[Chrysostom]

Okay Karen; i think i'll try it for a few.

The basis for this argument is that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent with itself. It claims that this "universe" and "people" are just a collection of randomly moving particles\energy. How, therefore, do both logic and ethics exist under the atheistic worldview? There is no way they could exist (to my knowledge) under the atheistic worldview.

As already shown, the Christian worldview quite effectively explains these phenomenon (want me to recant?)

that's the starters in a nutshell

[Karen M]

Hello Must


>>>Okay Karen; i think i'll try it for a few.

The basis for this argument is that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent with itself. It claims that this "universe" and "people" are just a collection of randomly moving particles\energy.<<<

Not quite; it claims that everything is naturallistic but not necessairly random. For example, in evolution there is a standard of the weakest to survive in the environment die off and the strongest attributes for the environment live and reproduce; it is not a random cycle of "gee...I think I'll go with THAT gene today..."


>>>How, therefore, do both logic and ethics exist under the atheistic worldview? There is no way they could exist (to my knowledge) under the atheistic worldview.<<<

First of all, we assume logic. This is kind of like you assuming God. These are the prerequosites to my view: 1) logic works(which, if it didn't work we wouldn't be aware of it anyway as we would be illogical and there also wouldn't be any point in this conversation )...2) human senses are at least partially, if not mostly, accurate(this is believed by induction, which is part of logic. You could bring out that everyone could be bodies stuffed into little tubes with wires in their head sending impulses like "The Matrix," but then I would have to call out occam's razor on you )

Therefore, you will disprove my view if you prove that logic is illogical(though I admit I don't know how that is possible w/o using logic )


For ethics, I believe they are a mixture of the will to have self-benefit, evolutionary instinct, and social contract. I have already addressed this to GF on the previous page in more detail, if you are interested I could just C+P it?

>>>As already shown, the Christian worldview quite effectively explains these phenomenon (want me to recant?)<<<

I have not disputed that the Christian worldview explains these things; I have disputed that the Christian worldview is the ONLY view that explains these things...


I look forward to your response

Karen

[Chrysostom]

Hello Karen

>>Not quite; it claims that everything is naturallistic but not necessairly random. For example, in evolution there is a standard of the weakest to survive in the environment die off and the strongest attributes for the environment live and reproduce; it is not a random cycle of "gee...I think I'll go with THAT gene today..." <<

Define naturalistic, first off.

i was under the impression that the atheistic worldview includes a self-interpreting cosmos which spontaneously began existence and, considering that the original existence was spontaneous, continues to be randomly governed.

>>First of all, we assume logic. This is kind of like you assuming God. These are the prerequosites to my view: 1) logic works(which, if it didn't work we wouldn't be aware of it anyway as we would be illogical and there also wouldn't be any point in this conversation )...<<

God accounts for logic. Are you saying that logic was in existence before the universe, spontaneously came into existence, or..?

>>2) human senses are at least partially, if not mostly, accurate(this is believed by induction, which is part of logic. You could bring out that everyone could be bodies stuffed into little tubes with wires in their head sending impulses like "The Matrix," but then I would have to call out occam's razor on you )<<

This is totally unbased and assumed. These are two things which atheism is supposed to account for, but cops it out as assumptions.

>>Therefore, you will disprove my view if you prove that logic is illogical(though I admit I don't know how that is possible w/o using logic )<<

Where did sentience come from? Why did a universe which was formerly governed by randomness suddenly spawn separate wills and sentience?

>>For ethics, I believe they are a mixture of the will to have self-benefit, evolutionary instinct, and social contract. I have already addressed this to GF on the previous page in more detail, if you are interested I could just C+P it? <<

And where did any of those three things come from? Human beings don't exist; it's all just a bunch of particles and energy in motion through space! There are no people, wills, self-benefits, evolutionary instincts, social contracts, etc., etc.



--Am i getting any of the ideas, Dave? i already feel like i'm getting in over my head. Ah well; perhaps i will learn as i go (like i do with everything else lolz)

[Karen M]

One more thing Must...

I thought this over a bit, and I was wondering what you would say to this:

Christians must also assume logic first in their worldview. Even Descartes had to assume logic worked before he could come up with "I think, therefore I am." Christians must assume logic works, then they must read a Bible and come to what is, from their point of view, a logical conclusion that it is true, and because the Bible is true and the Bible mentions God, THEN they can assume God.


Also, you have only claimed that logic, or at least the perception of logic, comes from God; you have not proven that said logic WORKS.


