Yesterday I walked to the moon. (Humor me for a few minutes.) Since I was able to take my laptop and had a wireless Internet connection, I was able to send an email to NASA. Though I?m unclear on the process they used, they were able to verify that I was, to their great surprise, reporting from the lunar surface. When they asked me how I got there I told them that I couldn't be completely certain, but I was pretty sure that I had walked to the moon.
As you can expect, they were rather skeptical. NASA didn't possess any data of a spacecraft leaving earth's atmosphere over the last 24-hour period. In fact, they didn't have any evidence that would provide a suitable explanation at all. But while they could not come to a decisive conclusion about how I got there, they were sure of one thing: I didn't walk to the moon.
The reason is rather obvious. Once we understand all the physical parameters and factors required (i.e., feet, a pathway, superhuman speed and stamina) we could reasonably conclude that it is simply not logically possible to walk from Dallas, Texas to the Sea of Tranquility. Excluding this possibility doesn't help us explain how I got up there but it does aid in understanding how I didn't.
The reason I bring up this rather absurd hypothetical example is because I believe it can help us better understand how to judge presuppositions and philosophical systems. While we may be at a loss to explain how certain events occur, we can certainly rule out any explanations that are logically impossible.
Which brings us to the topic of materialism. Most atheists and other advocates of philosophical naturalism also believe in materialism, the idea that everything that actually exists is material or physical. This view forms one of the cornerstone presuppositions in their worldview. The problem is that by clinging to this belief they must also accept other beliefs that can be proven to be logically impossible.
Let's start by examining how such a view affects what philosophers call 'doxastic states' - states of the mind that are either beliefs or are similar to beliefs (i.e., thoughts, judgments, opinions, desires, wishes, fears). If materialism is true then all doxastic states are (a) illusions, (b) physical states, or (c) emergent properties of physical states.
If beliefs are not made of matter, and only entities made of matter exist, then beliefs would have no ontological reality. They are merely illusions. Eliminativism is the term used to refer to this theory that science will eventually prove that doxastic states don't exist. Believing that our beliefs are illusions, however, is self-refuting. Having an illusion about an illusion is a meaningless concept. And for science to produce a hypothesis (which is itself a doxastic state) that claims that doxastic states don't exist would be illogical and self-defeating.
The second position is the one that is most commonly espoused by materialists. Physical states (i.e., within an entity though not necessarily in the brain) produce a doxastic state with a special causal or functional role. Under this view, known as non-reductive physicalism, functional properties cannot be reduced to physical properties, but that all causality is still, nevertheless, physical.
Jaegwon Kim has shown how one can be either a physicalist, or non-reductive, but not both by using a simple diagram:
M causes M* In this diagram, a single mental event M is seen as causing another mental event M*. This mental event is physically realized (for example in a brain state) by a physical event P, which causes P* i.e. the physical realization of M* . Kim's argument against the existence of mental causation is that the top layer does no real work. P can cause P* all by itself, with no help from M, and there is no coherent way in which M can cause M* without P's help, or without causing P*. Thus it seems that physical causality is all we've got, and mental descriptions are somewhere between being shallow and being outright falsehoods.
P causes P*
The only other option for the materialist is reductionism, which says that physical events are identical with mental events. This leads us to two equally strange conclusions. If doxastic states are nothing more than physical states then they are controlled by natural laws. All behavior would therefore be caused and bounded by the laws relating to chemistry and physics. Not only would we not possess free will, we could not claim to control our behavior at all. We would be so biologically determined that we could not be considered morally responsible for our actions. Every aspect of our behavior would be nothing more than reactions to stimuli produced by our environment. Within such a context, ethics is meaningless.
There are numerous other problems with this view but I want to focus on one in particular. As Tgirsch pointed out in a previous comment, we can't grind down matter and discover 'purpose.' Purpose is, after all, a mental construct. But if matter is all that exists, then all physical events as well as mental events can ultimately be traced back to matter. Doxastic states, if they are more than an illusion, must therefore be a 'property' of matter. But all the matter is of the same "stuff" whether it is the material that comprises stones and plants or the human brain.
That leads to our second conclusion. Since doxastic states are produced by matter, matter can produce doxastic states in anything (or everything). If this is true it leads to a peculiar result. Mountains can have 'beliefs', car engines can feel 'pain', and rivers can have 'memories.' In fact, since matter is all that exists, existence itself becomes a singularity. Materialism is, after all, another form of monism.
Let me restate that once more so that we are clear about what is being claimed:
1. Everything in the universe either exists or does not exist.
2. Matter is all that exists.
3. Everything that exists is made of matter; anything that is not matter does not exist.
4. The universe exists and does not contain any things that do not exist.
5. Since matter cannot exist and not-exist at the same time, matter is unified (matter is one).
6. Since everything in the universe has an existence and everything that exist is made of matter, the universe is one.
7. Within the universe, no non-arbitrary distinctions can be made between things that exist.
8. Doxatics states are physical states and physical states are composed of matter. Therefore, doxastic states are composed of (or at least properties of) matter.
9. If any part of matter can produce a doxastic state, all matter can do so. (Follows from 1, 2, and 6).
10. Anything that exists can produce a doxastic state.
11. All doxastic states are one.
Some of the conclusions we can draw from this are that we are unable to clearly determine whether our thoughts are being produced by our desk, our chair, our TV, or our brain. After all, they are all composed of matter and matter is one. It's weird but is it wrong? (This is obviously a rough draft and I am sure that I will have to tighten the argument to make it completely valid and sound).
Earlier I stated that we should reject any presupposition that leads us to a belief that is logically impossible. If that is the case then we have sufficient reason to reject naturalism or to reject logic; we can't keep both. For materialism states that:
1. Anything that exists is made of matter.
2. All matter is one; everything that exists is one.
3. Doxastic states are composed of matter and can exist.
4. Beliefs are doxastic states.
5. A belief can be true.
6. A belief can be false.
7. Since matter is one and beliefs are made of matter, all beliefs are one.
8. All beliefs are both true and false.
Therefore, the presupposition that matter is all that exists is both true and false at the same time. But since that leads to a logical contradiction we must give it up (or give up on logic).
At the beginning of this post I claimed that, "Yesterday, I walked to the moon." The theists and other forms of dualists will believe that it isn't logically possible. Atheists and other forms of monists, however, will believe that it isn't logically possible but they will also believe (if they are consistent with their presupposition) that it is logically possible.
And they say Christians have weird beliefs?
1
I posted this at 4:55 pm CST. I'm curious to see how long it takes before someone finds an error in my reasoning that I will have to concede and correct.
If you think you find a flaw, annotate the time in your comments so that I will be able to gauge how quickly people were able to spot my mistakes.
Thanks,
-joe
posted on 07.15.2004 4:57 PM2
"Some of the conclusions we can draw from this are that we are unable to clearly determine whether our thoughts are being produced by our desk, our chair, our TV, or our brain."
Maybe. But if I tell you that there is a creature that is undetectable by current technology which produces your thoughts and controls your actions and which floats behind your head all day long, you can't prove me wrong.
So freaking what?
I don't believe in this creature. Why? Is it because I can "logically" prove that it doesn't exist? Nope. I can't "logically" prove that.
Rather, I don't believe in this creature because I have no evidence for its existence and there is no evidence that making an exception and believing in this creature (in spite of their being no evidence for it) will improve my life.
As to your comment about you being on the moon yesterday: you weren't on the moon. Is it possible for you to have been on the moon yesterday? No. Can I prove that? Yes.
Christians' beliefs are not weird. What is weird is Christians claiming that they can show they are more "correct" or less "illogical" than people who don't believe in invisible omnipotent beings with superpowers.
posted on 07.15.2004 6:16 PM3
On Walking to the Moon?
Interesting thought experiment Joe, deightful in fact. I'll take an amateur shot at how one might 'nturalistically' walk to the moon. It's 7:18 EST.
I live in Brevard County; Titusville, Florida(Truthfully I do) and the Space Center is visible from my rooftop (or at least the VAB and two pad towers are, it's rather flat here).
Several of my neighbors are NASA engineers, technicians, physicists, etc.
I've even been outsourced to United Space Alliance, the Lockheed-Boeing Consortium which builds and maintains the STS. Up to now eveything I've told you is truthful...
I happen to have built, in secret using a hint from Hadan Industries in the movie Contact, a device nicknamed among NASA engineers a "Beanstalk".
This is a very huge, very long, tunnel of sorts. The center of gravity is in geosynchronous orbit. One end touches the earth, the other end is at the perigee of the lunar orbit.
There is a staircase housed within the device.
[I also perfected Bionic Technology as a side hobby because this Space Hook was too easy a challenge].
Using my bionic legs and a space suit, I trudged up the staircase until I reach geosynchronous altitude at which point I was weightless of course. I proceed on to the other end, growing heavier as I went due to centripetal force. I was now walking 'down' towards outer space. I reached the end and waited, fortunately my timing was fortunate, for I could see Luna approaching.
At just the right instant, I walked out onto the surface, I happened to find myself running at several miles per second but my Bionic legs, in the low gravity and vaccuum, could take it. Whew! It was quite a rush.
