beings made in [God’s] image and likeness”?
Truthseeker: “If we were not functional we would not be made in the image and likeness of God and we would not be able to rule over the earth.”
What would be the purpose of ruling over the earth?
You seem to conceive of purpose as being performed in the interest of certain tasks which were assigned by an invisible magic being, but so far I see nothing which would qualify as an end in itself (as life is, according to my worldview). Without an end in itself, what would serve as the necessary basis for assigning any goals in the first place? You want to point to your god as the originator of goals, but this is nonsensical, given the stolen concept which such ascriptions commit (as I pointed out above). Your god is supposed to be immortal, indestructible, impervious to any and all forms of harm, incorruptible, etc. Such a being would not face the fundamental alternative of life vs. death which gives biological functions their purpose. In fact, given these descriptors, your god could sit on its proverbial hands for all eternity, doing nothing forever, and still be whatever it supposedly is. In short, it has no objective basis for goal-oriented action whatsoever. My above questions (“What is the purpose of being “created beings made in [God’s] image and likeness?” and “What would be the purpose of ruling over the earth?”) are intended to help you tease this fact (that your god would have no objective basis for goal-oriented action) on your own. I’m trying to help you out of the maze, Truthseeker. I’m providing light at the end of the tunnel. It’s up to you to look up and see it, and decide whether you want to stay in the maze or come out into the sunlight and liberate your mind from mysticism. It is your choice.
Truthseeker wrote: “The purpose would be to function and interact with God's creation. This makes sense in my worldview in your it does not.”
I responded: It doesn’t make sense at all. In the context of a fantasy you formulate such expressions in order to appear to have an answer, but it’s just an idle, empty claim with no objective meaning whatsoever. It is based on a fantasy and “makes sense” only in the context of a fantasy. I know, I was there myself at one time in my life.
Truthseeker now: “It does make sense.”
You don’t show that it makes sense. You simply assert that it does. Here’s a question to help you recognize the interminable regress to which your worldview’s notion of purpose commits your thinking. Above you had stated “the purpose would be to function and interact with God’s creation.” So the question to ask now is: What is the purpose of functioning and interacting with God’s creation? This is a valid question, unless of course you think there’s no purpose in functioning and interacting with God’s creation. I don’t know how you would answer this, but I’m supposing it would have something to do with your god, either its requirements or its desires or its plan or what have you. But this would just push the question back another step. What is the purpose of doing [whatever answer you give to my question]? And on and on and on, with no final end in itself. That’s why it makes no sense. But you say it makes sense, however you do not indicate why it makes sense or how it could.
Truthseeker: “You assume that what I believe is a fantasy that I formulate when it is actually truth that God Himself communicates and says that people like you are the ones in fantasy and empty claims:”
Truthseeker, it should not be difficult for grown adults to recognize that anyone can fantasize that his knowledge has its basis in communication from a supernatural source. Those who take such fantasies seriously are likely to be motivated to characterize those who do not ascribe to said fantasies as themselves being taken in by fantasies. You quoted some bible verses (Col. 2:8; Rom. 1:22-23; John 1:5, 3:19 and 8:12), which deliberately paint outsiders as spreaders of falsehood, deception, foolishness. But you point to nothing specific in my worldview which is fantastic. Can you identify some fundamental teaching of my worldview which you think is really fantastic?
You then made a series of unargued assertions:
Truthseeker: “In the context of your fantasy what you say does not even ‘make sense’. If you were there at one time in your life you just moved away from light into darkness putting your trust in fallible man instead of the incorruptible God. You are the one who lives in make believe subjective world and can’t even logically be objective without borrowing from my worldview.”
When I was a Christian, I was taught to rely on statements like these which characterize outsiders in an overwhelmingly and irredeemably negative manner, for the express purpose of keeping me in the fold. It’s all part of Device 2: Discrediting the World. It is through discrediting the world (those nasty outsiders who are damned to hell for eternity) that the believer cons himself into thinking he can validate his Christian god-beliefs. Of course, the fallacious nature of such thinking here is obvious. Without anything to recommend those god-beliefs, the believer lashes out at outsiders in order to widen the divide between them, for the sake of calming his own lingering salvation doubts which he can never fully chase away. Then he quotes scripture in order to feign an ease of mind. The goal here is for the believer to reinforce his commitment to the god-belief program rather than validate his position on the matter under dispute.
I had written: If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.
Truthseeker then replied: “I see this as a non sequitur. Let me explain. You believe that human beings evolved from non-life if you go back far enough in the evolutionary tree at its begining root unaided by intelligence. It just somehow happened given the right circumstances in mother nature. Chance,coincidence, randomness, luck(and you talk about purpose).”
I responded: Who said anything about “chance, coincidence, randomness, luck”? Not I. This is your mischaracterization of my position, for the purposes of easily discrediting it. No, my worldview recognizes the law of causality: identity applied to action. We do not say this happened due to “chance” or “luck.”
Truthseeker now writes: “Again I’m speaking of intent vs. chance, coincidence, randomness, luck similar to what I stated above.”
I realize that. My point is that you’ve accepted a false dichotomy, the two horns of which you state explicitly here: “intent vs. chance, coincidence, randomness, luck.” My point above is that you deliberately left out the one factor which you need to ignore in order to deploy your apologetic, namely causality. If in fact life forms have evolved from biological precedents, they did so according to a causal process. Natural selection is the application of causality to life. There’s no appeal to “chance, coincidence, randomness, luck” involved here. Is it just luck or chance that the engine of your car starts when you turn the ignition key? Or do you think that your god causes the engine to start when you turn the ignition key, as if there were no mechanical chain of causes connecting your action to the result? I doubt it. So why would one suppose that evolution or any other phenomenon in reality is restricted to such arbitrary alternatives? You offer no reason why one should. But limiting the options in such an arbitrary manner is clearly key to your apologetic method. I see no good reason to accept such premises.
Truthseeker: “Looking at your worldview as a whole I think this characterizes your position well.”
You’re not really looking at my worldview if your understanding of it is in such dire need of fundamental corrections as this. You’re looking at what Bahnsen and other apologists want you to see in my worldview. You’re battling a straw man, Truthseeker.
Truthseeker: “In your worldview things happen because other things cause them to happen and other things cause them to happen ad nauseam.”
Here’s another case in point. You do not understand my worldview’s conception of causality. We do not ascribe to the event-based model of causation. Objectivism holds to the entity-based model of causation. Events are not primaries; they are causal consequences. The primaries in my worldview are existents, entities whose actions are necessarily based on their nature qua entities. No “ad nauseum” involved here, because actions are not simply a series of events which “happen” to follow one another in some random, unnecessary sequence. Incidentally, since you wanted me to speak on Kelley’s answer to Hume’s conception of induction, here’s one of Hume’s failings right here! Hume clearly saw no necessary relationship between an entity and the actions it performs, since he ascribed to the same faulty view of causation that you’re repeating here. This is just one area where Hume was incorrect, but it’s a biggie. By correcting this and other errors which Hume factored into his argument for inductive skepticism, Objectivism is the only worldview which I’ve found which can answer Hume. To answer Hume, we need to identify the errors in his argument. I do not see Bahnsen ever doing this.
Truthseeker: “Is there an overall purpose for these happenings from your worldview?”
It depends on what things you have in mind. A rock’s falling down a hill is not purposive action. But a frog’s heartbeat is. It is important not to rob a concept of its objective meaning by decontextualizing its application. But if one does not realize that the meaning of a concept is contextual, he will be vulnerable to uses of that concept which deny its genetic basis. This is why Christians think that ascribing purpose to the actions they imagine their god performing is perfectly valid: they do not understand how delicate the context of a concept’s meaning really is.