Just some thoughts,

karen

[Karen M]

Greetings again Must


>>>Define naturalistic, first off.<<<

Anything that isn't supernatural


>>>i was under the impression that the atheistic worldview includes a self-interpreting cosmos which spontaneously began existence and, considering that the original existence was spontaneous, continues to be randomly governed.<<<

Wrong. The atheistic worldview believes that we do not have enough evidence to decide what happened; though, as something just popping into existance sounds contradictory, I think we can rule that one out Basically, it could have been anything, but we should not just guess at what it was without evidence.


>>>God accounts for logic. Are you saying that logic was in existence before the universe, spontaneously came into existence, or..?<<<

I'm claiming logic is the study of cause and effect for now, though that defnintion might not be compeletly accurate...



>>>This is totally unbased and assumed.<<<

It is based on logic. Only logic is assumed


>>>These are two things which atheism is supposed to account for, but cops it out as assumptions.<<<

Logic is the study cause and effect(though I came to that conclusion logically, which is why we have to assume logic). That human senses work is a logical induction.


>>>Where did sentience come from? Why did a universe which was formerly governed by randomness suddenly spawn separate wills and sentience?<<<

I have already said that the universe is NOT governed by randomness.

It is "governed" by natural forces, of which we do not know the origin as of yet.

Under my view, sentience is a complex chemical reaction in your brain and we have no real free-will, but we do have the illusion of free will.

>>>And where did any of those three things come from? Human beings don't exist; it's all just a bunch of particles and energy in motion through space!<<<

Huh? This sentence doesn't make sense....you just said humans didn't exist, and then right after that you said humans were made of particles and energy...

Why does it matter what humans are made of?


>>>There are no people, wills, self-benefits, evolutionary instincts, social contracts, etc., etc.<<<

Evolution: cause and effect

Will for self-benefit: From evolution, those who want to benefit themselves are more likely to survive than those, for example, who give away all their food.

Social contract: an unwritten agreement between people for mutual benefit that basically says "I won't attack you if you won't attack me."



Make sense now?

Karen

[DaveJes1979]

You know, Karen, it would have been perfectly respectable (and more than understandable) for you simply to say "OK, Dave, I think we both have made our cases. I don't think much can be gained by continuing on now." I realize that these things cannot continue ad infinitum.

But saying "You win. You have shouted the loudest....I have shown your argument to be invalid several times now....etc etc." is simply a cop-out.

I have done more than "shouted", I have offered a rational, point-by-point response. You also charge that I don't listen to your arguments, and that I keep bringing up things you have already refuted. Well, since I offer a virtually point-by-point response, I have a hard time seeing how I "don't listen." And I have tried to exhaustively address all of your "refutations". I don't know anything that I haven't provided some answer for. What exactly did you "refute" that I ignored or couldn't address meaningfully? It is a specious generalization to simply say "I refuted many of your points".

In any case, I will go ahead and end it here if you'd like. I understand if you don't want to keep responding forever.

But I actually intende to interact with Chrstians, originally, as well as non-Christians. I wish this thread had seen more interaction besides just Karen's arguments.

I would kindly ask everyone here (mustbenothing and Karen) to continue the conversation elsewhere unless it has to do with the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (the name of this thread). I would like to keep the issues focused in case others decide to join in.

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[Chrysostom]

Originally posted by DaveJes1979
I would kindly ask everyone here (mustbenothing and Karen) to continue the conversation elsewhere unless it has to do with the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (the name of this thread). I would like to keep the issues focused in case others decide to join in.

i'm trying to argue it. Please tell me what i'm doing wrong (help always of use )

[Chrysostom]

>>Christians must also assume logic first in their worldview. Even Descartes had to assume logic worked before he could come up with "I think, therefore I am." Christians must assume logic works, then they must read a Bible and come to what is, from their point of view, a logical conclusion that it is true, and because the Bible is true and the Bible mentions God, THEN they can assume God. <<

God is the basis for the worldview (therefore considered a premise, i believe). This worldview accounts for everything which exists, and is therefore consistent.

>>Also, you have only claimed that logic, or at least the perception of logic, comes from God; you have not proven that said logic WORKS. <<

i'm really not sure what this means...

[Chrysostom]

>>Anything that isn't supernatural<<

What is "supernatural?"

>>Wrong. The atheistic worldview believes that we do not have enough evidence to decide what happened; though, as something just popping into existance sounds contradictory, I think we can rule that one out Basically, it could have been anything, but we should not just guess at what it was without evidence.<<

Two options:
1. Universe happened randomly
2. Universe was created

Atheism picks the first, as it opposes a Creator of any type. Therefore, atheism believes that this universe and everything in it developed from random chance.