I slowed down to a stop, and viola, I had walked to the moon.
I think with time I could build additional space hooks, in stages, in which I could transfer from one to another at certain points where the delta would be below the upper speed of my leisurely gait and discard my bionic legs.
Perhaps you think I'm cheating because I used technology? Needless to say technology is not supernatrual in my solution anymore than a forklift is supernatural; the latter allows me to lift things I couldn't otherwise lift.
Can you believe not one of my Space Center employee-nieghbors took my claim seriously?
The doubt I encountered when I mentioned this adventure to one NASA engineer neighbor wasn't that it was physically impossible, but that she was skeptical that I had indeed constructed such a device. She, being an empirically minded kind of gal, insisted on seeing some evidence for it.
I can understand the skepticism, for she knew of no one who has overcome the engineering challenges involved in constructing such a device, the claim is extraordinary, and I was unable to produce even a sample of the processes I used to build the thing (outside of an old arc welder I have in the attic).
I think this is the problem with positing supernatural methods Joe, i.e. magic. Magic is not a solution, it's a claim. Science deals with solutions and not claims.
And this gives us some insight into why science, not to mention any other study based on physical evidence and phyiscal possibility, does not accept claims of a solution without that evidence.
However if you can show me an example of creation ex nihilo in real time for study and analysis, you might reverse that practice. Can you give me such evidence?
Or if you can show me a deity, or even an alien, constructing new lifeforms, review some of the methods used, I might be able to run with that.
I'd be content with seeing the proccess happen in front of my eyes, but you need not recreate the entire universe or evolve a human from bacteria for me. Just show me a small sample of legitimate evidence(An old arc welder in your attic won't suffice), And review the bullet points of the engineering used, and show me the Creator or the factory used. Make sure it's something we can have repeated on demand because others will also want to make sure I'm not pulling their leg.
4
Larry,
Rather, I don't believe in this creature because I have no evidence for its existence and there is no evidence that making an exception and believing in this creature (in spite of their being no evidence for it) will improve my life.
But you do have evidence. All matter is one. All thoughts are matter. If you can think of a creature then that thought (which is comprised of matter) has an existence. The fact that you can think it provides you with all the evidence you need.
As to your comment about you being on the moon yesterday: you weren't on the moon. Is it possible for you to have been on the moon yesterday? No. Can I prove that? Yes.
Okay. I’m skeptical that you could prove it while still holding the “everything is matter” presupposition but I’m all ears.
Christians' beliefs are not weird. What is weird is Christians claiming that they can show they are more "correct" or less "illogical" than people who don't believe in invisible omnipotent beings with superpowers.
Why? If one position is more logical than another why would it be weird to be able to prove it?
posted on 07.15.2004 6:44 PM5
TGirsh,
Zeon's Paradox actually doesn't work. The paradox is that to go from A to B you must first travel halfway, to C. And to get from A to C you must first travel halfway to D, which is one fourth of the distance from A to B ...
Since each transit takes a finite amount of time, and since the number of transits is countably infinte(A term in topology), the cumulative sum of those time intervals would be infinite.
Sounds solid, but it's not. The series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... is a convergent series. This means it DOES not go to infinity.
Seems counter intuitive I know, and the proof involves a type of math not usually taught until the second of third semester of Calculus.
But I can give you an example to help you understand. The series 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 ...
can be listed forever. But the series is bounded by 1/3.
6
Tgirsch
"Here's where you make a technical error. Matter isn't all that exists. Matter and energy exist. Since most of your argument hinges on matter being all that exists, the rest of your argument is invalid."
Matter and energy are the same thing, different form. So you are drawing a false distinction.
So, 'technically' Joe is correct, however for clarity sake, it would have been better to define it with both.
"But never mind all that for a moment. Ignoring all the details and going for the "big picture," we have the following problem: people who have a naturalistic world view cannot explain certain aspects of existence. But as I've pointed out before, people who have a supernatural world view can't explain it either."
This is a red herring to the point at hand.
The you too fallacy
"They simply make an excuse as to why they don't have to. But that doesn't truly explain anything either."
The problem with this is that you are excluding any supernatural explanation that is not naturalistically observable. Essentially you are begging the question, using circular reasoning.
"I've said this before, and I stand by it: for millennia, humans have been inventing supernatural explanations for phenomena that we cannot yet explain in naturalistic terms. And for most of these problems, we eventually do find the purely naturalistic explanation. It is therefore not at all unreasonable to presume that naturalistic explanations very well may exist, even if we haven't yet discovered them."
A false extrapolation again. IF a supernatural being exists is the question. And IF it does exist then your line of reasoning will never find it. It is an argument from ignorance. And here I thought we should look at the best explanation given the facts at hand?
"It's an exercise in futility to point out logical absurdities in the naturalistic point of view, because there are logical absurdities in the supernatural point of view that have been discussed for centuries. If you don't believe that the logical absurdities of the theistic viewpoint are sufficient reason to abandon it, why would you expect a naturalist to believe that some obscure logical problem is reason to write off his or her point of view?"
I have not yet heard any logical absurdities in the supernatural worldview that have not been resolved? Certainly, I have heard of a few that atheists do not like the answers too, but as to logic, they are quite clearly logical.
Yet we come back to once again, what the best explanation is given all the facts. The naturalist loses out because they cannot even defend the notion of their thoughts being logical or even accurately reflecting reality
posted on 07.15.2004 6:58 PM7
~DS~:
Thanks for the math lesson, but I'm well aware of infinite series. At my college, they were taught in second semester calculus. :) But that was my point: with Zeno's Paradox, we now know what the flaw was, and it involved the mistaken idea that an infinite series, when added up, could not be described in finite terms. The paradoxes of cause may have a similar explanation, even if one we have not yet found. That's all I was saying.
Now if you were to ask me to solve an infinite series today, I have no recollection how to do it. Sophomore Calculus was 1990 for Chirst's sake.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:05 PM8
The problem with this is that you are excluding any supernatural explanation that is not naturalistically observable. Essentially you are begging the question, using circular reasoning.
No Alan you have it backwards. We are not observing any process that is supernatural, we're not ruling it out by any means.
If you can show me something which is supernatural furfilling the functionary-role in question, then science would happy to include it.
9
D.S.,
Perhaps you think I'm cheating because I used technology? Needless to say technology is not supernatrual in my solution anymore than a forklift is supernatural; the latter allows me to lift things I couldn't otherwise lift.
That’s good but it fails to answer one question. I claimed that I wasn’t completely certain how I got to the moon, though, for some inexplicable reason I thought I walked there.
I think this is the problem with positing supernatural methods Joe, i.e. magic. Magic is not a solution, it's a claim. Science deals with solutions and not claims.
But the problem with science is that it has to rely on philosophy. The logical positivists tried to build philosophy that excluded anything that couldn’t be empirically proven (just as science does) and failed. Supernatural is not magic (technology is magic). The supernatural is simply anything that exists that is not natural (composed of matter). Are your thought natural or supernatural?
And this gives us some insight into why science, not to mention any other study based on physical evidence and phyiscal possibility, does not accept claims of a solution without that evidence.
Posh and stuff. We’ll have to take up that argument another day. A great deal of what passes for “science” is based on non-physical possibilities (e.g., string theory).
However if you can show me an example of creation ex nihilo in real time for study and analysis, you might reverse that practice. Can you give me such evidence?
While it may have to wait a few days, I can show you how for the universe to exist without being created “ex nihilio”, it would require a supernatural being.
Or if you can show me a deity, or even an alien, constructing new lifeforms, review some of the methods used, I might be able to run with that.
Let me ask you this. If you believe that the evolution created lifeforms out of matter strickly based on the laws of nature, where did these laws come from?
Make sure it's something we can have repeated on demand because others will also want to make sure I'm not pulling their leg.
Before I do all that let me clarify something: are you conceding that your worldview is untenable?
posted on 07.15.2004 7:08 PM10
It's not that it's impossible to walk to the moon, it's just highly unlikely.
It's not impossible to walk from New York to London, provided it's in the middle of a major Ice Age. It's just highly unlikely.
As long as you are on the Moon, see if you can find any Moon Bats.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:10 PM11
Sorry Tgirch, nice job with the natural vs supernatural symmetry.
Joe The Real Number Line is a concept. There is no real number line in the observed universe and the universe would have to be uncountably infinite to house even a non-zero open interval of the real number line. It exists purely in the abstract.
It can however be proven to be mathematically consistent. Those thoughts would be states of interaction in the electrochemistry of our horridly complex neurophysiology, the naturalistic natutre of which is easily demonstrated by damaging those proccesses with a baseball bat to the noggin of the mathematician contemplating the real number line.
12
Alan:
It would be the "you too" fallacy only if I were arguing that I'm right and he's wrong. But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that if, by his logic, it's unreasonable to have a point of view that cannot explain X, then it's unreasonable to have any point of view.