Truthseeker: “I don’t think so it’s just the chain of chance.”
Again, you show that you’re battling a straw man. You’re not interacting with my position, but with a phantasm which you let stand in place of my position. Hopefully some of my points above will show how incorrect your assessment of my position is.
Truthseeker: “You seem to be adding personification to things which are not personal to make your worldview appear coherent and then call mine a fantasy to easily discredit it.”
Where do you think I “seem to be adding personification to things which are not personal”? Why would I need to do this to “make [my] worldview appear coherent”?
Truthseeker: “No, my worldview recognizes intent while yours does not but tries to make it appear that there is purpose.”
My worldview recognizes intent, where there is in fact intent. What my worldview does not do is indulge one’s imagination that there is some invisible magic being whose intentions lie behind everything we perceive. Also, as I have pointed out above, there are instances of purpose which have no intention behind them. A frog’s heartbeat is an example. There’s a purpose to it (keeping the frog alive), but the frog is not intentionally doing this (it is an autonomic function) and I see no reason to assert the existence of an invisible magic being whose intentions make this a reality. What’s more, Truthseeker, you’ve not produced any reasons to suppose there is such a being whose intentions make this happen.
Truthseeker wrote: “I say that an intelligent Being gave rise to us by design.”
I responded: We know. But that removes any actual “account for” life from your purported “account.” You begin with something that is already said to be “living” as an explanation for living things. You’ve shown no non sequitur in my analysis above. The rest of what you said on this point does not justify your charge of non sequitur either.
Truthseeker then wrote: “It’s non sequitur because we were talking about ‘life on earth’.”
No, you have now simply limited the discussion to this specific context (“life on earth”) because you see my point. I’m talking life as such. If life originated elsewhere, beyond earth, and came here from somewhere else, we’d still be in a position to question how it arose, where it came from, for an “account for” life.
I had written: If you reject out of hand the possibility that life on earth originated from non-life, and think that life is best “accounted for” by pointing to something that is said to be “living” (e.g., “the Living God”), it seems that you really have no explanation for life at all.
You seem to have missed the point of my statement here and turned it into a justification for limiting the demand for an “account for” life to merely “life on earth” (so as to allow for life being “accounted for” by a living thing), which is not the intention of my above statement. The context of my point above should be clear. I’m perfectly happy with supposing the life that exists on earth originated here on earth. If biological organisms originated on earth, they did so through some causal process which would be identifiable so long as we have access to the relevant evidential data. In other words, it would not have been by “chance” or “randomness” or “luck.” These are not metaphysical concepts. Causality is a metaphysical concept. (The concepts ‘chance’, ‘random’, ‘luck’ etc. refer to epistemological conditions, not metaphysical conditions.)
Then again, if one wants to argue that life on earth originated somewhere else and somehow came to earth, that might “account for” life on earth, but it would still not “account for” life as such. Similarly, by pointing to an invisible magic being which is said to be a living thing as the origin of life on earth, the Christian might consider this to be an “account for” life on earth, but it would not qualify as an “account for” life as such. Why? Because he’s simply pointing to something that’s (said to be) alive, and it is life as such that he has been called to “account for.” So the problem for the Christian remains. But for my position, there is no problem, since it is open to factual data gathered from reality, and I am willing to abide by that data and any logical implications which can be validly drawn from it.
Truthseeker: “Logically if ‘the living God’ exist which I believe He does, and if He did create ‘life on earth’ which I believe He did. Then life on earth would be accounted for.”
See my comments above. To the extent that this could qualify as an “account for” life on earth, it still does not “account for” life as such, since it starts with something that’s already said to be living. Moreover, if this constitutes an “account for” life on earth, then why wouldn’t pointing to Blarko as the creator of life on earth also qualify as an “account for” life on earth? I see no more evidence for the Christian “account for” life on earth than the Blarko-believer’s “account for” the same.
Truthseeker: “So yes I have an explanation for life on earth. You also are committing the fallacy of equivocation, not understanding the difference between the Living God and life on earth.”
No equivocation on my part. You are using the concept ‘life’ and its cognates to refer to both biological organisms on earth as well as to your god. You’ve simply tried to narrow the focus of the challenge in order to escape the obvious point that you really have no “account for” life as such, whereas my position is certainly open to what science has to discover on this matter.
Truthseeker wrote: “I believe that one day mankind could through intention possibly figure out how to make some form of biological life.”
I responded: This is irrelevant to my point above.
Truthseeker then wrote: “Only if you don’t understand the argument!”
What “argument”? So far I’ve not seen any argument from you. I’ve just seen you assert that your god somehow “accounts for” life (on earth or elsewhere) by asserting that it created it. That’s not an argument. It’s just a series of unargued assertions.
Truthseeker: “The life that mankind would make would be accounted for by mankind even if we did not know where mankind came from.”
That’s fine. But we’re not talking about life created by mankind. We’re talking about life qua life. I am anyway. It should be clear that your statement about “mankind” one day being able to figure out how to make some form of biological life is irrelevant to my overall point, that pointing to something that’s said to be alive is fruitless when it comes to giving an “account for” life. In fact, the example you raise is just another case in point.
Truthseeker wrote: “After all we are made in Gods image.”
I responded: More fantasy. Next:
Truthseeker now writes: “It’s actually fantasy to say that we’re not! You have to borrow from my worldview to even attempt to argue against it. I suppose you won’t understand that.”
I suppose you’re not going to try to defend any of these statements by producing any arguments on their behalf. In that case, what is there to “understand” here? Anyone can imagine that we were created by an invisible magic being. What I think has actually happened is men imagined a god in their own image, projecting certain attributes to an imaginary consciousness and denying from it other attributes which men actually possess (like a body, the need for values, the need to acquire and validate knowledge through an objective process, etc.).
Truthseeker wrote: “I could account for that biological created life without having to account for my human life.”
I responded: This misses the point of my statement above. Keep trying:
Truthseeker now writes: “No, you miss the point of the argument of my statement above.”
I did not see any argument in your statement above. What were the premises, and what conclusion were they supposed to support?
Truthseeker wrote: “In the same way I can account for biological life on earth in the same way without giving an account for God which is another question.”
I responded: But if your god is supposed to be a living being, but you point to your god in order to “account for” life, you’re simply moving the peg back a step, without actually presenting an account for life. You’ve been asked to give an account for life, but you point to something that’s (allegedly) alive. You’re just going around in circles. It’s a tape-loop.
Truthseeker now writes: “Again we are talking about life on earth. Life on earth would be accounted for. Yes the peg does go back one step but the step before it is accounted for. Again you misunderstand the Living God vs. life on earth and have committed the fallacy of equivocation. Your position makes life magically come from non-life. It’s a culdesac.”
A “culdesac”? My “position makes life magically come from non-life”? If it were truly the case that my “position makes life magically come from non-life,” what could you possibly have against it? Your position says that life on earth magically came from some non-biological thing that you call “living.” Meanwhile, my position does not assert the existence of anything supernatural in order to “account for” anything, so again you are battling a straw man. And it’s easy to correct: if the first biological organisms did arise from non-living things, they did so through a *causal* process, not through “magic” – i.e. not through some supernatural consciousness which has the power to just wish things into existence. That’s Christianity, not my worldview. But again, if my position did assert that life magically came from non-life (e.g., from something like dust - sound familiar?), what could you possibly have against it?
Truthseeker wrote: “Also from my worldview life on earth had a beginning, God did not. Life on earth was created and God is uncreated.”