>>I'm claiming logic is the study of cause and effect for now, though that defnintion might not be compeletly accurate...<<

The existence of logic and sentience are not rationally explained by the atheistic worldview. According to the atheistic worldview, this universe is a random collection of particles and therefore not a place where separate sentient entities exist. Sentience and logic cannot have arisen randomly because it, in itself, is something with is not a random process at all.

>>It is based on logic. Only logic is assumed <<

The reliability of the senses is an assumption. It cannot be rationally proven or logically explained. Inductive reasoning does not work because our universe is the product of random processes and not created, deterministic, or patternable.

Atheism assumes the existence of logic and reliable senses but in no way accounts for their existence. As i have stated, logic cannot exist under a universe governed by random chance.

>>Logic is the study cause and effect(though I came to that conclusion logically, which is why we have to assume logic). That human senses work is a logical induction.<<

Prove that human senses work, again? i thought that we just trusted them through totally unbased faith.

>>I have already said that the universe is NOT governed by randomness. <<

Yes it is. If it was not, then there is something controlling it. This something would be a "deity" of some sort, and atheism does not allow for any theism.

>>It is "governed" by natural forces, of which we do not know the origin as of yet.<<

The only possible origin is another sentience, the Creator, because otherwise it would just be another random process.

>>Under my view, sentience is a complex chemical reaction in your brain and we have no real free-will, but we do have the illusion of free will.<<

When you define free will as "the ability to act according to one's desires," we have free will. Determinists generally argue that we do not literally have a free will because it is controlled by our nature, or something of that sort regarding to personal characteristics.

>>Huh? This sentence doesn't make sense....you just said humans didn't exist, and then right after that you said humans were made of particles and energy...

Why does it matter what humans are made of?<<

"Humans" do not exist really. It's just particles being rearranged. "Humans" are no different than "dirt," "water," "computers," or "foxes" under the atheistic worldview when you look at it from a particle-based level.

>>Evolution: cause and effect<<

So this is determinism and not random processes? What happened?

>>Will for self-benefit: From evolution, those who want to benefit themselves are more likely to survive than those, for example, who give away all their food. <<

There is no will; there is only the rearranging of particles.

>>Social contract: an unwritten agreement between people for mutual benefit that basically says "I won't attack you if you won't attack me."<<

people? Agreement? This isn't particles randomly moving!

See ya soon, Karen

Finals next week... uggh!

[Karen M]

Hello Must


>>>What is "supernatural?"<<<

Anything that is experienced through senses that is not material or energy.


>>>Two options:
1. Universe happened randomly
2. Universe was created

Atheism picks the first, as it opposes a Creator of any type. Therefore, atheism believes that this universe and everything in it developed from random chance.<<<

Several options:
1. Universe happened randomly
2. Universe was purposly created by a conscience being
3. Universe was unconsciencely or unknowingly created
4. We Don't know.

Atheism picks that we don't know, and it doesn't just guess that there is some creator out there who purposly made it.

I am willing to say that perhaps something that made it was unaware of the effects its actions took(such as some type of cosmic butterfly that flapped its wings being the first cause or something...), but we still don't have enough info for this either. I am assuming that by deity you mean something that purposly created the universe that wants us to worship it?



>>>The existence of logic and sentience are not rationally explained by the atheistic worldview.<<<

Logic: the study of cause and effect.

Cause and effect: law of nature, part of determinism

Sentience: complex chemical reaction.


I have said this several times, would you like to refute them yet?


>>>According to the atheistic worldview, this universe is a random collection of particles and therefore not a place where separate sentient entities exist. Sentience and logic cannot have arisen randomly because it, in itself, is something with is not a random process at all.<<<

How many times have I already told you that the universe is NOT random? Please do not strawman my view.



>>>The reliability of the senses is an assumption. It cannot be rationally proven or logically explained. Inductive reasoning does not work because our universe is the product of random processes and not created, deterministic, or patternable.<<<

Wrong. I claim it is deterministic and not random. It is deterministic because every effect has to have a cause(including the universe, which I have already said I am not denying that there was a cause, I am denying that this cause was a act on purpose by an omnicient deity rather than a cosmic butterly or some other naturalistic law that we do not yet comprehend)

Now, with this in mind, the reliablility of the senses is an induction because if our senses were not reliable then we would have died off during evolution. When you see a wall, you can touch the same wall. You can also smell or taste the wall I suppose but I wouldn't suggest it The point is, our senses all agree that there is a wall there, so for our senses to be off, not one, but ALL of our senses must be off by the EXACT same amount for every single person in the world.... It is always possible we are heads in a jar with impulses going to our brains through wires, but the simplest explanation is just that our senses work.