A false extrapolation again. IF a supernatural being exists is the question. And IF it does exist then your line of reasoning will never find it. It is an argument from ignorance. And here I thought we should look at the best explanation given the facts at hand?Wrong, Kemo Sabe. First, I don't see where Joe is asking if a supernatural being exists. He's arguing that to believe it doesn't is logically absurd. And as I've said before (and as you tried writing off before), the supernatural being doesn't actually explain anything. So in looking for "the best available explanation," that would also fall well short.
I have not yet heard any logical absurdities in the supernatural worldview that have not been resolved? Certainly, I have heard of a few that atheists do not like the answers too, but as to logic, they are quite clearly logical.Gee, let's see. Can God make an object so heavy that even God can't lift it? How can humans really have free will if God knew before he created us exactly what we would do every step of the way? Sorry, but the explanations to these are no less logically absurd that the types of explanations Joe is complaining about.
The naturalist loses out because they cannot even defend the notion of their thoughts being logical or even accurately reflecting reality.Sorry, but you complain about me hiding behind the "you too" fallacy, and then you whip out this gem? What you're saying, in effect, is that since your opponent can't defend his point of view sufficiently for you, that means you win by default, without even having to bother to defend YOUR point of view.
The answer to that is easy: next time, I'll challenge YOUR point of view first. And as long as you can't come up with explanations that satisfy ME, we can bog down the debate ad infinitum without me ever having to defend a single detail of my point of view.
The bottom line is that this is a ridiculous debate. We're asking the types of questions for which we can not ever know the answers with certainty. That's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it is unreasonable to insult the position of someone who didn't come to the same conclusion as you.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:16 PM13
No Alan you have it backwards. We are not observing any process that is supernatural, we're not ruling it out by any means. If you can show me something which is supernatural furfilling the functionary-role in question, then science would happy to include it.
So you are saying that your thoughts and beliefs are made of matter?
posted on 07.15.2004 7:16 PM14
Why does everyone have such a hard time seeing that "c" in my name? :) I guess I could just start signing my posts "Tom," but that's so passe'.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:23 PM15
Tgirsh,
Gee, let's see. Can God make an object so heavy that even God can't lift it?
No one (that I know of) claims that God can. Omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible.
How can humans really have free will if God knew before he created us exactly what we would do every step of the way?
That’s an interesting one that has a very complex but solid answer. I'll save it for a future post. But there is nothing inherently illogical about divine foreknowledge being incompatible with free actions.
The bottom line is that this is a ridiculous debate. We're asking the types of questions for which we can not ever know the answers with certainty. That's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it is unreasonable to insult the position of someone who didn't come to the same conclusion as you.
Why is it insulting to ask you to follow your logic? You make it sound as if the question is somehow an open one. Unless there is a logical flaw in my argument, it shows with certainty that materialism leads to logical impossibilities.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:24 PM16
Joe positing a First Cause is fine with me infinite regression aside.
That would be a more logical point to interject a Creator imo. It's an argument from ignorance, but it's an unknown in science and thus a potentially useful place to use a 'gap' argument. It certainly would not invalidate the evidence we observe in that Creation though. The Creator could have created the evidence for antiquity in the universe up to last friday-your memories included.
The arguments used by anti-evolutionists are that science ignores supernatural events which occurred since the Creation (if there was one) specifically in the venue of evolutionary biology. We have no direct evidence of supernatural events in the course of evolution. We have no evidence against it either. We actually don't even know what supernatural might mean.
Science only relies on a philosophy in the minds of philosophers such as John Wilkins or Francis Beckworth. Both those individuals could shred you and I, no doubt. Perhaps one will chime in? I'll send John an e-mail.
Nevertheless, being a simple mathematician and without knowing anything about the philosophy of science, my computer is working and I'm able to operate it-barely.
EG: Without knowing how the elements formed from Hydrogen atoms and following that chian of events backwards to a well understood Creation event, the science of chemistry was worked out.
17
Joe:
So you are saying that your thoughts and beliefs are made of matter?
Plank in your own eye. You can't explain consciousness / thoughts / beliefs better than anyone else here can. And yet you continually challenge others to explain themselves, without YOU ever bothering to explain yourself. Do you not see a problem with this?
As I said to Alan, we do not know the answers to these questions, and it's entirely possible that we can NEVER know the answers. And I include everyone here in the "we."
The funny part is, even if you were to succeed in completely debunking the naturalistic point of view, you really wouldn't be any closer to proving Christianity "right." (And I know you haven't claimed to be trying to prove that.) Basically, rather than trying to show the "rightness" of your point of view, you're strictly attacking what you perceive as the "wrongness" of someone else's.
No doubt, Atheists can be every bit as guilty of this as theists can, but that doesn't excuse the behavior in either case.
Typically the only time I'm guilty of that is when someone is trying actively to bring me around to their point of view, or trying to present their point of view as being inherently superior to mine. Most of the time, I don't care WHAT you believe, as long as you don't try foisting it upon someone else.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:29 PM18
Joe:
Why is it insulting to ask you to follow your logic?
Because any logic (including yours) can be followed to a point of absurdity. And because you're refusing to play by the same rules. Time and again, you have dodged the fact that the existence of the supernatural doesn't really explain anything. It's nothing more than Potatoism.
And it's also insulting in that it insinuates that if there's any aspect of anyone's belief system that they personally cannot explain, then they are unreasonable for holding that belief system. Can you explain, in perfect detail, the hows and whys of everything about your beliefs? Didn't think so.
When someone says "I don't know," it's the ultimate in intellectual honesty. It is NOT an excuse to say "Aha!" as if their admission of ignorance somehow proves that they're wrong. To pretend that it is would be insulting indeed.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:39 PM19
Let me illustrate this for you in very simple terms. We'll ask the "Where did everything come from?" question of a naturalist (N):
Q: Where did everything come from?
N: Everything didn't "come from" anywhere; it has always existed.
Now we ask the Christian the same question:
Q: Where did everything come from?
C: God created everything.
Q2: Where did God come from?
C: God didn't "come from" anywhere; He has always existed.
Why is the latter position logically superior to the former? The answer is, it isn't. Occam's razor would seem to favor the first explanation over the second, but the truth is that neither answer is particularly compelling, so Occam's razor doesn't even really apply.
posted on 07.15.2004 7:43 PM20
Joe
"But you do have evidence. All matter is one. All thoughts are matter. If you can think of a creature then that thought (which is comprised of matter) has an existence. The fact that you can think it provides you with all the evidence you need."
What if I think that the creature killed your God last year? Can I leave class early?
Seriously, the "fact" that I can think of my undetectable thought-controlling creature only "proves" that your God (who is also invisible and undectable) is as likely to be a product of your imagination as my creature is of my imagination.
As to my comment about you being on the moon yesterday, you wrote
"I’m skeptical that you could prove it while still holding the “everything is matter” presupposition but I’m all ears."
I do not understand what the pressupposition has to do with it. My apologies if the answer is something of an embarassment to you. My answer is that I was also on the moon and I was monitoring the entire surface every second. I saw Jerry Garcia standing there, but no Joe Carter. Sorry.
Also, I note that in your initial hypo you wrote
"we could reasonably conclude that it is simply not logically possible to walk from Dallas, Texas to the Sea of Tranquility. Excluding this possibility doesn’t help us explain how I got up there but it does aid in understanding how I didn’t."
In fact, excluding this possibility and all other available natural explanations leaves us only with supernatural explanations, Joe. So, within the realm of your hypothetical, I can conclude that you must have traveled to the moon using supernatural means.
But in reality, Joe, you and I know that you weren't on the moon yesterday. So I needn't be worried that my failure to believe in supernatural events and creatures like angels, fairies, leprechauns and gods is somehow limiting my life or my ability to understand and appreciate the amazing world I live in.
posted on 07.15.2004 8:07 PM21
tgirsch-
Good question, here's how I would respond. If you were looking at a masterpiece painting, and one person said the painting "didn't "come from" anywhere; it has always existed", and another said it was created, which would you consider a more reasonable answer?
22
D.S.,
Joe positing a First Cause is fine with me infinite regression aside. That would be a more logical point to interject a Creator imo.
That’s one of the reasons I believe that deism should be the natural “default” position.
It's an argument from ignorance, but it's an unknown in science and thus a potentially useful place to use a 'gap' argument.
The fact that you keep claiming that Christians use a “gap” argument shows that you really don’t understand my position. We don’t just stick in “God did it” when we can’t explain something. We are saying that “God did it” for every aspect of creation.
The Creator could have created the evidence for antiquity in the universe up to last friday-your memories included.
Please, please don’t confuse me with a YEC’er. ; )
The arguments used by anti-evolutionists are that science ignores supernatural events which occurred since the Creation (if there was one) specifically in the venue of evolutionary biology. We have no direct evidence of supernatural events in the course of evolution. We have no evidence against it either.
I don’t quite think that is what we are saying but I’ll leave that for another time.
We actually don't even know what supernatural might mean.
Of course we do. We mean that which is not composed of matter/energy.
Science only relies on a philosophy in the minds of philosophers such as John Wilkins or Francis Beckworth.
Scientists who think, create hypotheses, make observations, etc. are all relying on matters that can only be explained by philosophy.
posted on 07.15.2004 8:26 PM23
Joe: So you are saying that your thoughts and beliefs are made of matter?
