[Reflectionist]

Egann, on 08 February 2010 - 11:36 PM, said:

Quote

Strong atheism is the positive belief that no god exists.

I think it should be obvious that you cannot positively believe a negative for the same reason a double-negative is incorrect grammatically. If "No No" is a "Yes," then the logic can be understood as a multiplication of terms, therefore a "Yes No" is effectively a "No." The definition SHOULD be "the negative belief that no god exists," but as that they have a bias and want to make it look like this belief is totally NOT defending a universal negative...they don't say that.

Don't read too much into the 'positive' description, a better word would be 'active' belief as opposed to 'inactive' belief. That might be splitting hairs a bit, but I found it obvious.

Egann, on 08 February 2010 - 11:36 PM, said:

Uh...not exactly. Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion' cannot be tested. The best way to describe this is a cognitive barrier which prevents this.

Spoiler

As is, I find Agnosticism to be self-defeating even as it's somewhat on the right track. The most important question in agnosticism is 'is there a cognitive barrier'...and answering that question with a diffinitive yes or no would be a statement which could not be tested. If there is a barrier, there is no way you could know it.

The problem is that yes, people DO look at the same information and come to fundamentally different conclusions. The agnostic makes a mistake by prematurely abstracting this observation into an absolute (hasty generalization fallacy.) This problem among humans does NOT mean that such truths cannot be tested. It means that HUMANS can't test their truth. Not directly with their own cognitive tools, anyway. This does not translate to 'cannot be tested' by anyone. The problem is a human fault, it is not a universal absolute. This is why agnosticism is based on a correct observation, but also comes to a self-defeating conclusion.

Agnosticism is an "all or nothing" venture in the sense that either some truths can't be tested or they all can be tested. I have yet to hear a good justification for compartmentalizing this into JUST metaphysics. In a very real sense, the introspection agnosticism turns on is an on or an off thing and, by all rights, OUGHT to wind up calling all truths into question indefinitely. Effectively, this cuts off any offense.

Most agnostics evade non-metaphysics from the issue because such truths CAN be tested. Agnosticism is based on the observation of the difficulty in testing others... so it is, by default, only applied to these. The problem is that, without having a good reason to only allow the questioning in only one area of thought, it OUGHT to have free reign over all.

That's incorrect. Until you can walk down the street to the local vending machine and get some Jesus, there is absolutely no way to confirm or deny with any degree of valid certainty the existence of any gods or spirits or any metaphysical claims whatsoever. There is no proof where there is no repeatability and no two people have the exact same religious experiences. I know how you like to say that it can be proven, just not to everyone's satisfaction, but I think we both know that's a cop-out argument (in fact, I'd love to hear how you'd respond to me regurgitating that conveniently as a response to "I have yet to hear a good justificaqtion for compartmentalizing this into JUST metaphysics," because I'm sure you've got a great counter to it that you're keeping just in case someone shines a light on your hypocrisy. Whatever that counter is, I'm raising for you, here). It can't be proven, because it can't be repeated. If it can't be repeated, it can't be relied upon, epistemologically speaking, of course.

Also, agnosticism makes no absolute claim, except that no absolute claims can be verified, not that they cannot be made. While your accusation leveled at agnosticism is somewhat correct, theism and atheism are both guilty of it to a far greater degree. By the very nature of what you would define a god as, one claims himself omniscient in order to make a claim of existence for such an entity. As it stands, agnosticism is the position which 1) makes the least amount of assumptions (whereas atheism and theism both assume that 'god' has a quality by which to define, find, and prove / disprove*), 2) is the least egotistical (whereas atheism and theism both assume that 'god' has a tri-omni quality, and then profess to be able to not only know, but understand the three together to such a degree that logic can explain it in a clear and concise fashion to compel another human being of its truth), and 3) is the most logical, yet skeptical position (which is kind of a given, considering #1 above).