>>>Atheism assumes the existence of logic and reliable senses but in no way accounts for their existence. As i have stated, logic cannot exist under a universe governed by random chance.<<<

The universe is governed by naturalistic laws.

Logic is the study of cause and effect.


>>>Prove that human senses work, again? i thought that we just trusted them through totally unbased faith.<<<

We trust them by induction. As already stated. Also, if you don't want to trust them on induction, you have no basis on which to trust them either...

You can claim that they came from God, but you can not claim that God made them accurate. Same thing with logic.



>>>Yes it is. If it was not, then there is something controlling it. This something would be a "deity" of some sort, and atheism does not allow for any theism.<<<

The thing "controlling" it is natrualistic forces. When you drop a ball and it falls do you really thing your God is saying "Oh, this person dropped a ball, I better yank it down now..." I believe in something called Gravity, which is a naturalistic force.




>>>The only possible origin is another sentience, the Creator, because otherwise it would just be another random process.<<<

No, it could be another naturalistic force. Also, it could be a sentient being that was unaware that it made the first cause and did not purposly create the universe.



>>>When you define free will as "the ability to act according to one's desires," we have free will. Determinists generally argue that we do not literally have a free will because it is controlled by our nature, or something of that sort regarding to personal characteristics.<<<

Yes, we have no real free will because everything is controlled by cause and effect.

When Joey looks in the closet to decide what to wear, his eyes pick up the light and send a picture of the closet to his brain, the dendrites of the neurons in Joey's brain pick up the stimulus and send it to their axon hillock, the salt changes places with the potassium in many neurons at once. Perhaps Joey cut himself lately and the bright red of a shirt causes him to think of the blood; he is turned off at the thought of his injury(after a bunch of other reactions) so he chooses the blue shirt.

I'm not sure if that makes much sense, but I was basically trying to show how our actions are really cause and effect even though we may percieve that they are our own...



>>>"Humans" do not exist really. It's just particles being rearranged.<<<

Humans are made of particles, just like a table is made out of wood. Just because tables are made out of wood, that does not mean that tables do not exist...


>>>"Humans" are no different than "dirt," "water," "computers," or "foxes" under the atheistic worldview when you look at it from a particle-based level.<<<

From a particle-based level, yes, of course they are the same because they are made of the same thing.


>>>So this is determinism and not random processes? What happened?<<<

I have already said that the universe is not a random process


Please do not impose your opinions of what I believe of my own beliefs. Do you want me to start saying that the Bible is just a bunch of fiction so therefore your only morality is also atheistic?


>>>There is no will; there is only the rearranging of particles.<<<

There is will from evolution and cause and effect. Rearranging of particles in your brain is what causes will.



>>>people? Agreement? This isn't particles randomly moving!<<<

Starting to catch on now?


Have a nice day

Karen

[Karen M]

Missed this..:


>>>God is the basis for the worldview (therefore considered a premise, i believe). This worldview accounts for everything which exists, and is therefore consistent.<<<

Yes, you have said that logic comes from God. HOW do you know logic comes from God?

>>>Karen: Also, you have only claimed that logic, or at least the perception of logic, comes from God; you have not proven that said logic WORKS.

Must: i'm really not sure what this means...<<<

You also assume logic works. PROVE logic works without using induction. You can claim it came from God, but you can not claim that being from God makes it automaticly accurate. God himself hardens peoples hearts and such to confuse their logic according to your own holy book, therefore, he could also be screwing around with you

I am basically showing that you can't be a critic of my induction if you have to make the very same induction under your worldview...

[Chrysostom]

Grettings, Karen.

>>Anything that is experienced through senses that is not material or energy.<<

So an idea is supernatural?

* For the rest of the post, i see that we need to start at the premise again.

Only logical options for universe's inception are:
1. Universe was created by an entity.
2. Universe was not created by an entity.
This is the logical fact about it. Either it was or was not created by an entity.

Atheism picks the second. Because it was not created by an entity, it began randomly.

Do you believe that the atheistic worldview supports a randomly incepted universe?

[Chrysostom]

>>Yes, you have said that logic comes from God. HOW do you know logic comes from God?<<

The definition of God states that is the Creator.