I responded: This can only mean that your dogma necessarily confines you to tape-loop mode on this matter. You can’t give an account for life as such. And yet you fault other positions for drawing on science to do so. I almost feel sorry for you if you don’t see this. Almost...
Truthseeker: “No I already accounted for life.”
See your own comments above, Truthseeker! You have been at pains to restrict the challenge to “accounting for” life on earth. Here I point out that “you can’t give an account for life as such,” and respond to this saying “No I already accounted for life.” Good grief, man! Is your mind really that internally fractured? If you think you have an “account for” life as such (and this would include your god if you say it’s a living being, as Christianity does affirm about its god), then what is it?????
Truthseeker continued: “This just shows you don’t have a clue who God is, and that your dogma necessarily confines you to culdesac mode on this matter.”
I have no idea what you mean by “culdesac mode.” If resting with what science can discover and validate is what you mean by “culdesac mode,” I’m happy to go with it.
As for my not “hav[ing] a clue who God is,” feel free to educate me. Tell me about this being you imagine. If you want to insist that it is not imaginary, then you need to explain to me how I can reliably distinguish between what you call “God” and what you may simply be imagining. So far you’ve not identified any epistemological tools by which I can do this.
Truthseeker: “A being that is uncreated and eternal would account for Himself because there is nothing beyond or higher than Himself.”
So you really don’t have an “account for” life as such. You just affirm the existence of something that you say is living as the starting point of your “account for” life, and now affirm that it “accounts for” itself. I see no reason why I cannot do similarly. For instance, how do I know that life has not always existed in the universe? In my view, the universe is eternal (i.e., out of time, uncreated), and I am open to the possibility that life has always existed in it somewhere. So why can’t I just say that life “accounts for” itself?
Truthseeker: “That is why God swears by Himself.”
Why would your god need to swear by itself? What purpose would that serve?
Truthseeker: “God is eternal life and the origin and source of life.”
Your god is not a living thing, Truthseeker. It is an imaginary construct in which you’ve invested yourself emotionally.
Truthseeker: “And please show me where science shows how life came from non-life.”
That is a scientific question, and I am not a scientist. Can you provide me with any reason to think that it would be impossible for life to have originated abiogenetically?
Truthseeker: “God is life:”
Life is biological, Truthseeker. To call your god “life” or “living” is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.
Truthseeker wrote: “But even if HE was not uncreated He would at least account for us if He is the Creator of our world.”
I responded: One could say this about any invisible magic being he imagines. The Lahu have a very similar position with their Geusha.
Truthseeker now writes: “Yes and one can say anything they want about anything and sound and fury signify nothing!”
Indeed. One can say anything he wants about something that does not exist. For instance, Christians like to repeat I Corinthians 14:33, which reads “God is not the author of confusion.” This is true, in the following sense: something would have to first exist in order to author anything, be it confusion or anything else. But since your god is imaginary, i.e., non-real, non-existent, it can’t author anything. The same verse goes on to say “but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” The bible itself tells us that we know them by their fruits, and the churches throughout the history of Christendom have shown little if anything resembling peace. So if your god is the author of peace, it’s clear that it is not real because of all the bitterness, rivalry, schisms, endless disputing and internecine conflict which have characterized the churches for two millennia.
Truthseeker: “The God I speak of in not an imagined being.”
I know you’re deep in denial on this.
Truthseeker: “He has revealed Himself in the flesh.”
Are you speaking of the gospel narratives of Jesus? They’re legends, nothing more.
I know one thing: your god has not “revealed Himself in the flesh” to me.
Truthseeker: “And if He is the Creator of our world and us you we will have to answer to Him.”
I responded: Ah, there it is, the theistic threat, right on schedule. Frustrated with your inability to defend your position, your fear pulses through your veins, so you lash out with a threat. Go ahead, Truthseeker, bring your god on. It does not frighten me.
Truthseeker: “Unless you’re omniscient, what makes you think I’m frustrated?”
Your own actions and words do.
Truthseeker: “You’re hilarious.”
Why thank you! I’ve always had a ripe sense of humor.
Truthseeker: “I’m not by the way. You can’t even get that right! My fear pulses through my veins? LOL. It seems that you are the one frustrated with silly comments like that.”
Are you saying you have no fear? I thought that the bible said that “the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).
Truthseeker: “Why don’t you tell God to put up His dukes while you’re at it!”
Because there is no god to say this to. Unlike Christians, I am not in the habit of talking to things that do not exist.
I asked: Are you saying that the process of conceptualizing data which we perceive in the world is false?
Truthseeker responded: “No, I'm saying I don't believe in the storybook view that life on earth came from non-life unaided by intelligence and then this life evolved to be able to conceptualize data which in turn was able to perceive the world.”
I then wrote: How about the scientific view? Obviously you reject that as well in favor of a primitive fantasy.
Truthseeker now writes: “Please point me in the direction where science demonstrates how life came from non-life.”
I do not know that science has yet demonstrated this (nor did I say that it has). Science certainly has not shown that life originated in an act of supernatural consciousness (e.g., “God’s will”).
Truthseeker: “It looks like you are the one in favor of a primitive fantasy.”
Not I, Truthseeker. I have no god-belief. Remember?
Truthseeker: “This is your cul-de-sac problem where you try to make people think that science has an answer for which we know it doesn’t.”
Where did I say that science has the answer for something we know it doesn’t? Again, I have nowhere affirmed that science has demonstrated how life began abiogenetically. But this is not an argument against going with what science has to say on the nature of life. And I’m not trying to make anyone do anything against his will. I seek to persuade, not to force or threaten.
I wrote: Put on as if you were about to present a theory of knowledge, but assume that you’re readers already understand how the process of abstraction works. You think that’s a responsible way of presenting a theory of knowledge? Amazing!
Truthseeker wrote: “Truthseeker wonders if when Dawsin read Van Til if he understood how the process of abstraction worked?”
Go back and read our exchange just prior to the statement you quoted from me above. Recall what we were talking about: Van Til wrote a book called A Christian Theory of Knowledge, which I have. Copyright 1969, with 390 pages (including notes and an index). In that book Van Til includes no discussion of concepts, of how the mind forms abstractions, of what an abstraction is. After pointing this out, I had asked Truthseeker:
How can one present a theory of knowledge without discussing the process of abstraction?
Truthseeker then responded: “Easy, by assuming that it was understood what an abstraction was.”
Now I understood what an abstraction was prior to reading Van Til’s book, but I did not learn this from a Christian source. I learned it from Ayn Rand, from a non-Christian worldview. The theory of concepts which I know of explicitly non-Christian (for instance, it does not allow for the stolen concepts which inform the Christian worldview). Christians need to supply their own theory of concepts, one which can “make sense” of what Objectivism exposes as stolen concepts. I would think that his book A Christian Theory of Knowledge would have been a good opportunity for Van Til to present a specifically Christian understanding of concepts. But it’s not there, not that I can find.
Now if Christian readers are expected already to have an understanding of a specifically Christian theory of concepts when reading Van Til’s book, where would they get it from? Just how does Christianity “account for” concepts?????
I wrote: Statements to effect that ‘abstract concepts’ (a redundant phrase) cannot exist ‘in and of themselves without God’ is simply an empty claim.
Truthseeker asked: “Really? So from your worldview when life did not exist yet where did concepts exist?”
I don’t think there were any concepts before life existed (supposing life has not always existed, which I do not know). Concepts are the form in which man has his knowledge of the world. My point is that the Christian god has nothing to do with a proper understanding of concepts. That much should be clear.