Plank in your own eye. You can't explain consciousness / thoughts / beliefs better than anyone else here can.
You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe that your thoughts and beliefs are made of matter?
And yet you continually challenge others to explain themselves, without YOU ever bothering to explain yourself. Do you not see a problem with this?
We’ll get to my worldview soon. Why is it off limits to test the logical consistency of yours?
As I said to Alan, we do not know the answers to these questions, and it's entirely possible that we can NEVER know the answers. And I include everyone here in the "we."
And as I’ve said numerous times, its not a matter of not knowing certain facts but about being logically consistent. A theory can be false and be logically consistent. But if it is illogical then it is unlikely to be true.
The funny part is, even if you were to succeed in completely debunking the naturalistic point of view, you really wouldn't be any closer to proving Christianity "right." (And I know you haven't claimed to be trying to prove that.)
Then why do you keep bringing it up? Who knows, maybe the pantheists are the ones who are right. That doesn’t save your worldview.
Typically the only time I'm guilty of that is when someone is trying actively to bring me around to their point of view, or trying to present their point of view as being inherently superior to mine. Most of the time, I don't care WHAT you believe, as long as you don't try foisting it upon someone else.
I’m not asking you to believe what I believe. I’m asking you to defend your worldview and show that it internally consistent.
Because any logic (including yours) can be followed to a point of absurdity.
If that is the case then what use is logic? Why use it at all if all it does is lead to absurdities?
And because you're refusing to play by the same rules. Time and again, you have dodged the fact that the existence of the supernatural doesn't really explain anything.
Sure it does, it can explain all kinds of things. For example, my mind (which is not made of matter and is therefore supernatural) can explain why 2+2=4.
And it's also insulting in that it insinuates that if there's any aspect of anyone's belief system that they personally cannot explain, then they are unreasonable for holding that belief system.
No one is asking you to explain every aspect of your belief system. I’m simply asking you to follow the logic on this one point and to defend it.
Can you explain, in perfect detail, the hows and whys of everything about your beliefs? Didn't think so.
Probably not, but I can sure show that it is internally consistent and logical.
When someone says "I don't know," it's the ultimate in intellectual honesty.
Sometimes. Sometimes it’s the ultimate in intellectual laziness. If I don’t know my multiplication table because I never bothered to learn them I shouldn’t be praised for “intellectual honesty” but chided for being an imbecile.
It is NOT an excuse to say "Aha!" as if their admission of ignorance somehow proves that they're wrong. To pretend that it is would be insulting indeed.
I’m not saying that you are wrong. I’m saying that you hold an illogical presupposition.
Let me illustrate this for you in very simple terms. We'll ask the "Where did everything come from?" question of a naturalist (N):
Q: Where did everything come from?
N: Everything didn't "come from" anywhere; it has always existed
So you don’t believe in the “big bang”? If not then you must believe that the universe always existed (which is also, by the way, a logic impossiblity).
Now we ask the Christian the same question:
Q: Where did everything come from?
C: God created everything.
Q2: Where did God come from?
C: God didn't "come from" anywhere; He has always existed.
Why is the latter position logically superior to the former?
Because God is a necessary being (His existence is not contingent on anything else – He could not not-exist) while the universe is a contingent being (It could not-exist).
The answer is, it isn't. Occam's razor would seem to favor the first explanation over the second, but the truth is that neither answer is particularly compelling, so Occam's razor doesn't even really apply.
When properly understood I would say the second is quite compelling.
posted on 07.15.2004 8:46 PM24
Scientists who think, create hypotheses, make observations, etc. are all relying on matters that can only be explained by philosophy
I disagree alghough I see some wiggle room by playing around with what 'rely' would mean.
In practice, most scientists are either vaguely aware of-or don't concern themselves with-the philosophy of science. This topic is not critical to advancing our understanding of the universe.
They do use a methodology; empirical observation, prediction, experiment, reformulation, etc. In carrying out those activites they do indeed think, reason, speculate, imagine, and so forth. But they need not explain the basis or origin of that ability in precise electrochemical steps to carry out those activities.
EG: Gymnasts are not consciously calculating each individual vector to complete their routine. They do assume the Laws of Motion they're accustomed to working in the past will also work in the present and in the future. The reasoning is not a priori, but rather a posteri.
I may be way off the mark here, like I said this is not my field of choice (Although it's a perfectly fine topic for a thread imo. But given your level of interest and expertise, I took the liberty of forwarding the discussion to a group of evolutionary philosophers at Florida State University who maintain a blog on that topic), but the complaint seems to be focused on an assumption of science that what can be seen operating in some manner today and/or is consistent with prior scientific explanations, might have operated in a similar manner in the past.
One then constructs a hypothetical sequence of events about what may have happened in the past based on components which can be tested today.
For example we can't construct a sun like ours, but we can construct peices of the sun's physics and model those proccesses to gain insight into how the sun behaved in the past, why we observe it in the present in the form we see, and what Solar events might transpire down the road.
posted on 07.15.2004 8:58 PM25
Tgirsch
"Let me illustrate this for you in very simple terms. We'll ask the "Where did everything come from?" question of a naturalist (N):
Q: Where did everything come from?
N: Everything didn't "come from" anywhere; it has always existed.
Now we ask the Christian the same question:
Q: Where did everything come from?
C: God created everything.
Q2: Where did God come from?
C: God didn't "come from" anywhere; He has always existed.
Why is the latter position logically superior to the former?"
Because the universe deals in cause and effect relationships. The first answer leads to infinite regression. The second leads to an uncaused cause that is outside of the universe.
Joe has already answered your supposed logical absurdities with a Christian position.
"And it's also insulting in that it insinuates that if there's any aspect of anyone's belief system that they personally cannot explain, then they are unreasonable for holding that belief system."
There is a difference between not being able to explain every aspect, and having it shown that a belief system is logically inconsistent.
Logically inconsistent means it is wrong. Not
being able to explain every aspect does not speak to correctness.
The real question I would ask then is what do you think a good reason for believing anything is?
"No Alan you have it backwards. We are not observing any process that is supernatural, we're not ruling it out by any means.
If you can show me something which is supernatural furfilling the functionary-role in question, then science would happy to include it."
And how do you observe a supernatural process? Are you asking for a supernatural process to be able to be observed as if it was a natural process?
"And as I've said before (and as you tried writing off before), the supernatural being doesn't actually explain anything."
I am not sure how you are defining 'explain' Because the supernatural being, being the Christian God explains a lot more than any atheistic position every can.
More to the point, it is a lot more logically consistent a worldview.
"What you're saying, in effect, is that since your opponent can't defend his point of view sufficiently for you, that means you win by default, without even having to bother to defend YOUR point of view."
No. I am saying that it is logically inconsistent of you to use reasoning as an atheist as the belief that your brain can use reason is not logically derivable from your own naturalistic worldview.
You are using borrowed capital from a super-natural world view.
"The answer to that is easy: next time, I'll challenge YOUR point of view first. And as long as you can't come up with explanations that satisfy ME, we can bog down the debate ad infinitum without me ever having to defend a single detail of my point of view."
No. This is a complete misunderstanding of my position. You are quite free to limit me to using means and beliefs that logically derive from my worldview. That is all that I am asking you to do.
"The bottom line is that this is a ridiculous debate. We're asking the types of questions for which we can not ever know the answers with certainty. That's not an unreasonable thing to do, but it is unreasonable to insult the position of someone who didn't come to the same conclusion as you."
How is it both ridiculous and not unreasonable?
As an example. Say I am buying land. I look around for a mortgage and find what I think will provide me the best rates and the least charges over time.My friend Joe (no relation) comes along and shows me that, in fact, I have not got the best deal, and that a deal over at the Holy Lenders has better rates and less charges.
I am still not sure that Holy lenders have the best deal, but I do know, with certainty, that it is better than the first one.
26
Joe/D.S.
"DS> The Creator could have created the evidence for antiquity in the universe up to last friday-your memories included.
Joe> Please, please don’t confuse me with a YEC’er. ; )"
Indeed D.S. He could have. At least that position is more logically consistent than the naturalistic one. It is not one I hold however.
Oh, and please don't confuse me with an OEC'er ;)
posted on 07.15.2004 9:05 PM27
D.S.,
In practice, most scientists are either vaguely aware of-or don't concern themselves with-the philosophy of science. This topic is not critical to advancing our understanding of the universe.
I’m sure they don’t. Nor, for most practical purposes, would they need to.
I may be way off the mark here, like I said this is not my field of choice but the complaint seems to be focused on an assumption of science that what can be seen operating in some manner today and/or is consistent with prior scientific explanations, might have operated in a similar manner in the past.
I’m confused. Which part are you referring to?
posted on 07.15.2004 9:08 PM28
Wilkins responded briefly to the First Cause argument, but adds he's busy with several Blogs, assorted hobbies such as answering an endless procession of Creationist FeedBack on the Talk Origins Archive, not to mention work he actually gets paid for:
This is known as the "Cosmological Argument" or the "First Cause"
Argument. It derives from Plato - Aristotle had a version (the unmoved
movent) and in its present form it derives from Aquinas. A form of it
currently doing the rounds is the so-called "kalam" argument which
William Lane Craig is promoting.