>>You also assume logic works. PROVE logic works without using induction. You can claim it came from God, but you can not claim that being from God makes it automaticly accurate. God himself hardens peoples hearts and such to confuse their logic according to your own holy book, therefore, he could also be screwing around with you <<

God is the ultimate location of absolute truth. Therefore it works the way He says it does because He says it does. This clearly explains the origin of logic and the patternable processes required for induction to take place.

>>I am basically showing that you can't be a critic of my induction if you have to make the very same induction under your worldview...<<

The key here is that i am asking the question, "where did the naturalistic laws come from." My worldview solves this problem because God created it. Atheism does not.

[Karen M]

Hello again Must


>>>So an idea is supernatural?<<<

No, an idea is not experienced through senses.


>>>Only logical options for universe's inception are:
1. Universe was created by an entity.
2. Universe was not created by an entity.
This is the logical fact about it. Either it was or was not created by an entity.

Atheism picks the second. Because it was not created by an entity, it began randomly.<<<

No, atheism says we do not know and we do not have enough information. It therefore picks the second from lack of evidence but is open to the first if you can prove it. Just becuase something was not created by an entity does not mean it is random.


>>>Do you believe that the atheistic worldview supports a randomly incepted universe?<<<

No, I am a determinist


I would also like to note that most atheists do not believe the so-called "atheist worldview" because they are atheists. Most atheists are just people who tend to base their beliefs on fact and science and see no logical proof for the existance of a God. Atheism, agnosticism, etc. can be PART of a worldview called logical positivism; but they are not worldviews in themselves. It is also possible to be an atheist and not be a logical postivist.



>>>The definition of God states that is the Creator.<<<

According to YOUR defintion. Prove your defintion is true.




>>>God is the ultimate location of absolute truth. Therefore it works the way He says it does because He says it does. This clearly explains the origin of logic and the patternable processes required for induction to take place.<<<

Exacly, if logic is just some fling created by God's whim, how do you KNOW it really works? He could be messing with your head. It is even recorded in the Bible about how he hardens people's hearts and messes with their logic...



>>>The key here is that i am asking the question, "where did the naturalistic laws come from." My worldview solves this problem because God created it. Atheism does not.<<<

Wrong. Your worldview doesn't "solve" it, but it makes a wild guess at what it could be. Atheism(in the logical postivist sense) admits that we do not yet have enough information to know where the forces came from


Have a nice day,

Karen

[Chrysostom]

Hey, Karen!

>>No, an idea is not experienced through senses.<<

How does this not make it supernatural by the definition you gave?

>>, atheism says we do not know and we do not have enough information. It therefore picks the second from lack of evidence but is open to the first if you can prove it. Just becuase something was not created by an entity does not mean it is random.<<

By definition atheism states that we have no "creator" in the theist sense (atheist). Do you agree that atheism inherently says that there was no creator of this universe? (by creator i mean a being who purposely created this universe by some action)

>>No, I am a determinist<<

Therefore, you believe that this universe is moving in a "predetermined" way? If so, what started the ball rolling?

Two options here:
1. Something with a reason behind it
2. Something without a reason behind it
The first would be a "creator," and the second is "random chance." Because atheism by definition chooses the second, random chance began this universe.

>>I would also like to note that most atheists do not believe the so-called "atheist worldview" because they are atheists. Most atheists are just people who tend to base their beliefs on fact and science and see no logical proof for the existance of a God. Atheism, agnosticism, etc. can be PART of a worldview called logical positivism; but they are not worldviews in themselves. It is also possible to be an atheist and not be a logical postivist.<<

An atheist worldview (there are numerous) generally includes these factors:
1. Knowledge
2. No god (in the deity\creator sense)

>>According to YOUR defintion. Prove your defintion is true.<<

This is the definition i am going by and supporting. When i say "God" i do not mean any "god" such as Allah, Shiva, or phase-shifted pink unicorns. "God" is a specific proper noun that i am simply using as an identifier.

>>Exacly, if logic is just some fling created by God's whim, how do you KNOW it really works? He could be messing with your head. It is even recorded in the Bible about how he hardens people's hearts and messes with their logic...<<

It really works because all truth is relative to Him. You are presupposing that there is an "absolute" above God. There is not; all truth is relative to Him, therefore it is truth if He says it is. There is no greater "truth" than that which He defines.

>>Wrong. Your worldview doesn't "solve" it, but it makes a wild guess at what it could be. Atheism(in the logical postivist sense) admits that we do not yet have enough information to know where the forces came from <<

Atheism says that the forces were not created, because this would mean that a deity exists (thus you would be a theist and not an atheist). My worldview is consistent and has a logical answer for this conundrum.