[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 23 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

that's very perceptive and almost correct... what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?

I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.

I don't see why objective morality would have to be accounted for, nor why it should be the case that it can be accounted for. Enlighten?

[onoway]

I am at a loss to see how anyone can suggest that there is an innate morality in humans, any more than in baboons or wolves,for example. In fact perhaps less, if you consider that humans are generally believed to have consciousness which other animals supposedly lack.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

i don't know what you believe re: morality, so i'll wait before addressing it... i'll just say that when i speak of it i'm referring to morality in an objective sense... as for logic, i can account for its existence while the atheist can't... i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

Ok, I'll bite. I accept the normal definition that morality is the process of distinguishing between vices and virtues. How does that presuppose christianity?

Logic is the formal study of arguments. A simple example is:

If p, then q
Not q
Therefore not p

This has nothing to do with the christian world view. Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians. Nor was Bertrand Russell.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

i know on a personal level some atheists who even believe such a thing as objective morality exists (for example, they believe that the torture and murder of very small children is immoral across the spectrum of culture or environment), however they can't account for such a thing from within atheism.

Then they've never read Ayn Rand.

[han]

PassedOut, on May 23 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians.

You are mistaken. In fact most of the important work of Aristotle was done after he met Jezus Christ.

[luke warm]

a lot of replies, i'll try not to leave out any germane thoughts
[quote name='TimG' date='May 23 2008, 12:52 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='May 23 2008, 12:06 PM'] i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview [/quote]
Does that mean that religious non-Christians also use your world view when using logic?[/quote]
i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for
[quote]
I'm not following the all the arguments (from either side), but I am particularly confused by the idea that logic is dependent upon Christianity.  Back in 7th grade when I was first introduced to logic in math class, I learned that true implies false is false.  Was my teacher actually teaching me religion?  And, was this bit of logic non-existent before Christ?  (Or, before Judaism came to be practiced?)[/quote]
no and no (and i think i'll address your 2nd question later in this post)
[quote name='jdonn' date='May 23 2008, 12:55 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='May 23 2008, 10:48 AM'] [quote name='jdonn' date='May 23 2008, 10:17 AM']
As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?[/quote]
that's very perceptive and almost correct... what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can [/quote]
Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?[/quote]
not exactly... are you familiar with disjunctive syllogisms?
[quote]I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.[/quote]
a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...
[quote]I don't see why objective morality would have to be accounted for, nor why it should be the case that it can be accounted for. Enlighten?[/quote]
aside from a debate, it doesn't... if one was debating, for example, the existence of the christian God it's a different story
[quote name='PassedOut' date='May 23 2008, 01:30 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='May 23 2008, 12:06 PM'] i don't know what you believe re: morality, so i'll wait before addressing it... i'll just say that when i speak of it i'm referring to morality in an objective sense... as for logic, i can account for its existence while the atheist can't... i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview [/quote]
Ok, I'll bite. I accept the normal definition that morality is the process of distinguishing between vices and virtues. How does that presuppose christianity?[/quote]
i think you might be missing my point else i'm not making it very well... to answer the question, what you need to do is put into words how you personally, as an atheist (if you are, i don't recall, and if you believe it exists) can account for objective morality
[quote]Logic is the formal study of arguments. A simple example is:

If p, then q
[u]Not q              [/u]
Therefore not p

This has nothing to do with the christian world view. Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians. Nor was Bertrand Russell.[/quote]
i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

tim asked about logic before Christ... first of all, there was no "before Christ"... that aside, logic is an attribute of God and is present in his creation.. it exists because he exists, we (humans) use logic because we were created in his image - created with all his attributes, logic being one of those...

in a long ago post on this subject, a lot of those believing in evolution here said that logic exists because man exists, that before man evolved there was no such thing as logic... they were saying, in essence, that the primordial bog from which something emerged was located both where it was and in another place in the same way at the same time - iow, the law of non-contradiction did not exist until man deemed it to exist... those making that case could not or would not see its absurdity

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on May 18 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

I think that many people who profess to hold religious beliefs do so for social reasons, not because those beliefs are genuinely held. In many cases you can plainly see that people act in ways that would be out of the question if they genuinely believed what they profess.