* - You said above that agnosticism is self-defeating by proposing an answer to the question "is there a cognitive barrier?" and while the answer an agnostic would give you is 'Yes,' think of the ramifications of saying 'No.' I think you'll find that what one really has left is a God-sized ego. What you've just claimed is omniscience. Congratulations, you've just argued in favor of blatantly extreme humanism. Got your ticket to Hell ready? I don't think Jesus digs that.

Tangets aside, the agnostic position doesn't necessarily have to call all truths into question indefinitely, and you've conceeded the point by casually referring to it as 'truths' instead of 'truth.' You at least recognize the subjectivity and I think, deep down, you know that your argument here really has no merit at all.

In saying that there is a fallacy in a position that is comprised of nothing but claiming ignorance of a metaphysical claim, all you're really doing is bullying someone into making a rash decision about something that should be given a lot of thought.


------

OH, and dear God, people--Gödel's a mathematician, not a metaphysician! Give it a rest! The guy's work is bastardized as it is, by people trying to twist it into some justification for the existence of God. If anything, Gödel's Theorem says that we can't know if there's a God or not, but Jesus Christ--Mathematics != Metaphysics!

This post has been edited by Reflectionist: 11 February 2010 - 03:16 AM

[Jasi]

Mark, on 11 February 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

well I personally am as convinced as I believe a person possibly can be, as to the truth of the statement "some things - whether facts, objects or properties - do exist". (I suppose I claim Absolute knowledge)
And I think that I'm sane.

But what if we're in the Matrix and nothing we know is real?

[Mark]

Jasi, on 11 February 2010 - 11:07 PM, said:

Mark, on 11 February 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

well I personally am as convinced as I believe a person possibly can be, as to the truth of the statement "some things - whether facts, objects or properties - do exist". (I suppose I claim Absolute knowledge)
And I think that I'm sane.

But what if we're in the Matrix and nothing we know is real?

and If we are in the Matrix then it must be a fact that we are in the Matrix, and a fact(or truth) is a thing.
and if we are in the matrix then the Matrix must be an object (a thing) which must have the property of us being in it (another thing), and it must be a fact that it is an object, and it must be a fact that it has that particular property.
thingomys thus abound.

and if it were the case that there were no things, then it would be a fact that there weren't, so there would be things, therefore there must be things.
(this argument does presume a bit in the way of Theories of truth)


but yeah, I am totally confident that there are thingos all round.


or at least we can say that the belief "there are things" is intuitive in the Highest degree.

This post has been edited by Mark: 11 February 2010 - 10:30 AM

[GuardianNinja]

There would be evidence of the matrix, glitches, men in suits, ect.

Our ancestors would have had to have created the robots that put us in the matrix.

And the matrix never explained why they feed off our bio energy, or how they got billions of people logged in.

I don't believe where in the matrix, but i suppose we could be in a computer.


-Thank you Reflectionist !

[Egann]

[quote= 'Reflectionist']Don't read too much into the 'positive' description, a better word would be 'active' belief as opposed to 'inactive' belief. That might be splitting hairs a bit, but I found it obvious.[/quote]

Point conceded...sort of. I can see what you mean now that you mention it, but I can't think of any good reason to say 'positive' when what you mean is 'active.'

Quote

That's incorrect. Until you can walk down the street to the local vending machine and get some Jesus, there is absolutely no way to confirm or deny with any degree of valid certainty the existence of any gods or spirits or any metaphysical claims whatsoever. There is no proof where there is no repeatability and no two people have the exact same religious experiences. I know how you like to say that it can be proven, just not to everyone's satisfaction, but I think we both know that's a cop-out argument (in fact, I'd love to hear how you'd respond to me regurgitating that conveniently as a response to "I have yet to hear a good justificaqtion for compartmentalizing this into JUST metaphysics," because I'm sure you've got a great counter to it that you're keeping just in case someone shines a light on your hypocrisy. Whatever that counter is, I'm raising for you, here). It can't be proven, because it can't be repeated. If it can't be repeated, it can't be relied upon, epistemologically speaking, of course.