I wrote: No, it’s redundant because concepts by their very nature are abstract. They are formed by a process of abstraction. One does not need to qualify the concept ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” because they’re already abstract. So for those who do not understand this, what is actually a redundancy seems necessary. It’s not.
Truthseeker: “That was not really what I was trying to communicate. I’ll try again. Some concepts have a corresponding reality like a ball for instance, while some concepts do not like the laws of logic. The laws of logic are conceptual in nature while a ball is not.”
I think I understand what you mean here. The units which the concept ‘ball’ denotes are concrete particulars, while the units which the concept ‘logic’ denotes are other abstractions. I would agree. We can form abstractions from previously formed abstractions (see for instance chapter 3 of Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which is titled “Abstraction from Abstractions”).
Truthseeker: “Truth seeker wonders if Bahnsen burner has ever heard of a physical concept which would be different from an abstract one?”
I wrote: Exactly! If there were “physical concepts” as well, then the qualifying ‘concept’ with the modifier “abstract” might be necessary to clarify this in the context of a certain point. But since concepts are by their nature abstract, you wouldn’t need to do this. You make my point for me, TS!
Truthseeker: “See Physical Concept”
This link didn’t open for me. Is someone actually arguing that concepts are not abstract???? I’ve seen a lot of things, but I don’t think I’ve seen that before. But obviously we’re not talking about the same thing here.
Truthseeker: “The structure ‘abstract concept’ has been used the way that I used it. Just google it. But your point is taken. Look up abstraction on Wikipedia and you will find it there are well referring to something that is abstract vs. concrete. But you point is taken. I understand that the concrete is not the actual concept, but I think you understand what I’m getting at.”
For one, I do not google for my understanding of concepts. Nor do I consult Wikipedia for an understanding of what concepts are. But yes, I think we both understand: concepts (i.e., the form in which we possess our knowledge) are by their nature abstract. The word “concept” and “abstraction” are essentially interchangeable in my view.
Truthseeker: “To ask why one should believe God did really shows you still don’t get it.”
Fine. Let’s say I don’t get it. Can you explain the part that I don’t get?
Truthseeker: “With the Eternal God in the equation all the things we have been talking about makes sense within the Christian worldview, without Him your left with a worldview that does not comport with itself.”
This does not help at all. It just seems to be a restatement of what needs to be explained and validated. Why would I believe that there is an “Eternal God” in the first place? How does any of it make sense? I’ve looked at it for years, and even when I was a Christian it didn’t make sense. When I confessed this to my elders I was told that it doesn’t need to make sense to me, that I was “leaning on my own understanding” (Prov. 3:5) too much, and to “let go, and let God.” Now I encounter apologists who tell me that Christianity makes sense of everything under the sun. So have at it. Explain how it really does “make sense” and how “without Him [I’m] left with a worldview that does not comport with itself.” Where does my worldview not “comport with itself”? What am I expected to understand from this in the first place?
Truthseeker: “It may appeal to the unbelievers imagination, but it only betrays a profound ignorance of how the mind works when affected by sin.”
If our minds really are disabled by some invisible force called “sin,” then wouldn’t you expect us not to understand anything you have to say? If that’s the case, why not just say “you won’t understand” and leave it at that? At this point, you only demonstrate that you really have nothing intelligent to offer on the topics of the present discussion. That’s why you keep trying to drag the discussion off onto other matters, like “how the mind works when affected by sin.”
Truthseeker now writes: “Just because the mind is affected by sin does not mean that things can’t be understood. You have God given intelligence and then turn around and say things that are unintelligent like intelligence came from non-intelligence. This is rebellion against God. Speaking from your worldview about some invisible force called ‘intelligence’ in a world of matter makes no sense and we would not even be able to have this present discussion. If what you believe is true then what you say is just fizz and what I say is just fizz and is not intelligent but means nothing.”
It seems that this notion that the human mind is “affected by sin” is simply a slogan that the apologist can use to obscure things. Our minds are “affected by sin,” but that “does not mean that things can’t be understood” presumably by those whose minds are allegedly “affected by sin.” The concern here involves your charge that I have misunderstood the things I’ve read, in Bahnsen, in Van Til, in the bible, etc. As for my intelligence, this is really something I’ve given myself, through my own effort, my own hard work. I can assure you it did not come from an infallible, omniscient being. It does not bear any marks of such an origin. As for “intelligence came from non-intelligence,” I don’t think I’ve actually affirmed this as a positional statement of mine. It treats the concept of intelligence far too indelicately for my understanding. Intelligence presupposes consciousness, and this is what needs to be understood first, before discussing intelligence, since consciousness lies at the very root of any intelligence. I would not call intelligence a “force” either, but an attribute of the human mind (i.e., specifically of a consciousness capable of conceptual integration). As for “a world of matter,” it’s true: there’s matter all around us. I am composed of matter, and so are you. My world is at ease with this fact. It does not cause me any worry or sleepless nights. The fact that we are physical organisms which possess consciousness (the very precondition of intelligence, as I mentioned above) does not worry me either. Why would it? Why should it? All your statements here show a profound unfamiliarity with my worldview. And yet you try to interact with it anyway.
Truthseeker wrote: “Almighty man(in general) thinks he thinks without God.”
So, you think with your god’s assistance, is that it, Truthseeker? Your god is supposed to be infallible and omniscient, right? Can you demonstrate this power of thinking, if in fact your god really does assist your thinking? Look, anyone can imagine that a supernatural being is helping him along. But it’s a fantasy, through and through. Imagination, not knowledge, is what informs your worldview. Look at how much correction your statements need in just this one comment! If your mind truly were being assisted by an omniscient and infallible being, I don’t think that is what we would be seeing here.
Truthseeker: “No, without God there would be no thinking at all period. I already stated that anyone can imagine anything and that sound and fury signify nothing.”
Indeed. One could even imagine that there is a god and that without it “there would be no thinking at all period.”
Truthseeker:”The God I believe in is not some imaginary supernatural being that I made up but has revealed Himself and many of His creatures acknowledge Him.”
I remember trying to convince myself of the same when I was a Christian.
Truthseeker: “The very fact that we exist and have capacity to know and think demonstrates this truth.”
Right. I used to say similar things. I deliberately interpreted everything as evidence of the Christian god.
Truthseeker: “Atom’s banging around is what would inform your worldview if it were true but it’s not.”
No, ideas inform my worldview. And those ideas are true. They have an objective correspondence to reality.
Truthseeker: “It comes from the imagination of ‘men....’”
Atoms did not come from the imagination of men. And a worldview which is based on facts is also not something that is founded on one’s imagination. A consciousness which allegedly inhabits a supernatural realm and “controls whatsoever comes to pass”... Now that’s imagination!
Regards,
Dawson
Truthseeker: “If you think Kelley has a good argument against Hume I’m challenging you to present the case! When you first started commenting on this blog you asserted that “Kelley’s approach is unique in that he actually examines the premises of Hume’s argument for inductive skepticism” and that “Kelley discovers several fundamental errors in Hume’s argument, errors which pretty much guaranteed his skeptical conclusions.” Show us this examination for us to examine to see it it has any merit.”
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to do so. But before we delve into Kelley’s answer to Hume, it would be wise first to understand the argument Hume gave for his conclusion regarding induction. Since you seem to think that Hume’s conclusion is such a defeater for non-Christian worldviews, would you mind producing it for us to examine? If you have confidence in it, I would think that you’d be willing to do this.
Truthseeker: “The Christian worldview does not simply appeal to an “invisible magic being” made out of the imagination.”