It requires that each cause has a cause of its own, and that to avoid a
regress one must posit a terminus a quo.
My personal objections to this are:
1. We are making an illicit induction if we expect that all things,
including the entire universe, must have a cause. All we have
experience of its *parts* of the universe causing *other* parts of it.
There is no necessity to think that the whole thing needs a cause (for
then it would be in a milieu in which universes are caused - what would
be the cause of that milieu, etc). And subsidiary to that - if God can
be uncaused, why not the universe? That is a more parsimonious
conclusion.
2. It explains nothing. We *know* the universe exists whether it was
created or not. So adding the "first cause" adds nothing to our
understanding.
3. It is uninvestigable. All we have is the bare assertion that some
entity about which we know nothing did something in a way we know
nothing about to cause the things we do know. There is nowhere to go
with it. It is, in short, special pleading for a *prior* commitment to
there being a deity.
Here are some worthwhile links.~John Wilkins
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/firstcause.html
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/cosmological.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html
29
Can God make an object so heavy that even God can't lift it?
Yes He can. But then He is able to shift into the next higher diminsion where He can move the object easily. And then, in that dimension, He is again able to make an object so heavy that even He can't lift it until He shifts into the next higher diminsion where He can move the object easily. And so on.....
The question is not can God make an object so heavy that even God can't lift it. The question is how many objects in how many dimensions can God make so heavy even He can't lift them.
Obviously, the answer is God is able to make an infinite number of unliftable objects in infinite dimensions.
/*
posted on 07.15.2004 9:46 PM30
Very interesting thread here.
The materialistic model, in trying to explain away the possibility of God using matter as a predeterminant of existence, also explains away much in the physical world. What about valence? Gravity? Turbulence? They obviously exist because of their effect on matter. Creativity? Invention? Humor? Love? Strength? Again, their existence is incontrovertible, but only because of their effects on matter itself. The flaw in the materialist argument is that, while the materialist considers matter all there is, matter is actually only the raw materials of the universe. Design and invention are what molds matter into the observable--is the design of a superior nature, e.g. nature itself, from the structure of the galaxies to the electrons spinning about the nucleus; or of a human one, such as the forging of steel or the laying of roads?
I had a neighbor claim to have visited the moon, and the trip was inspired by what he called "the world's largest and most finely crafted bong", which took over three hours to fully smoke. It was because of him that I can't hear Pink Floyd's record-setting album without getting nostalgic. For the wrong reasons.
posted on 07.15.2004 9:51 PM31
Fascinating. This is off the cuff and barely proofread as well. Just want to get it out of my head before going to bed (now half an hour late):-)
Part 1:
After the walking on the moon part you stated, "If materialism is true then all doxastic states are (a) illusions, (b) physical states, or (c) emergent properties of physical states."
From the point of view of materialism "a" is really a subset of "c", and "c" is really a byproduct of combinations of "b". Our consciousness, our thoughts and our actions are simply a matter of physical states in the brain--whether it be chemical, electrical, geometric or otherwise. The conclusions you draw from this I believe are erroneous.
One of the first conclusions you draw is that if we are merely state machines then we have no free will and that we have no moral responsibility. What determines the nature of responsibility and morality if not the human consciousness? The human consciousness is not a physical entity but it is driven by physical processes. The realization of these processes are the thoughts and actions that all creatures, including humans, exhibit. It is solely within the minds of men that morals and the concept of moral consequences have any relevance. In fact it is only once we have interaction of the various consciouses at a physical level that we even have a need for morals. Does this consciousness exist any less because it is purely described by physical laws and physical states?
We are driven by individual phisycal reactions that control every aspect of our being. Do you deny that it is possible to manipulate thought processes through physical, chemical or electrical mechanisms? Do you deny that this can be done in relatively predictable ways? If not, then why do you have to create a supernatural component to explain the pieces that we already have begun to manipulate directly when necessary? If you do deny this, then ask yourself why we spend billions of dollars a year on brain surgery, neurological pharmaceuticals and mental therapy. Since the results are relatively repeatable, and recordable, you'd be hard pressed to say it is out of a mass delusion.
posted on 07.15.2004 9:52 PM32
Part2:
You seem to also be wrapped around the axel on the notion that if thoughts are just a physical state then any physical thing can have thoughts. You state that "all matter is the same 'stuff'." Is this really the case though? Is Silicon the same as Helium? Is water the same as salt? Why then would you expect all the variations of matter, energy and the structures they form to all behave in the same way. Certainly our consciousness and all our memories are stored in physical states, but that doesn't mean all things are capable of storing things in such a way, nor does it mean that these structures are identical in all creatures. It is the composition of the matter and energy that produces the state itself and thus not just any old lump of matter will behave in the same way.
Breaking down your claims. I'd say "1" is true. "2" is not true because energy also exists, but we can lump them together for the sake of argument. "3" is true if you bundle energy into the matter category. "4" is true. "5" can be true depending on how you take the concept of "one". I believe you are giving that concept connotations that are not valid or required. "6" falls into the same category. "7" is false since non-arbitrary distinctions are made innumerable times every day. "8" would be true but "9" is fallacious since not all matter or combinations of matter produces the same reactions. To illustrate that dramatically, get two containers of liquid oxygen. In one pour grains of sand in another pour liquid hydrogen. Tell me if all combinations of matter produce the same states or reactions. "10" is false because the doxastic states, by your definition, are states of "mind." The "mind" is a byproduct of physical states not the other way around. "11" doesn't follow either since doxastic states exist independently of each other in various individuals. They are "one" in the sense that they occur because of the same underlying physical mechanisms but that's about it.
posted on 07.15.2004 9:52 PM33
Breaking down your conclusions: "1" is true if we group energy and matter into the "matter" category. "2" again is you applying too much weight to the concept of "oneness." "3" is true in that states of mind are stored and change as a product of the physical material that created it but only exist as an interpretation of those states (I'll describe that later). "4", "5" and "6" are true. "7" is where you really fall off the deep end I think. All doxatic states, including beliefs, are stored and expressed through physical states but they are not in and of themselves matter. You then move into "8" where beliefs are true and false at the same time because all matter is "one." Again beliefs are not matter they are interpretations of states of matter/energy from some other interaction. You therefore can have a paradox of beliefs without having paradox of states of matter. There is no contradiction of that in the least.
A good concrete corollary to the mind for the sake of this argument is a physical computer. Starting with a fully assembled machine we have nothing but a lump of plastic, metal and semiconductors. It has the potential to store billions of bits of data. In that way they are crude state machines, relative to a biological brain. Peering into the chips we see that we have billions of transistors in miscellaneous combinations on hundreds of individual circuits. The states of these individual transistors is dependent on the state of the energy flowing through them. They can be outputting one amount of current for one energy state and another amount of current for another energy state. This is similar to the microscopic view of a neuron in a brain. Based on its nearby reactions, like the transistor's energy streams, it can react one way or another way (or countless ways in the case of neurons). What does all that output current from the transistor mean? By itself it means absolutely nothing. This is the state of the matter/energy of the computer at the lowest levels. I could enumerate the billions of transistors and their current voltages and it would be equally meaningless to anyone. The same is true for the states of our neurons that form our brains.
posted on 07.15.2004 9:53 PM34
Part 4:
Somehow the computer makes sense of all these billions of output currents. It does so as a byproduct of the interactions of all these billions of transistors. Not only is it important for these transistors to interact correctly, but something has to interpret it. When they function in aggregate, we get the wide range of storage and computational power of the computer. It is in essence the byproduct of the interactions of billions of state machines acting as one aggregate state machine or a combination of state machines.
The human mind can be thought of in a similar manner. The state of the individual neurons controls the responses of surrounding neurons thus pushing and pulling states from the external world into the brain. These changed states produce changes elsewhere and so on. When they function as a whole they produce this state of awareness we call thought and consciousness. Because of the complexity of the structures, unlike computers the brain doesn't behave to all external stimuli in a deterministic way but instead in a probabilistic way. Also, the reactions of individual brains depends on the state of those brains which is a function of the billions of state changes that have occurred as a result of the billions of individual stimuli that it has encountered over its operational existence.
posted on 07.15.2004 9:53 PM35
DAC:
If you were looking at a masterpiece painting, and one person said the painting "didn't "come from" anywhere; it has always existed", and another said it was created, which would you consider a more reasonable answer?That's easy. I've seen paintings made before, and I know exactly how they are created. I could actually demonstrate the creation of a painting, if not a masterpiece. Now if you're talking about the materials from which the painting is made, that's a bit different.
Joe:
Don't bother. I've seen the common explanations, and they're only compelling to those already inclined to believe them.tgirsch: How can humans really have free will if God knew before he created us exactly what we would do every step of the way?
Joe: That’s an interesting one that has a very complex but solid answer. I'll save it for a future post.
