Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/25/02 2:19pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade)" on 04/20/02 4:34pm
One term to define before moving on: A brute fact is an appropriate stopping point for explanation. It’s how something is, with the fact itself having no explanation. In other words, a brute fact is a fact that’s just true, without any explanation for its existence and without any explanation for why the fact is correct. For instance, the law of noncontradiction (e.g. it’s impossible for me to exist and not exist at the same time) is true as a result of logic. Why? Well, it just is. It’s a brute fact. I’m also going to “tie up” the thread by including your post You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop. I think we should clear up a few things.
Macroevolution
>It seems to come down to a couple of things:
>
>1) you don't trust mainstream science because of
>philosophical objections
Why do you think this? Is it because of my use of the concept of macroevolution? The main reason I was referring to macroevolution (henceforth simply called “evolution”) was to use it as a reductio ad absurdum for your arguments. I was given the impression that your “black force” theory and “that’s just the way it is” statement were given as reasons why the data I presented are not evidence supporting theism. But it seemed to me that your objections could be used against any explanatory theory (call it T), not just theism.
- The data that T explains is just a brute fact.
- A “black force” creates all the data that T explains.
Could those two things be possible? Well, yes, at least in some nominal sense. But that doesn’t seem to be much of a criticism since these are possibilities for a lot of rational theories. You can pretty much fit any theory for T. The one I used was evolution. If you believe that the parallel I drew as misleading and wish to demonstrate as such, than you must answer the question that results. Namely, exactly why are your objections applicable to theism but not to evolution? Why do they uniquely apply to theism? Obviously, the “black force” and “brute fact” arguments are not sufficient reasons to reject evolution (to do so is absurd).
Inherent plausibility
>2) you have been exposed to enough religion in your
>life that the idea of God seems rational on a very
>deep level
It’s not that I find theism inherently plausible so much that I view both atheism and theism as possessing equal inherent plausibility. When choosing one of the two as the most rational, I think we should use the basic principles of rationality: explanatory power, empirical adequacy, and the like. For example: all else held constant, if theism explains a certain set of data and atheism does not explain it, then that set of data provides rational support in favor of theism.
Actually, I would venture that the mirror opposite is true. It seems to come down to you believing that theism is inherently implausible and inherently irrational. If so, why do you hold those positions? Suppose both theism and atheism had the same level of inherent plausibility. Which one do you think is the most rational?
Underdetermination of theories
>>This sort of thing goes back to the underdetermination
>>of theories. Yes, there will always be innumerable
>>ridiculous theories that can accommodate any set of
>>data.
>…<
>Exactly…. By your logic, you are _forced_ to
>accept my "black force" theory as _equally likely_ to
>your "God" theory.
Nothing in my logic forces me to do any such thing. I think we’ve dealt with this sort of thing before. Confer this post.
Speculations
>You seem bent on proving that God is rational, but I
>think you're arguing with yourself more than you are
>with us
That is simply not true. Why do you believe this?
>You are
>obviously taking some logic class, so we are all
>hearing you talk about logic now. Next semester, when
>you take calculus, we will probably all hear about
>calculus and how it proves the existence of God.
I am not taking any logic class. As I’ve said before, try to be more careful on what you think is “obvious.” BTW, I am not taking calculus next semester, though I have already completed two semesters on that subject.
Atheism’s explanatory power, ability to predict data, etc.
>Again... (sigh)... atheism can say "God doesn't exist"
>or "God may not exist" and still not be claiming to
>have any explanation of anything.
Precisely. I never claimed otherwise. However, in selecting a belief that is most rational, things like explanatory power (along with empirical adequacy, Ockham’s razor, and the like) come into play. All else held constant, a theory that explains a certain set of data is more rational to believe than a theory that does not. The same goes for powers of prediction and other tenets of the philosophical belief.
Philosophy
>I am necessarily not into this argument. I think you
>hold philosophy in far greater esteem than I do. I
>respect it, but I am very slow to think that it stands
>on anything close to the same ground science does in
>regards to proving things. You seem to think that
>science proves some things and philosophy proves some
>of the things that science doesn't deal with. I, on
>the other hand, tend to think that whatever is outside
>the arena of science is pretty much anyone's guess.
Not at all. Remember that science itself depends on some philosophical beliefs. That knowledge is possible, that our senses are in general reliable, and so forth. Science doesn’t deal with these things, but if these philosophical beliefs are on shaky ground, then so is science. Is knowledge possible? If you have rational reason to believe so, you’ve made a philosophical position for yourself. Some things in philosophy can be accepted as rational on the same level of science’s most established theories, particularly in those instances where such scientific theories depend upon those philosophical positions for their acceptance. Of course, some things are not always so agreed upon in philosophy (e.g. atheism vs. theism), but that is another matter.
The Ontological Argument
>I have explained my side several times. If you choose
>not to find _my_ reasons for rejecting your arguments
>compelling, that is your decision, but I think all
>this sudden talk of "bowing out" is just useless.
Well, the problem is that you didn’t give any reasons for rejecting the argument. Quoting you in this post.
Apparently, you were hoping I'd try to break apart your logical proof, but I cannot and will not do that.
The “proof” is at the heart of the matter. You asked why God existed, and I provided what some propose as the answer to the question. You have not even really attacked the proposed answer.
>You ask for "evidential arguments" against your
>starting premises, which are simply philosophical
>premises. I do not agree with them, and I need not
>provide "evidence" for that, since you have provided
>no "evidence" for them in the first place.
Ah, but I have! Let’s take a look at the premises again.
- If God exists, he exists necessarily.
- Evidential argument: God is defined as the greatest possible being. The greatest possible being would by definition have the greatest possible form of existence (if he exists).
- It is possible for God to exist.
- Evidential argument: Again, God is defined as the greatest possible being. Given its coherent meaning, it would be irrational to claim that the greatest possible being cannot possibly exist.
If you disagree with them, fine. I’d like to hear your evidential arguments. If you have none, why make posts against the ontological argument? That is why I mentioned “bowing out.”
>Meanwhile, keep thinking you have the elusive "proof
>of God's existence" in your pocket if you like. If
>it's true, then I assume all logic professors believe
>in God, since they are bound to those rules that you
>listed.
I’ve already dealt with the allegation of my claiming to possess the elusive proof of God’s existence in my pocket. But just because it’s true (if it is true) does not imply that all logic professors believe in God, since it is possible for a proof to be sound and still disagree on a few points.
>The whole definition
>of a "greatest possible being" is subjective and
>strange
In what way? It is unclear why the “greatest possible being” (a being of maximal perfection) should be too subjective in the sense that I am using it. Confer the summary property of God. Furthermore, if the argument is sound, then the “greatest possible being” would objectively exist and have all the objective properties it would possess. The being of maximal perfection would exist regardless of what people would think about the being’s attributes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 