Actually, it does. I see it all the time. Every time a believer invokes his god, that’s exactly what he’s doing.
Truthseeker: “You misrepresent Bahnsen and at the same time claim to discredit both Bahnsen and Hume as thinkers.”
Hume made numerous mistakes. There are notable mistakes in his argument for inductive skepticism, one of the things he’s most famous for. A lot of thinkers do not catch Hume’s mistakes, because their worldview is insufficient to detect and correct them. Bahnsen is an example of this.
Truthseeker: “I suppose you think Immanuel Kant is discredited as a thinker as well for agreeing with Hume.”
There are more important reasons to reject Kant.
Truthseeker: “I guess I will have to educate you a bit.”
Yes, please do. I suggest you begin by reproducing Hume’s argument on induction, and we can proceed from there. What do you say?
Truthseeker: “Whether or not you think Hume demonstrated a problem of induction many other great thinkers(Kant) believed that he did.”
Fine. But what does that matter? Is the number of people who agree with a position of any significance to you? It’s not to me. Why worry about who agreed with Hume? Why not examine Hume’s argument?
Truthseeker: “Bahnsen on the other hand did not believe there to be a problem given the Christian worldview. And I have heard him give the answer to Hume on this. So you are wrong. Since you claim to know so much about Bahnsen lets see if you can state it.”
I think you’ve misunderstood me. My point is not that Bahnsen did not believe there to be a problem given the Christian worldview. Not at all. It’s obvious that Bahnsen considered Christianity to be the perfect worldview, solving things like Hume’s problem of induction with the wave of a magic wand. My point was that Bahnsen delighted in trumpeting Hume’s conclusion about induction, but nowhere shows awareness of the errors Hume made in his argument regarding induction. If you think I’m wrong, just show me where Bahnsen in fact does perform an analysis of Hume’s argument on induction and shows where Hume was wrong.
Truthseeker: “Bahnsens claim about Hume was concerning the atheist worldview which you should know.”
Yes, I know. For one thing, there are many worldviews which are atheistic in nature, not just one. Bahnsen’s expression “the atheist worldview” is problematic in that it fails to recognize fundamental distinctions among non-theistic worldviews, lumping them altogether in a most careless manner. This allows Bahnsen to attribute the failings of one non-theistic worldview to all others, as if they were monolithic in affirming the same thing at every turn. Such sloppiness is one of Bahnsen’s trademarks. It is inexcusable coming from someone who postures himself as an authority on philosophical matters.
Truthseeker: “I still doubt given an atheist worldview that you can show Hume’s supposed errors.”
That’s fine. You can doubt all you want, Truthseeker. If you think Hume’s argument is so sound, then present it and explain why you think it’s sound. Remember that a sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.
Truthseeker: “I again challenge you to show it instead of calling on someone else. Just repeat the argument I don’t mind.”
In other words, you’re not familiar with Kelley’s answer to Hume. Right? So you really aren’t in a position to know whether it provides a solution or not, right?
Tell me, Truthseeker, suppose Kelley does answer Hume and provide a genuine solution to the problem of induction. What would you say then? Would you admit that it succeeds? Or would you try to poke holes in it? Would you just go silent and we don’t hear from you again?
I had written: Moreover, there are solid reasons to conclude that god-belief could only destroy one’s confidence in his inductive inferences. I remember one Christian saying that dogs do not type on computers. But how could he know this? How could he know that somewhere his god is having a pack of dogs typing on computers? What Christian would deny his god’s ability to empower a dog to type on a computer? How do you know that no dog right now is typing on a computer? How do you know that I’m not really a dog typing on a computer? In fact, he was borrowing from *my* worldview in affirming the statement that “dogs do not type on computers.” His Christian mysticism cannot consistently support such statements.
Truthseeker: “He could know this, because God did not make dogs in His own image and likeness with intelligence the way that He made mankind which is not only able to type on computers but was the maker of computers. Would it be possible for God to empower a dog to type on a computer? Sure, but it’s not probable.”
Your first statement (about dogs supposedly not being made in the image of your god) suggests that dogs wouldn’t be able to type on computers, but then turn around and say “Sure,” that your god could in fact “empower a dog to type on a computer” in spite of supposedly not having been created in your god’s image. It seems that the “created in God’s image” part here is ultimately irrelevant, since you concede that your god can make dogs which type on computers. So why even bring it up?
Then after conceding that your god could in fact make dogs which can type on computers (which you’d have to do, just as I predicted, since you wouldn’t want to say that anything like this is beyond your god’s power to do), you say “but it’s not probable.” Apparently this is a last-ditch effort to salvage your concession to my point. But it has no credibility as a defense. What would probability have to do with it? Indeed, given the existence of an invisible magic being which can do whatever it pleases (cf. Ps. 115:3) and which “controls whatsoever comes to pass” (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 160), how does one calculate the probability of anything? Calculating probability requires at least some fixed data, but given an invisible magic being, what fixed data can you appeal to? Van Til tells us why there is none on Christianity’s premises: “God may at any time take one fact and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent reason in the facts or laws themselves why this should not be done” (Ibid., p. 27). Assessing the probability of any proposal presupposes factual bases which do not conform to anyone’s will. But on Christianity’s premises, there are no factual bases which do not conform to “God’s will.” Was the resurrection “probable”? If there’s an invisible magic being supernaturally calling all the shots, probabilities simply don’t apply. Suppose one thinks he has enough data to calculate the probability of some event. What then? Suppose he concludes it’s a very, very low probability that X will happen. All it takes is his god to make it happen. Improbable things can and do happen. Again, all certainty about the world is out the window when one premises his understanding of it on the ultimate of all wild cards: an omnipotent deity whose will controls whatever happens in the world.
Truthseeker: “As far as borrowing from your worldview I don’t think so. From your worldview how do you know that a pack of dogs on planet Bone a billion light years away are not typing away one computers where dogs evolved different then they did here on earth because of different variables that caused them to be the dominant life form with intelligence. I mean come on from your worldview intelligence can come from non-intelligence. Where do you get that from induction?”
Your model of knowledge is erroneous. We do not have to disprove arbitrary notions like this. We work forward from validated evidence, not backwards from proposed scenarios such as the one you give here in some kind of process of elimination. I have no evidence of a planet named Bone where there are dogs typing on computers. So why should I entertain the notion?
And yes, any time you make a statement of certainty about the world, you are in fact borrowing from my worldview, though I doubt you would be willing to recognize this. Every time you make any statement about the world and suppose that it has correspondence to some state of affairs which obtains independent of anyone’s consciousness, you are in fact borrowing from my worldview. Why? Because you’re making use of the primacy of existence principle, a principle which Christianity neither teaches nor with which its fundamentals are consistent.
Truthseeker: “You would in fact have to borrow from my worldview in which God tells us that He made mankind and not dogkind after His own image and likeness an from this we would know that dogs do not have the intellect to type on a computer.”
But your own admission that “Sure” your god can “empower a dog to type” in spite of supposedly not being made in your god’s image, shows that appeals to this feature of your religion is moot. Meanwhile, I can be certain that there are no dogs typing novels on computers because I know that there’s no invisible magic being to mess with reality. So to answer your poorly defended claim here, I am not in fact borrowing from your worldview. If I were borrowing from your worldview, the only thing I could say about anything is, “I don’t know. God’s in control, and whatever he wills governs reality. God does not have to check in with me before he executes his will. As Psalms 115:3 tells us, God is in heaven and has done whatsoever he pleases.” This is surely no formula for reliable knowledge of the world; it would undercut every epistemological principle one would need to make use of in establishing knowledge of the world.