We are saying that “God did it” for every aspect of creation.And that makes it better exactly how? It still explains nothing. And when you argue that the naturalistic explanation is flawed because of what it cannot explain, that would seem to imply that your view can explain things that it can't.
We mean that which is not composed of matter/energy.It's a huge leap from there to the Christian God...
Do you believe that your thoughts and beliefs are made of matter?Honestly, I don't know. Frankly, I think that "thoughts" and "beliefs" are abstractions, so asking what they're "made of" misses the point. It's rather like asking what the number 2 is made of.
Why is it off limits to test the logical consistency of yours?It's not off limits to test it. It is off limits to misrepresent it.
But if it is illogical then it is unlikely to be true.Which puts us both in the same boat, now doesn't it? You, after all, believe in a God that is sort of God, sort of man, and accuses himself of abandoning himself when he sacrifices himself for our purported benefit. Nope, no logical inconsistency there. And I didn't even have to use any obscure philosophical terms to describe one of your logical conundrums.
That doesn’t save your worldview.Maybe not. But what do you do when no worldview is logically consistent? Assume that existence doesn't actually exist? Assume that no worldview is correct? No, you don't. You pick the worldview that presents you with the fewest problems. Personally, I'm more comfortable admitting that there are things I cannot explain than with assuming a super-being I cannot explain is responsible for the things I cannot explain (and, to be fair to you, the ones that I can). You obviously feel differently, but that's why they make different worldviews.
That's the beauty of philosophy. You can't declare a particular philosophy "dead" quite so easily. (But then, philosophy is little more than mental masturbation anyway; that's another discussion...)
I’m asking you to defend your worldview and show that it internally consistent.I don't think I can do that in a way that you would accept. You seem to scoff at "I don't know" as an answer, and since I'm no expert in philosophy, where does that leave me? I could list dozens of examples of things for which we didn't used to have naturalistic explanations and now do, but that would not convince you. As long as there's even one thing I can't explain in purely naturalistic terms, you'll say "Aha!" and point to that as an "inconsistency." As I've said until I'm blue in the face, just because I can't explain it doesn't mean that it can't be explained.
If that is the case then what use is logic? Why use it at all if all it does is lead to absurdities?Because it's a useful tool, within certain limits. It is not, however, perfect or limitless. One must understand the limitations. It's limited in large part, for example, by the accuracy of your assumptions.
Sure it does, it can explain all kinds of things. For example, my mind (which is not made of matter and is therefore supernatural) can explain why 2+2=4.And I can explain why 2+2=4 without resorting to supernatural explanations. What's your point?
I’m simply asking you to follow the logic on this one point and to defend it.1,434 words is "one point?" That's a big damn point! :) For starters, I don't even agree with your logic. You say "just matter," but I think that understates things. Matter is incredibly diverse, and yet you describe it as if it's just one thing.
But what I really take exeption to is your seeming assertion that if somebody isn't an expert in philosophy and logic, and can't defend the viewpoint in those terms, must concede that their worldview is "inconsistent." If that's what you want, fine. My worldview is inconsistent. So what? By the standard's you're setting, so's everyone else's.
I can sure show that it is internally consistent and logical.Not in terms I would accept, and not in terms others disinclined to agree with you would accept. Is God omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? It is logically inconsistent to claim that He is all three of those things. And how can God get angry with you for doing things that He knew with 100% certainty you would do eons before He even created you? Talk about logical inconsistencies!
Sometimes it’s the ultimate in intellectual laziness. If I don’t know my multiplication table because I never bothered to learn them I shouldn’t be praised for “intellectual honesty” but chided for being an imbecile.Oh, I get it. So people who don't want to get into detailed philosophical arguments with you are imbiciles? ;) Seriously, though, comparing questions of universal scale which no one has resolved with multiplication tables that are a completely human creation is a far-less-than-fair comparison.
If the answers to these questions were self-evident, people wouldn't still be arguing about them, as they've been doing for centuries. Accusing someone who admits they haven't resolved them of "intellectual laziness" seems to me to be a huge stretch.
I’m saying that you hold an illogical presupposition.Possibly so, but that doesn't make it incorrect, especially when there's no manifestly more logical presupposition presenting itself as an alternative.
So you don’t believe in the “big bang”? If not then you must believe that the universe always existed (which is also, by the way, a logic impossiblity).I believe the big bang happened, just not that it was when all matter was created. I don't believe it was the beginning of everything.
And on what do you base your statement that an infinite universe is a logical impossibility? You seem to claim that God is infinite by definition and therefore must exist, so we may be working with incompatible frames of reference here.
Because God is a necessary being (His existence is not contingent on anything else – He could not not-exist) while the universe is a contingent being (It could not-exist).Sorry, but huh? You're trying to get around the problem by defining God as something that cannot not exist. At the same time, on what basis do you say that the universe could not exist? We've certainly never witnessed such a circumstance? How can you say that one could logically not exist but not the other? It seems to be based on nothing more than assumption and personal belief.
And please don't get into the whole Aquinas thing of "uncaused causes."
Alan:
Because the universe deals in cause and effect relationships. The first answer leads to infinite regression. The second leads to an uncaused cause that is outside of the universe.Ugh! Enter Aquinas. You probably won't see this, but that doesn't explain anything, it just cheats around it. "We need something that transcends cause, so we'll just call that thing 'God.'" But the fallacy here is that you're applying finite thinking to something infinite in scope (the Universe). If there was no beginning, then there was no "first cause." You make that same logical leap; you just add the "God" step: God caused everything, but what caused God? Nothing, because God has no beginning -- God is infinite.
Why must something that is infinite necessarily be sentient? You can give no logically compelling reason why this must be so.
Logically inconsistent means it is wrong.If it truly is logically inconsistent. But it remains equally plausible that Joe's logic is flawed. Again, see Zeno's Paradox as an example of where logic alone can go horribly wrong. People weren't able to find the flaw in the logic until centuries later, but that doesn't mean the flaw wasn't there. I'm guessing an expert in logic and philosophy would have no trouble dispatching Joe's argument that naturalism is inherently logically inconsistent. Too bad we don't have one handy.
You are quite free to limit me to using means and beliefs that logically derive from my worldview.See above questions about God being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
I am still not sure that Holy lenders have the best deal, but I do know, with certainty, that it is better than the first one.You only know that with certainty if you understand all of the terms that Joe used in describing the new, better rate, and if you understand the underlying nuances of financing. If not, you're relying on Joe's expertise; you're relying on him not to have miscalculated (since you couldn't make the calculations for yourself), and you're trusting him not to mislead you. The only way you could know with certainty that the rate Joe found for you was better is if you knew how to figure all that out before Joe even came along. posted on 07.15.2004 10:38 PM
36
Responses to John Wilkins' "personal objections":
1. We are making an illicit induction if we expect that all things, including the entire universe, must have a cause. All we have experience of its *parts* of the universe causing *other* parts of it. There is no necessity to think that the whole thing needs a cause (for then it would be in a milieu in which universes are caused - what would be the cause of that milieu, etc). And subsidiary to that - if God can be uncaused, why not the universe? That is a more parsimonious conclusion.
1. This objection seems to ignore the cosmological evidence for the Big Bang. The Big Bang offers a good reason to think the universe did not always exist. For the universe to be uncaused given this set of circumstances would mean that it sprang into existence (with its physical laws and its math) out of nothing for no reason. This would be easier to believe if the universe were entirely chaotic, yet it bears the imprint of order and consistency.
2. It explains nothing. We *know* the universe exists whether it was created or not. So adding the "first cause" adds nothing to our understanding.
2. A First Cause explains the universe's order.
3. It is uninvestigable. All we have is the bare assertion that some entity about which we know nothing did something in a way we know nothing about to cause the things we do know. There is nowhere to go with it.
3. If the universe bears the imprint of the First Cause, then we can infer things about the First Cause by examining nature. I can't imagine any more exciting place to "go with it."
37
Mr. Moderate,
"9" is fallacious since not all matter or combinations of matter produces the same reactions.
You’re confusing molecular reaction with properties of matter. We’ve already shown that doxastic states can’t be limited to just certain types of structures, therefore they must be a produce of matter itself.
"10" is false because the doxastic states, by your definition, are states of "mind."
No, within a materialist view, they are physical states.
"11" doesn't follow either since doxastic states exist independently of each other in various individuals.
They can’t unless they are something other than matter. The idea that there is a distinction between your fingers and the keyboard disappear as we get further past the molecular level and down to the ultimate essence of existence. The same would hold true for physical/doxastic states.
They are "one" in the sense that they occur because of the same underlying physical mechanisms but that's about it.
I think you are confusing what matter actually is. We don’t have separate chunks of matter floating around within non-existent states. Everything that exist is matter, which is why materialism is a form of monism.
"7" is where you really fall off the deep end I think. All doxatic states, including beliefs, are stored and expressed through physical states but they are not in and of themselves matter.
As Jaegwon Kim showed, you cannot cling to materialism and claim that doxatic states are somehow different than physical states. Read that section again.
Again beliefs are not matter they are interpretations of states of matter/energy from some other interaction.