I am not disputing this, merely curious.

I know some people who go to church entirely for social reasons but they don't profess to believe in religious dogmas. I also know some people who profess to believe in something they call "God" or whatever but that usually serves little social function. Of course there are people who go to church and believe in some religion which may or may not be related to the church but it occurs to me that the two things are largely independent.

Maybe I misunderstood how it works (if someone professed to believe what the priest says I might not be aware that the belief serves a social function only even if that were the case), but I wonder religion is something entirely different in the US than it is over here.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

Quote

Logic is the formal study of arguments. A simple example is:

If p, then q
Not q
Therefore not p

This has nothing to do with the christian world view. Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians. Nor was Bertrand Russell.

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

I understand that you are saying that, but on what basis?

Suppose someone insisted that not the "christian god" but the "symbolic logic god" had to be presupposed in order to account for logic. Wouldn't that make even more sense?

Or why couldn't one say that we happen to find ourselves in a specific universe where these particular logic rules work?

I understand that you believe that a god is responsible for many things (and, of course, I disagree), but how in any case can you limit your claim about logic to the "christian god" specifically.

As you know, there are many definitions of the "christian god," and that definition was changed by the Roman church during the dark ages. That, I believe, was the main reason for the split with Orthodox christians, who still adhere to the original definition.

[han]

What exactly does one do when one accounts for logic?

And how does it feel?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that transcendental is a synonym for irrational?

Then again, given the quality of the logical arguments being advanced, its probably quite apropos

[kenberg]

Some discussions advance, others don't. Here the gap is just too wide. I'm out.

[matmat]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

account for logic?
sorry. that's bullsh!t

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 23 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?

not exactly... are you familiar with disjunctive syllogisms?

Yes. And? I'm not sure how you are trying to apply it, and anyway I don't see trying to disprove every other theory as an effective way to prove your theory. In fact I think the fact that you admit you have to presuppose the existence of god to even come up with the belief is a much better disproof.

Quote

Quote

I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.

a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...

What would you say if, shockingly, I claimed the same thing about the existence of your god, or any for that matter? Or is that an offensive thing to say simply because you actually believe it whereas I was simply making up an example?

Quote

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

I disagree with matmat that this comment is bullshit. On the contrary, it's completely meaningless.

[luke warm]

[quote name='han' date='May 23 2008, 06:01 PM']What exactly does one do when one accounts for logic?

And how does it feel?[/quote]
a statement of reasons, causes, etc., to give an explanation for... it feels fine
[quote name='PassedOut' date='May 23 2008, 05:52 PM']I understand that you believe that a god is responsible for many things (and, of course, I disagree), but how in any case can you limit your claim about logic to the "christian god" specifically.[/quote]
that's a good question... i once had a debate on "is God necessary for morality?" in which my opponent objected to my limiting myself to the christian God... i thought that was peculiar on his part since it allowed him to focus on just one among many... the answer is, because that's the only God i believe in
[quote]As you know, there are many definitions of the "christian god," and that definition was changed by the Roman church during the dark ages. That, I believe, was the main reason for the split with Orthodox christians, who still adhere to the original definition.[/quote]
i don't adhere to some of those definitions, assuming i even know which ones you speak of... i can only use my own
[quote name='hrothgar' date='May 23 2008, 06:12 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='May 24 2008, 01:09 AM'] i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for [/quote]
Am I the only one that finds it amusing that transcendental is a synonym for irrational?[/quote]
here is the definition
1. transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2. being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3. abstract or metaphysical.
4. idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5. Philosophy.
a. beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Compare transcendent (def. 4b).
b. pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
c. Kantianism. of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge.