Truthseeker wrote: “If you think Kelly has a solid argument against Hume and Kant then present it in it's basic form for this blog and let it be scrutinized.”
I responded: I won’t, and for a few good reasons. One, I don’t see any need to do this. Kelley’s book is still in print and available if you are interested in knowing its contents. He is certainly able to defend his own points. Also, Kelley’s book covers a lot of ground, and frankly I don’t think you’re ready for it, especially if you do not recognize the significant differences between perceptual awareness and conceptualization. You have a lot of homework to do yet before you’re ready for anything like Kelley’s The Evidence of the Senses. Lastly, I somewhat doubt you’re really interested in learning what Kelley has to say, since many of your statements make it crystal clear that you’re confessionally motivated to suppose he’s wrong no matter what. He must really pose a threat!
Truthseeker: “You bring up Kelly as the one that has the argument that refutes Hume’s problem of induction and don’t even give the argument. Amazing!”
Why would this bother you? Presuppositionalists claim to have an argument proving the existence of their god, but good luck getting them to produce it. Typically they point to Bahnsen’s debate with Gordon Stein. I have analyzed Bahnsen’s opening statement in that debate and I found no argument at all. I’ve scoured the rest of the debate and I still do not find anything that resembles an argument for the conclusion “therefore God exists” or something along these lines.
As for Kelley’s answer to Hume, Kelley himself explains that the answer is implicit in the broader Aristotelian tradition, and shows how that, coupled with the Objectivist theory of concepts, provides an objective basis for inductive inferences. It is a most elegant solution. But key to this is also understanding Hume’s errors. But you seem to think that Hume made no errors. Have you really examined Hume’s premises?
Truthseeker: “It must really not be that big of a threat if you won’t even summarize it.”
It’s not a threat to those who are genuinely honest to reality. It is a threat to presuppositionalist apologetics, which is why you’re concerned. And I’m happy to summarize it, but I’ll save the details for later, just to keep you in suspense. ;)
First, Kelley examines the premises which inform Hume’s skeptical conclusion about induction. He points out several significant errors, errors which actually steer Hume to the conclusion he drew from them. I already pointed out one of Hume’s errors in my last comment, namely his conception of causality. Hume’s argument assumes the event-based model of causality, which conceives of causality as a string of events which just happen to follow one another for no apparent reason. This model of causality severs the action of an entity from its identity, such that there is no necessary relationship between an entity and its actions. This is a monumental error if there ever were one, but most people don’t seem to catch it (not from what I’ve found anyway). But this is what Hume was working with. So it was not Hume’s reasoning per se which was in error, for he drew precisely the conclusion that his premises supported. The problem is that some of his premises are false, and many thinkers fail to catch them (hence they too think Hume’s conclusion is sound).
Next, after correcting the errors lurking in Hume’s premises, Kelley shows how the Aristotelian conception of causality (i.e., entity-based causality, which recognizes that there is a necessary relationship between an entity and its actions, since its actions are based on its identity) coupled with the Objectivist theory of concepts validates inductive generalization.
Of course, this is a very brief summary, but it is a summary of Kelley’s solution.
Truthseeker: “Maybe you are afraid it will be seen for what it really is.”
What, Kelley’s solution to the problem of induction? Actually, I’m hoping that it will be seen for what it really is. I really am. Unfortunately, given the presuppositional method’s habitual reliance on straw man tactics, it’s liable to be distorted beyond recognition and vilified for something it is not. Already you’ve expressed doubts about it, even though you have never even heard of it before. Your mind seems to be working on an urgency here: “It’s gotta be wrong! It’s just gotta be wrong!”
Truthseeker: “I can’t even find it on your website which I would think that you would at least restate the position if you rely on it so much in refuting Hume.”
That’s true, I have not published a full exposition of Kelley’s solution to the problem of induction on my website or on my blog. There are reasons for this however. Although I have plenty of material nearly ready to publish on this, I would essentially be publishing someone else’s work, and I do not have permission to do this. I would prefer to discuss this with Kelley first before doing so, and one of these days I probably will. I have been in communication with him before, and he knows of my interest in this matter.
Another reason is that my blog and website are not dedicated to refuting David Hume. But time is still very young for my blog (only at it for four years now) and it is definitely something I intend to publish one day, if not this year, perhaps next year, or the following year.
In the meantime, it’s clear to me that you probably still have so much yet to learn about more basic issues in philosophy before you would be in a position to fully grasp or even appreciate Kelley’s treatment of Hume and the problem of induction. So in a sense, it’s premature, at least for you at this time. But I’m willing to work with you, if in fact you are a “truth seeker.” But I’m going to need some more convincing on this I’m afraid.
Truthseeker: “You assume that the physical existence is all that exist and that it exist on it’s own in and of itself.”
If you have any familiarity with Objectivism, you’ll note that the axiom of existence does not divide the concept ‘existence’ into opposing categories, such as “physical existence” as opposed to something other than “physical existence.” And it’s not so much that I “assume” that existence exists on its own, but that I explicitly recognize that it does. Think about it: if one wanted to say that existence does not exist on its own, that something else is need to “prop” it up or “sustain” it, what could do that if not something that exists???? It’s amazing to see people dispute the axiom of existence, but given Christianity’s opposition to reality it doesn’t really surprise me.
Regards,
Dawson
Tyro: “For a start, do you understand that plants do not consume other living creatures to grow? They are constantly turning non-life into life. Nothing magical, nothing weird, just chemistry.”
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Tyro. One to keep in mind. Also it’s important to remember that the chemical make-up of biological organisms, from bacteria to human beings, introduces no new elements that do not exist outside biological organisms. We have carbon, nitrogen, iron and other elements which make up our bodies, but these are naturally existing in non-living things as well. The theist might want to point to consciousness as something that does not exist in non-living things, but this is not an element. It is an activity. Consciousness is essentially a type of action which an organism performs. So it does not constitute a counter-example to my point.
Tyro: “’Life from non-life’ is one of those nice-sounding rhetorical devices used by apologists to win over the simpletons who like black-and-white answers which appeal to their prejudices.”
Right. It’s essentially a sound-bite rhetorical device exposing a most indelicate understanding of the issues involved, as the .gif file you linked to elegantly illustrates. The broader point to all this is that it backfires as an apologetic device. The theist claims that non-Christians have no “account for” life, and yet this is precisely what Christianity exemplifies: no “account for” life, since it begins with something said already to be alive (and non-biological to boot!). Meanwhile, scientific investigation is hot on the trail of abiogenesis, and certain theoretical developments on this front have ample plausibility.
Regards,
Dawson
DARRIN,
ReplyDeleteWith argument aside I appreciate the way you give an answer. Except for maybe the part about Van Til beign sent to the dumpster which I took as a figure of speech to say that you think that his thinking at least with that point belongs in the trash. Sometimes you do get unnecessarily jaronistic (not in the meaningless sense)but I have to hit the books to get even a glimpse of understanding(your opening statement with Sye)of what you are trying to communicate.
You seem like a cool guy and a gentleman at that. I also appreciate your answers even though I may disagree with some of them. You do justice to 1 Peter 3:15 without the first part of the verse and with a different kind of hope. Again borrowing from the Christian worldview and proving Christianity. :)
I'm really not serious about that as far as proving Christianity, but I wonder if I did not believe in God if I would really be making my position known in a possitive way from human motives or if I would just not worry about it.
1 Cor 15:32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.
I know in my younger years it was eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
Just a thought.