But you are smuggling in a supernatural concept. You are trying to say that everything that exist is matter but that doxastic states are not. If they are not matter what are they made of?
By itself it means absolutely nothing. This is the state of the matter/energy of the computer at the lowest levels. I could enumerate the billions of transistors and their current voltages and it would be equally meaningless to anyone. The same is true for the states of our neurons that form our brains.
Bingo! You are starting to see the light. Since matter is all there is, the doxastic states mean absolutely nothing. All neural states are equally meaningless.
Somehow the computer makes sense of all these billions of output currents.
You are trying to make the analogy valid by anthromorphosizing the computer. But computers don’t “make sense” of anything.
When they function as a whole they produce this state of awareness we call thought and consciousness.
But is consciousness made of matter? If not then it cannot exist.
posted on 07.15.2004 10:46 PM38
Joe:
This might interest you, as it uses a lot of Joe-speak. :) I don't claim to "get" it, but it discusses "Metaphysical Intentionalism" to help explain, in purely naturalistic terms, how people can have information (and hence, beliefs/knowledge/etc.).
39
Problems with the arguments:
1.) Kim's argument has been countered, and perhaps refuted (e.g., by Hilary Putnam - see, for instance, his book The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World). Thus, the only option for the materialist is not reductionism (see also Jerry Fodor for arguments against reductionism).
2.) Determinism does not preclude ethics, unless one accepts that free will is required for ethics, a presupposition widely rejected among ethicisists outside of Christianity. By the way, there is such thing as compatiblism.
3.) While matter could produce doxastic states in anything, under a materialist (or at least reductionist) view, it's important to remembera that doxastic states are produced, under reductionist theories, by particular configurations of matter and energy. While all matter and energy may be "one," in the sense that it is all interconnected and the amounts are fixed, there are systems and subsystems within physical theory, and doxastic states are properties/products of local systems. Thus, the argument about all matter being both true and false fails miserably.
I understand that Joe has ideological reasons for opposing materialism and naturalism, but I would expect better arguments than these.
posted on 07.15.2004 10:54 PM40
Ed:
The Big Bang offers a good reason to think the universe did not always exist.No, it only offers a reason to believe the the universe did not always exist in its current form. There's nothing in the Big Bang theory, to my knowledge, that implies that all matter spontaneously appeared from nothingness.
2. A First Cause explains the universe's order.How?
3. If the universe bears the imprint of the First Cause, then we can infer things about the First Cause by examining nature.Like what?
Joe:
We’ve already shown that doxastic states can’t be limited to just certain types of structures, therefore they must be a produce of matter itself.For the benefit of those of us who haven't taken seventeen or eighteen philosophy courses, please explain to the peanut gallery what the hell a "doxastic state" is. :)
No, within a materialist view, they are physical states.What's the difference?
They can’t unless they are something other than matter.Why can't the be emergent properties of matter interactions?
But you are smuggling in a supernatural concept.Only if you define "supernatural" very loosely.
Since matter is all there is, the doxastic states mean absolutely nothing. All neural states are equally meaningless.OK. So? As I've argued before, "meaning" is just an abstraction, anyway. ;)
But is consciousness made of matter?I think it's just as fallacious to ask what consciousness is "made of," just as it's fallacious to ask what gravity is "made of." posted on 07.15.2004 11:04 PM
41
tgirsch,
Matter is incredibly diverse, and yet you describe it as if it's just one thing.
Matter is not diverse at all. What it can produce may be but matter itself is rather basic.
Is God omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? It is logically inconsistent to claim that He is all three of those things.
Not at all.
And how can God get angry with you for doing things that He knew with 100% certainty you would do eons before He even created you? Talk about logical inconsistencies!
How is that logically inconsistent? Why would knowing what choice a person is going to make affect the moral response to that choice?
If the answers to these questions were self-evident, people wouldn't still be arguing about them, as they've been doing for centuries.
Most of what the West call “logic” is self-evident but there are still Eastern philosophies that deny the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be not-A). As Pascal said, peoples emotions have as much to do with their beliefs as their intellect.
And on what do you base your statement that an infinite universe is a logical impossibility? You seem to claim that God is infinite by definition and therefore must exist, so we may be working with incompatible frames of reference here.
Because the universe exists in time, you cannot have an infinite regress (or progress) of temporal sequences. If the universe had always existed then it would already exist infinitely into the future as well as into the past.
At the same time, on what basis do you say that the universe could not exist? We've certainly never witnessed such a circumstance? How can you say that one could logically not exist but not the other? It seems to be based on nothing more than assumption and personal belief.
That one will make a pretty good post so I’ll save that answer for now.
Why must something that is infinite necessarily be sentient?
It wouldn’t. But it would need to exist in a non-temporal dimension.
posted on 07.15.2004 11:06 PM43
Joe:
Suppose you had the opportunity to have sex with your wife, and you knew with 100% certainty that the sex would result in a birth, and that the child would grow up to become the next Hitler. Suppose then, that despite this knowledge, you had the sex anyway. Could you still consistently claim to have unlimited love all humanity and have humanity's best interests at heart?
Similarly, how could God honestly claim to love me without bounds, and still create me when he knew full well I would deny him and therefore condemn me to eternal damnation? In fact, how can you reconcile God's omnibenevolence with the existence of hell?
Because the universe exists in timeI don't follow. Why does time imply finiteness? I see no logical reason to assume this must be so. posted on 07.15.2004 11:16 PM
44
The opening illustration threw me off a bit. Here is the direction I thought you were going: Lack of total comprehension does not make a belief wrong. Atheists take great pride in the explanatory powers of evolution, however personal confidence does not determine Truth. Truth just is. Truth does not depend on human perception to exist.
But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ~ Charles Darwin
If we could know the mind of apes, I suspect few would be impressed by their speculations about life. Materialist are forced to make a leap of faith: that our brains have evolved sufficiently to make meaningful speculations about life. It is not enough to take confort in the thought that human speculation is more meaningful than ape speculation. One wrong set of speculations is ultimately no more useful than another set of wrong speculations.
Finally, a few words from Phillip Johnson:
Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism" First Things October 1990
Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers. First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism" First Things October 1990
The assumption of naturalism is in the realm of speculative philosophy, and the rule against negative argument is arbitrary. It is as if a judge were to tell a defendant that he may not establish his innocence unless he can produce a suitable substitute to be charged with the crime. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism" First Things October 1990
posted on 07.15.2004 11:18 PM45
Hunt,
1.) Kim's argument has been countered, and perhaps refuted
While I could be wrong, I’m pretty sure that the part that Putnam refuted was not pertinent to the example I used.
2.) Determinism does not preclude ethics, unless one accepts that free will is required for ethics, a presupposition widely rejected among ethicisists outside of Christianity. By the way, there is such thing as compatiblism.
Yes, there is but you forgot one key point: compatibilism requires the existence of self-conscious thought, something that doesn’t exist in a purely materialistic worldview.
3.) While matter could produce doxastic states in anything, under a materialist (or at least reductionist) view, it's important to remembera that doxastic states are produced, under reductionist theories, by particular configurations of matter and energy. While all matter and energy may be "one," in the sense that it is all interconnected and the amounts are fixed, there are systems and subsystems within physical theory, and doxastic states are properties/products of local systems. Thus, the argument about all matter being both true and false fails miserably.
Actually, I believe it is your explanation that fails miserably.
While these “systems and subsystems” may have some distinctions on the observational level, they blend into the monistic whole at the ontological level. Get down to the level of pure matter and you can’t determine where one system ends and another begins. Without that ability to distinguish which entity is producing a doxastic state, you are simply begging the question.
I understand that Joe has ideological reasons for opposing materialism and naturalism, but I would expect better arguments than these.
And considering how much you should know about cognitive science, I was hoping you would have a better counter-argument. Maybe next time, eh? ; )
posted on 07.15.2004 11:24 PM46
tgirsch
Wow. Where to start
"And I can explain why 2+2=4 without resorting to supernatural explanations. What's your point?"
Actually, you just did resort to supernatural explanations. That is Joe's point entirely
"Is God omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? It is logically inconsistent to claim that He is all three of those things."
No. It isn't. Assuming you define these properties according to Christian theology.
"And how can God get angry with you for doing things that He knew with 100% certainty you would do eons before He even created you? Talk about logical inconsistencies!"
The same way a father can get angry with a child who he knows is going to leave a mess in the childs room. It is because the 'anger' is about something other than injury to the father.
"If the answers to these questions were self-evident, people wouldn't still be arguing about them, as they've been doing for centuries."
Heh. Of course, there could be no other reason that people did not want to accept any clear arguments and answers would there?
"Joe> I’m saying that you hold an illogical presupposition.
Possibly so, but that doesn't make it incorrect, especially when there's no manifestly more logical presupposition presenting itself as an alternative."
Actually. It does make it incorrect. That is the whole point. It is wrong if it is logically inconsistent. (Note that this does not make a logically consistent position necessarily right)
Whether there is other more logical alternatives is irrelevant to its correctness.
"And on what do you base your statement that an infinite universe is a logical impossibility?"