i use the word in the sense of #3, abstract or metaphysical... so feel free to substitute abstract if it makes you feel better

these are the only synonyms i could find

1. abstract, hypothetic, hypothetical, ideal, theoretic, theoretical, transcendent, extramundane, extrasensory, metaphysical, miraculous, preternatural, superhuman, supernatural, superphysical, supersensible, unearthly
2. Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world:

so while you might not be the only one who finds it amusing, others might prefer other synonyms
[quote]Then again, given the quality of the logical arguments being advanced, its probably quite apropos[/quote]
most of us have seen what you consider to be logical arguments, richard... if yours don't resort to ad hominem remarks, strawman arguments, and other fallacies i've just figured you weren't really trying
[quote name='kenberg' date='May 23 2008, 06:27 PM']Some discussions advance, others don't. Here the gap is just too wide. Connecting the existence of  logical thought to the existence of God is way past where I can even navigate.[/quote]
i don't believe it is, ken... all you have to do is rationally account for abstracts such as logic or morality from within your worldview

in any case, it would probably be better if 2 or 3 of you pooled your thoughts on this, via PMs, and posted fewer times... it's difficult answering everyone, and i'm sure most people don't care to wade through posts such as this
[quote name='jdonn' date='May 23 2008, 06:52 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='May 23 2008, 05:09 PM'][quote name='jdonn' date='May 23 2008, 12:55 PM']Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?[/quote]
not exactly... are you familiar with disjunctive syllogisms?[/quote]
Yes. And? I'm not sure how you are trying to apply it, and anyway I don't see trying to disprove every other theory as an effective way to prove your theory. In fact I think the fact that you admit you have to presuppose the existence of god to even come up with the belief is a much better disproof.[/quote]
it isn't a matter of an explanation being correct or incorrect, it's a matter of one being possible vs. impossible... if by disjunctive syllogism i can show, and this is just an example, that the existence of 3 pound invisible full-of-crap elephant is not impossible while the existence of God is impossible, it means the elephant belief is rational while the God one isn't...
[quote]
[quote][quote]I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.[/quote]
a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...[/quote]
What would you say if, shockingly, I claimed the same thing about the existence of your god, or any for that matter? Or is that an offensive thing to say simply because you actually believe it whereas I was simply making up an example?[/quote]
you can claim what you want to claim... making rational argumentation is a different thing
[quote][quote]i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it[/quote]
I disagree with matmat that this comment is bullshit. On the contrary, it's completely meaningless.[/quote]
if you don't understand it that's one thing... to dismiss it as meaningless seems to me to admit to an inability to discuss it intellectually

[Winstonm]

First, we have to define terms:

Quote

transcendental
Adjective
1. above or beyond what is expected or normal
2. Philosophy based on intuition or innate belief rather than experience
3. supernatural or mystical

And what Jimmy said:

Quote

what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

First off, you seem to be misusing, and thus coming to a false conclusion about, the term transcendental entities. You say love is such a mystical entity - I argue that it is no such thing and it is easily explained. Physical (or sexual) "love" is simply chemical reaction. Brotherly love is a conscious decision. Neither is spiritual, mystical, or transcendental.

Both forms are lumped together as "love" and love is only transcendental because your worldview requires it to be so; try putting the shoe on the other foot and explaining to yourself how your transcendental entities could be explained by an atheist worldview.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 23 2008, 06:57 PM, said:

First off, you seem to be misusing, and thus coming to a false conclusion about, the term transcendental entities.  You say love is such a mystical entity - I argue that it is no such thing and it is easily explained.  Physical (or sexual) "love" is simply chemical reaction.  Brotherly love is a conscious decision.  Neither is spiritual, mystical, or transcendental.

so love is not abstract, winston?