So much has been said and there is so much to answer, I will not be able to address all the points at this time, especially with the recent post by Bahnsen Burner, which I feel there is much to address. If time permits I would like try and address some of the main points though.
I was thinking of focusing more on induction instead of the shot gun approach. This would be in relation to TAG of course. This would be a good place to reside since this is where I think sufficient argument from the atheist worldview is fragile. I will try to interact with what you have written in response to me in regards to Humes "problem of induction."
Consider "sufficient" from the above deleted!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTyro,
ReplyDeleteI said:
“Please point me in the direction where science demonstrates how life came from non-life. It looks like you are the one in favor of a primitive fantasy. This is your cul-de-sac problem where you try to make people think that science has an answer for which we know it doesn’t.”
You said:
Those sentences are heavy with dis-information and misconceptions, it's hard to know where to start.Dis-information? Misconceptions? There is no place to start. We know that science has not shown how life came from non-life. And even if it can be shown it would have to be unaided by man otherwise the experiment would be simulated by intelligence which would only prove that life is able to come from non-life with intelligent beings putting all the necessary ingredients in an organized fashion together within the proper environment. This is one of my beefs. I don’t think life came from non-life without the aid of intelligence. From my thinking this would be harder than a 1000 piece puzzle putting itself together given enough time and the right environment, and not only that but the pieces would of had to get here by identity applied to action and come into existence as well without the aid of intelligence.
”First, when discussing the origins of life, I think that no serious or informed person would ever talk about "life" and "non-life" except as a lead-in to talk about how blurry and useless these terms really are. Even today when we try to ask the question "what is life" we have an extraordinarily difficult time drawing a clear, definite line. We can all agree that you and I are alive and that a rock is not, yet there are so many examples on the continuum between us that I think you have to be ignorant or wilfully blind to not see it.”This is just plain silly to me. Just define those out of the debate by saying that no serious or informed person would ever talk a certain way and boom they are not a serious or an informed person. That’s like me saying “no one that would make a silly argument like the one you just made is a serious or informed person”, which I know that you are serious when you say that, just maybe not informed.
Yes there are many things between us and rocks but let me give you a simple definition of what I was thinking of:
the quality that makes living animals and plants different from dead organisms and inorganic matter. Its functions include the ability to take in food, adapt to the environment, grow, and reproduce.
”When you do, you'll start to understand that the chemical process is no where near as difficult as you imagine.”It’s not difficult to imagine? Exactly. It’s not only difficult to actually produce life from inorganic matter, it hasn’t been done yet! At this point it’s only imagined. That’s what I was getting at. Thank you Tyro.
“For a start, do you understand that plants do not consume other living creatures to grow? They are constantly turning non-life into life. Nothing magical, nothing weird, just chemistry.”Really? Not even microscopic creatures? Ever? That may be the case I really am not sure. I would “imagine” that they would though. But I could be wrong. What do you consider “life” to refer to in this statement? Plants are already a life form. What life are they making by turning non-life into life? I think I see what your getting at but I think there is some equivocation going on here. What plants do are truly amazing, and would seem to me magical if they got here by identity applied to action with no intention.
”Anyone who's shown the slightest bit of interest in this question quickly realizes the interesting questions aren't how to get "life from non-life" (which is, frankly, trivial) but rather which of many possible paths life could have followed actually did.”Trivial? Are you serious? General statements like these boggle my mind! I think even when I was an atheist this very question was an interesting question for me. Oh, I must have not really had the slightest bit of interest though. And if the day ever comes when we are able to simulate life I guess that would be trivial as well since it’s not even an interesting question how it took place.
Is there a path life could have followed but it did not? Like maybe on planet Bone where circumstances were different but life still emerged and for some reasons that we are not aware of yet dog’s ended up being the intelligent ones and mankind the lesser. Or perhaps something akin to the planet of the apes? Would something like that be possible in your thinking? If no why not?
"Life from non-life" is one of those nice-sounding rhetorical devices used by apologists to win over the simpletons who like black-and-white answers which appeal to their prejudices. You've generally shown yourself a real cut above these demagogues and I'm shocked to hear you repeat it. If you haven't looked into this before then you should have the intellectual integrity to research it before repeating it.”How can you believe to have intellectual integrity and make such a comment? I guess I’m a simpleton now because I believe it’s not just nice sounding rhetoric but a very pertinent question. I think even some of the most staunch atheist would agree with me on this. I even know some. The above statement is full of rhetorical devices to make me look bad. I mean just listen to yourself. I’ve now lowered myself to the demagogue level because I’ve repeated something that you have defined as trivial. Think of me as you will but the question of how life started or came to be is momentous. And even if life is simulated it would be something that is extraordinary in the history of science. I hope you recant your belief that this question is trivial even if one believes in God or not.
Sorry for some reason when posting it's not recognizing the breaks in the paragraphs. I tried deleting and reposting but got the samething. I hope you can sort though the above without mixing up whose writting.
ReplyDeleteMisconceptions? There is no place to start. We know that science has not shown how life came from non-life.Don't be silly. How could anyone possibly do this? Chemical reactions don't fossilize! Asking for the impossible is a one-track path to crankdom.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if it can be shown it would have to be unaided by man otherwise the experiment would be simulated by intelligence which would only prove that life[...]Sheesh, again for the impossible.
Do you understand that the life forms took hundreds of millions of years to arise and they were using an entire planet as a petri dish. These absurd requests are just as bonkers as Creationists who demand that we replicate millions of years of evolution in the lab but without any human intervention. Don't be silly.
Yes there are many things between us and rocks but let me give you a simple definition of what I was thinking of:
the quality that makes living animals and plants different from dead organisms and inorganic matter. Its functions include the ability to take in food, adapt to the environment, grow, and reproduce.Don't be daft. You can't define life by using "dead", and you certainly can't use fluff terms like "the quality". Be precise. Tell me what, exactly distinguishes something living from something not.
Why don't you start and tell me exactly where you draw the line between life and non-life. Are viruses alive? They have genes, protective coating, and the capability to respond to stimuli and evolve yet they lack cell walls, independent metabolism and the ability to reproduce independently.
Think about it for a minute, really think. Any definition of life will contain a list of traits. So knock one out and if you're lucky there will be something like that already present. They are "non-life" according to your definition yet will have virtually all of the characteristics of life and will almost certainly be able to crest that divide given the right circumstances. (Something that's inevitable given enough generations and time which, at the bacterial-level, occur very quickly.)
Plants are already a life form. What life are they making by turning non-life into life?They are turning inorganic chemicals into living chemicals by consuming them, integrating them into their cells and reproducing. Mere chemical reactions yet a new living cell is produced. Life from non-life happens all the time.
If you have a problem with cresting some imagined boundary then you should say that. What boundary exactly is the problem? The formation of cell walls? That has been studied extensively. The formation of amino acids? Again. Replication? What? What is the magical barrier which requires some "spirit" or divine intervention. Tell me what exactly cannot be done.
Is there a path life could have followed but it did not?Yes, almost certainly.
I guess I’m a simpleton now because I believe it’s not just nice sounding rhetoric but a very pertinent question.Yes, in this instance, that's exactly what you're acting like. You've taken a complicated issue and boiled it down to a sound-bite. When challenged, you can't provide any specifics except for references to some ill-defined "quality" of life. You show no sign that you have any understanding of any theory of abiogenesis let alone have considered what problems if any there may be. You stand against a broad scientific consensus armed with nothing but your own intuition and declare that this is superior. What are we supposed to think?