Not speaking for Joe, but I would assume that it is because infinity is only a concept, not a material reality. It is an assumption that is based upon everything we know about the universe.
"You're trying to get around the problem by defining God as something that cannot not exist. At the same time, on what basis do you say that the universe could not exist?"
Because the universe obeys behaviours that have never been shown to be contradicted (i.e. Scientific laws). Such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If you want to assume that the laws of science did not apply at some time, then feel free, but that certainly sounds like you appealing to a miracle to me.
"You probably won't see this, but that doesn't explain anything, it just cheats around it. "We need something that transcends cause, so we'll just call that thing 'God.'"
No. I see it quite well. My point is not that the uncaused cause HAD to be the Christian God, but that the Christian God fulfills that role.
"But the fallacy here is that you're applying finite thinking to something infinite in scope (the Universe)."
Sorry. But the universe is not infinite in scope.
What we know about the universe makes it quite clear that it had to have a beginning. And also that it cannot be infinite in size.
"If there was no beginning, then there was no "first cause." You make that same logical leap; you just add the "God" step: God caused everything, but what caused God? Nothing, because God has no beginning -- God is infinite."
But God does not have to obey the nature of the material world/universe that we have observed.
So in effect, I have added a possible solution that is not contrary to what we know about the universe as that solution is outside of the universe and not bound by the physical laws that apply to the universe
"Why must something that is infinite necessarily be sentient? You can give no logically compelling reason why this must be so."
Never said it did?
"If it truly is logically inconsistent. But it remains equally plausible that Joe's logic is flawed."
Indeed. and that it why he has asked you to poke holes in it.
"I'm guessing an expert in logic and philosophy would have no trouble dispatching Joe's argument that naturalism is inherently logically inconsistent."
Naturalism has always been inherently inconsistent. This is because it is impossible to defend using logic within its worldview.
There have only been very few naturalists who actually live consistently with the belief. You know where neitzche ended up right?
In fact, many of the great anti-theists concluded quite clearly that if there is no God, then there is no morality. And yet we all seem to live as if morality was something other than an illusion. We all know the difference between someone accidently tripping us, and something intentionally tripping us.
I'm not saying that naturalists are immoral. I am saying that a consistent naturalist would be amoral.
"The only way you could know with certainty that the rate Joe found for you was better is if you knew how to figure all that out before Joe even came along."
No one here is arguing for certainty? Why do you keep bringing that up? Are you saying that I need to be certain before I get a mortgage? That's not very useful, as I would never buy any property.
47
tgirsch
For the benefit of those of us who haven't taken seventeen or eighteen philosophy courses, please explain to the peanut gallery what the hell a "doxastic state" is. :)
Sorry. It’s just a fancy way of saying “pertaining to belief.” It is a useful term when you want to include diverse types of beliefs (i.e., opinions, wishes, desires) within a context.
Only if you define "supernatural" very loosely.
You are right that I am probably using the term in a non-standard way. For this discussion, I mean it in the sense of anything that is not composed of matter or that lies outside the spatial dimension of matter.
OK. So? As I've argued before, "meaning" is just an abstraction, anyway. ;)
You’re starting to sound like an Eastern philosopher.
I think it's just as fallacious to ask what consciousness is "made of," just as it's fallacious to ask what gravity is "made of."
But gravity is a non-changing “law of nature.” It is in a completely separate category than beliefs, which can cause other actions and be acted upon in return.
posted on 07.15.2004 11:38 PM48
Joe,
While I share your worries about naturalism, I'm not sure your argument gets you where you want to go.
Let me 1st take issue with your monism. What would happen if you replaced the word 'matter' with the word 'numbers' in the first six premises of your argument? The result just sounds weird and ludicrous, right? The reason of course is that the meanings of individual numbers (2, 4,784) are drastically different. Your reasoning makes sense with something like 'crayola's brick red' where there's no qualitative difference between one instance of 'brick redness' and another. But what reason do we have to think (much less commit) to the belief that matter is like this?
And if it's the case that fundamental particles of matter (if such things even exist) are qualitatively different, then we don't have to worry about 'non-arbitrary' distinctions.
But let me grant you 1-8 for the sake of argument.
Still, I don't think 9 falls from 1,2 and 6. It could be that natural laws exist. Now I'm not proposing some Platonic substance or essence or form, here, I'm just suggesting that it so happens that matter behaves in certain consistent ways (i.e., masses tend towards one another) that God might describe as laws (again, not positing God, just making the counterfactual: if God were around, then he could accurately describe physical behavior in law-like terms).
Perhaps one of these laws is something like the following: Whenever sufficiently complex objects interact in a certain way, new (material) properties emerge within the systems. These properties might be anything, but what we're concerned with here would be things like beliefs, concepts, emotions, and ideas.
What we get from this is surprisingly consistent with what we observe in physical systems like humans and dogs and tables and chairs. The objects that possess sufficient complexity have special properties; the objects lacking certain complexities don't. In this way we find that we can make distinctions between objects composed of matter in a very non-arbitrary way: namely by enumerating types of objects that have properties different from other types of objects.
Now, I've said nothing about mental causation here, and for good reason. This kind of 'property dualism' may commit us to epiphenominalism, but the naturalist already believes in strict determinism, so it's no great loss to find out that your mental states are just errant effects of your physical states with no causal powers of their own.
What I hope to have shown here is that yes, a deterministic ethics seems to fall out of naturalism, but the system itself is coherent and does not lead us to contradictions. It just so happens that of the possible coherent philosophies, this one falls in the 'not-true' category.
David Chalmers' book The Conscious Mind is pretty cool and makes much more sense than I do. Also, Dean Zimmerman has a pretty good argument that goes after materialism in this book. It composes the first half of the essay about whether or not a Christian should be a mind-body dualist.
posted on 07.15.2004 11:51 PM49
Tgirsch
"I think it's just as fallacious to ask what consciousness is "made of," just as it's fallacious to ask what gravity is "made of.""
As an aside. I believe the scientific term is 'gravitron' and they are working on identifying the particles as we speak..
posted on 07.15.2004 11:55 PM50
Tom,
Let me 1st take issue with your monism. What would happen if you replaced the word 'matter' with the word 'numbers' in the first six premises of your argument? The result just sounds weird and ludicrous, right? The reason of course is that the meanings of individual numbers (2, 4,784) are drastically different.
It would depend on what you meant by numbers. If you meant numbers as an abstract concept, then it wouldn’t be applicable to the proof. After all, a universe in which nothing but abstract concepts existed wouldn’t be very interesting (unless you were Plato).
If you meant numbers as items that had a one to one correspondence with a physical entity, then I think the conclusion would turn out much the same.
Your reasoning makes sense with something like 'crayola's brick red' where there's no qualitative difference between one instance of 'brick redness' and another. But what reason do we have to think (much less commit) to the belief that matter is like this?
Because when we are talking about properties such as color we are applying them to the molecular level or higher. For pure matter to be “pure matter” would mean to distill it down to its most basic essence. Since matter is one, it wouldn’t have differences in its properties.
Still, I don't think 9 falls from 1,2 and 6. It could be that natural laws exist.
True, they could. But if a natural law apply to matter, wouldn’t it have to apply to all matter? If matter could create a doxastic state in some matter why couldn’t it do it in all forms?
Perhaps one of these laws is something like the following: Whenever sufficiently complex objects interact in a certain way, new (material) properties emerge within the systems. These properties might be anything, but what we're concerned with here would be things like beliefs, concepts, emotions, and ideas.
I have a number of objections to this one:
1. “sufficiently complex objects interact in a certain way…” – for a law to only come into effect when this condition was met would require matter having some way of “knowing” that this state has obtained.
2. “…new (material) properties emerge within the systems” – But where did they come from if they didn’t already exist in matter? You seem to be implying that these properties are created ex nihilo when certain states actualize.
3. “These properties might be anything, but what we're concerned with here would be things like beliefs, concepts, emotions, and ideas.” – For this to occur, all beliefs, for example, would have to be of the same type. Natural laws are always repetitive. They act the same way all of the time.
What we get from this is surprisingly consistent with what we observe in physical systems like humans and dogs and tables and chairs. The objects that possess sufficient complexity have special properties; the objects lacking certain complexities don't.
If this argument was being made by the naturalist, I would say that you are begging the question. The fact that we find such items of “sufficient complexity” works against the idea that a natural law created these entities. Natural laws by themselves do not create anything with a “purpose” such as a chair.
In this way we find that we can make distinctions between objects composed of matter in a very non-arbitrary way: namely by enumerating types of objects that have properties different from other types of objects.
David Chalmers' book The Conscious Mind is pretty cool and makes much more sense than I do. Also, Dean Zimmerman has a pretty good argument that goes after materialism in this book.
I’ll have to look for those.
It composes the first half of the essay about whether or not a Christian should be a mind-body dualist.
I’m rather skeptical about mind-body dualism myself.
posted on 07.16.2004 12:12 AM51
dude. me too! you'll like the essays then because lynn rudder-baker writes a response and she and zimmerman have a little tete a tete. im not yet sure how i fall on the issue...
posted on 07.16.2004 12:15 AM