Quote

Both forms are lumped together as "love" and love is only transcendental because your worldview requires it to be so; try putting the shoe on the other foot and explaining to yourself how your transcendental entities could be explained by an atheist worldview.

i might miss some nuances of the atheist worldview, so correct me if i have... in my (as an atheist) worldview, love is not an abstract reality; neither are morality, ethics, or logic... they are either constructs of the human mind else they are concrete - suspended in space and time... since they aren't suspended in space and time, they must be constructs of the human mind, thus were non-existent prior to that mind

it's probably a poor effort, maybe you or someone else can do better

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

it isn't a matter of an explanation being correct or incorrect, it's a matter of one being possible vs. impossible... if by disjunctive syllogism i can show, and this is just an example, that the existence of 3 pound invisible full-of-crap elephant is not impossible while the existence of God is impossible, it means the elephant belief is rational while the God one isn't...

So if neither the existance of god or of my elephants can be disproven (which is inherently true) and both can be used to explain the same concepts such as morality, then I still fail to see how your theory is better than mine.

Quote

Quote

Quote

a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...

What would you say if, shockingly, I claimed the same thing about the existence of your god, or any for that matter? Or is that an offensive thing to say simply because you actually believe it whereas I was simply making up an example?

you can claim what you want to claim... making rational argumentation is a different thing

I don't know which of us should be making that comment. You make arguments that god exists, but then say that if someone else makes the same arguments to show that something else you find implausible exists then their argumentation is irrational and unjustified from a sound functioning mind. I think you are forgetting who your point should apply to...

Quote

Quote

Quote

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

I disagree with matmat that this comment is bullshit. On the contrary, it's completely meaningless.

if you don't understand it that's one thing... to dismiss it as meaningless seems to me to admit to an inability to discuss it intellectually

Sorry let me be more clear. What you said doesn't mean anything. It is nonsensical. 'Account' for logic? Really? Anyway I regret commenting on it to begin with, as it only got me sidetracked from what I really prefer to discuss.

[Winstonm]

Quote

so love is not abstract, winston?

I find no validation for an abstract or supernatural definition. I believe I have commented before that I accepted the definition of love that was presented to me by the author of a book who also happened to be an Episcopal minister. In this book he stated (correctly IMO) that love is not a feeling, although it is helpful when it is accompanied by good feelings, rather love is a decision and a commitment.

Pheromones explain the "feelings" of love that fade after the first few months.

Quote

it's probably a poor effort, maybe you or someone else can do better

Your heart probably wasn't in it, but that's O.K. I'm not interested in bashing your worldview, even if I could. But I believe even the most devout must have the ability to say - I believe this although it has no logic.

To try to prove to oneself the logic of a specific worldview creates a bias that cannot be overcome.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 23 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 24 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that transcendental is a synonym for irrational?

here is the definition
1. transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2. being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3. abstract or metaphysical.
4. idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5. Philosophy.
a. beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Compare transcendent (def. 4b).
b. pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
c. Kantianism. of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge.

i use the word in the sense of #3, abstract or metaphysical... so feel free to substitute abstract if it makes you feel better

these are the only synonyms i could find

Here's another definition, straight from our friend the wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....endental_number

Quote

In mathematics, a transcendental number is an irrational number that is not algebraic, that is, not a solution of a non-zero polynomial equation with rational coefficients.

[han]

Interesting thought that logic has to be accounted for. If there were no humans, no earth, no universe, nothing, would there also be no logic? More interesting than the existence of pink elephants and other supernatural beings. We've been through that discussion many times before and I doubt that it will lead to new insights.

Trancedental also makes an appearance in mathematics. A trancedental number is a number that is not algebraic, i.e. cannot be written using only roots and fractions. Another way to think about it is that a trancedental number is not a zero of any polynomial with integer coefficients. (integer = whole number)

Hrothgar is correct that rational numbers are not trancedental but the opposite is not true: the square root of 2 is irrational but not trancedental. So also in mathematics trancedental and irrational are not synonyms.