I hope you recant your belief that this question is trivial even if one believes in God or not. Read what I said was trivial. I stand by it. Producing life from "non-life" (ick) is trivial: every plant and most bacteria do this all the time. Every day (and in ever way :) ) we see that there is nothing magical about a cell's chemistry. Complex, yes, but there is no divine or intelligent intervention required to produce a new cell.
The first "living" cell was produced in just this way - it started from something that looked virtually identical yet lacked one small feature and some chemical chance provided it. That's how amino acids and organic molecules get produced in space, that's how lipids get co-opted to provide bubbles for concentrated chemicals, the foundation of cell walls, that's how the first nucleic acids formed.
The study of abiogenesis is active and there are a lot of open questions certainly, but they aren't how "life comes from non-life". That's a non-issue. The big questions surround specific steps for how the "non-life" could grow in complexity. We have a lot of insight and several promising lines of research but of course it will be very difficult to say what definitely happened since our evidence is so sparse. Even if these steps left traces, there are relatively few rocks that are old enough to potentially contain clues.
So what do you have? I see some mystic "life qualities" and a huge pile of arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. I'd take this much more seriously if you could point to one or two steps which you think are the biggest problems. Heck, I'd be impressed if you showed signs that you knew there were even two steps because it sure seems like you think that life just poofed into existence with no precursors, just some atoms happened to collide and form an intact DNA molecule. I'd like to think you knew this didn't happen but if so, why are you talking in some ridiculously simplistic terms instead of talking specifics? Give us something here.
Truthseeker’s focus on this “life from non-life” series of interrogations actually demonstrates just how dependent his theistic defenses are on a god-of-the-gaps strategy. It’s essentially an appeal to ignorance: if non-Christians do not know how life “arose” from “non-life,” this ignorance is then used as if it were as good as evidence for the existence of a god, for divine creation, for the Christian position, or what have you. The strategy applies intimidation, hoping to wring from the non-believer a confession like “Duh, I donno, must be God did it!” We saw this same kind of strategy in play over the problem of induction: “how do you ‘account for’ induction?” Apparently we’re expected to throw up our arms in defeat and exlaim “Duh, I donno! Must be God did it!”
ReplyDeletePersonally I have no problem admitting that I do not know how “life came from non-life.” For one, I make no claim to omniscience. I discover my knowledge, I do not stipulate it from a position of ignorance. Second, I do not know that life has not always existed (I doubt it has, but I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong). Also, I am neither a chemist nor a biologist, and I am not up on all the latest in scientific research in this area; I’m sure there are many discoveries in this area that I have no knowledge of. But I think Tyro’s point, that plants turn non-living matter into living matter all the time, is correct. I’ve taken enough science courses in my day to know that this is essentially true. Plants are like life-producing machines; we have in mind especially those which do not feed on other life forms. A plant takes its nutrients in raw form from the atmosphere and soil around it and through a process of photosynthesis and other biomechanical functions manufactures new plant cells from those nutrients. Those new plant cells are living. There is no equivocation here, as Truthseeker says he suspected.
However, the broader point here is: so what if I don’t know how “life came from non-life”? What then? Does this mean that theism is therefore true? How could that possibly follow? Does theism really depend so integrally on people’s ignorance for this to be such an important issue for the apologist? It appears so. Then again, I’ve not seen the chain of inference which leads from such admissions to the conclusion that a god must therefore exist. But it sure appears to be very important to Truthseeker to establish that we do have no scientific demonstration of life coming from non-life, as he has raised the issue and has pursued it rather vigorously. If I am wrong in supposing this is just more god-of-the-gaps strategy, I would like to know Truthseeker’s explanation (and not merely denial). For instance, why is it so important to Truthseeker that Tyro “recant [his] belief that this question is trivial even if one believes in God or not”? Probably because, if Tyro does not take it as seriously as Truthseeker’s apologetic needs him to in order to apply its ruse, that apologetic is doomed to fail.
Truthseeker: “What plants do are truly amazing, and would seem to me magical if they got here by identity applied to action with no intention.”
Magic is associated with the supernatural, and implies some consciousness either as its source or as its wielder (or both). To suggest that the chemical activity of plant life functions is “magical” is itself an example of equivocation. Human beings have discovered the process of photosynthesis, how it uses energy from sunlight to manufacture new plant cells – essentially new living structures – from non-living materials, like carbon dioxide. It is essentially a mechanical process. There’s nothing “magical” about it, in the mystical sense. It’s neat, it’s fascinating, but it’s not magical. Is a rock rolling down a hill “magical”? Does it require “intention” behind it? To suppose it does suggests that the one supposing this is so deeply marinated in the primacy of consciousness that he imagines consciousness behind everything he perceives. But that’s what religion inculcates in the believer: the imagination that there is a consciousness behind everything. This is why apologetic paradigms for religious positions rely so much on denigrating objective accounts – i.e., accounts which do not indulge in or rely on imagining that some invisible conscious being is “back of” everything we perceive.
Regards,
Dawson
Just to be clear, the reasons I think that the "life from non-life" is "trivial" are:
ReplyDelete* every day millions (billions? more?) of tonnes of non-living chemicals are converted into living cells. We know it happens, it's a undeniable fact, it's well studied and simply not an issue. Non-living chemicals become living cells, definitely, undeniable, absolutely, without a doubt. The origin of plants may be interesting but NOT because "life from non-life" is a big challenge to science
* any sufficiently exact definition of life will create an arbitrary line in what is essentially a continuum which can be easily crested through chance chemical interactions. This says more about the ridiculousness of your black-and-white world than it says about life and chemistry.
The bigger issues are NOT trivial but for some reason you're stuck on this non-issue. It makes a good soundbite but it is not a real concern. When we examine this boundary we see quickly that it was artificial and arbitrary and doesn't reveal anything interesting about life so crossing it doesn't teach us much.
What is interesting is:
* the extreme difficulty in defining "life" reveals how complex the microscopic world really is and that it exists in a continuum
* our experience with plants and animals (which Truthseeker, in his naivete, used as a reference) represent a small fraction of the number of species, of the total biomass of the planet, and of the multifaceted forms life can take. No one can hope to understand life unless they set aside their intuition of life gained through our macroscopic world
* the boundaries are unimportant, what is important is the development of the continuum in the first place. Without a deeper understanding of our world as it exists today, Truthseeker (and others) cannot ask the right questions
There are of course interesting questions about how different aspects of life arose. For instance, did DNA arise through RNA, PNA (peptide nucleic acid), TNA (threose nucleic acid), or PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)? Of all of the possible steps, which ones actually occurred? There is a lot of work and some interesting discoveries but also a lot of speculation.
We can look to the similar case over evolution. There is active discussion over the relative strengths of different mechanisms and the degree to which certain behaviours can be explained through evolution. The fact of evolution and the clades aren't interesting because they're settled. Talking about "life from non-life" is even worse because, as I say, we see this happening all of the time. There are genuine controversies but you aren't anywhere close and like the Creationists, you're trying to leverage your god into the cracks in our knowledge (or rather, your knowledge).
The "life from non-life" argument commits the fallacy of composition, folks :)
ReplyDeleteUh yeah. Ahem, um... Well I would have said that if I was interested in succinctness and clarity and, um, you know, I had thought of it.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could say that this was fun while it lasted, but I found it agonizing.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Sye Debate hurt Sye's head. Sye leave.
ya pretty much sums it up and sye didn't even offer an argument.
ReplyDeleteSye: "...yet you [Darrin] just arbitrarily posit a stop in an infinite regress with an arbitrary, and unjustified knowledge claim."
ReplyDeleteWhen I read that line, my irony meter exploded.