The blunt answer is that I don't compartmentalize the 'to everyone's satisfaction' to just metaphysics. It's just that in most other fields of knowledge there are many more ways to verify claims more people find more concrete... it's much easier to GET to everyone's satisfaction in these areas. It doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE in metaphysics, just more difficult.

Case in point would be Galileo and the phases of Venus. The phases of Venus Galileo observed demonstrated that Venus went around the Sun, not the Earth. Of course, as that Church doctrine was considered AS concrete (if not more concrete) an approach to knowledge as scientific inquiry -and the Church had adopted many Aristotelian inaccuracies into it's theology- this was NOT evidence which took the matter 'to everyone's satisfaction,' even though TODAY, when scientific inquiry is regarded with much more concreteness, it seems obvious Galileo proved the point.

Quote

Also, agnosticism makes no absolute claim, except that no absolute claims can be verified, not that they cannot be made. While your accusation leveled at agnosticism is somewhat correct, theism and atheism are both guilty of it to a far greater degree. By the very nature of what you would define a god as, one claims himself omniscient in order to make a claim of existence for such an entity. As it stands, agnosticism is the position which 1) makes the least amount of assumptions (whereas atheism and theism both assume that 'god' has a quality by which to define, find, and prove / disprove*), 2) is the least egotistical (whereas atheism and theism both assume that 'god' has a tri-omni quality, and then profess to be able to not only know, but understand the three together to such a degree that logic can explain it in a clear and concise fashion to compel another human being of its truth), and 3) is the most logical, yet skeptical position (which is kind of a given, considering #1 above).

While much of what you say is true, you also make an egregious omission by leaving out an assumption both atheism and agnosticism make, but is fundamentally untrue of theism. Both atheism and agnosticism ASSUME that the only way to come to knowledge is by human striving, therefore they both operate in an inductive bottom-up structure.

Atheist: There is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist.

Agnostic: There are many contradictory metaphysical models, therefore they cannot be proven or disproven.

In BOTH of these, the decision making is the self. After all, who better? Well, perhaps we should take a look at the third before jumping the gun on that assumption.

Theist: God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us.

In many ways, the Theist and the Agnostic are (or at least can be) in agreement (The Theist may or may not agree that bottom-up claims are unverifiable). But they differ in that the Theist specifically avoids two key assumptions common to both Atheism and Agnosticism. 1.) That human striving is the ONLY way to come to knowledge, and 2.) That the self is the best measure to judge what the self should believe.

That's the long and the short of it. Those answers some will embrace, others will hate with all that they are. Atheism and Agnosticism function on an instinctive (humanistic) trust of human faculties, while the Theist fundamentally DIStrusts them in the knowledge that they have been wrong before.

Quote

* - You said above that agnosticism is self-defeating by proposing an answer to the question "is there a cognitive barrier?" and while the answer an agnostic would give you is 'Yes,' think of the ramifications of saying 'No.' I think you'll find that what one really has left is a God-sized ego. What you've just claimed is omniscience. Congratulations, you've just argued in favor of blatantly extreme humanism. Got your ticket to Hell ready? I don't think Jesus digs that.

Tangets aside, the agnostic position doesn't necessarily have to call all truths into question indefinitely, and you've conceeded the point by casually referring to it as 'truths' instead of 'truth.' You at least recognize the subjectivity and I think, deep down, you know that your argument here really has no merit at all.

In saying that there is a fallacy in a position that is comprised of nothing but claiming ignorance of a metaphysical claim, all you're really doing is bullying someone into making a rash decision about something that should be given a lot of thought.

Now you're assuming I'M making the assumptions listed above. Considering that I have consistently argued AGAINST trusting the self (as seen in my common references to self-deception, arguing 'to everyone's satisfaction' , oh, and the latest installment was in the spoiler bracket you quoted from me, a rather obvious 'the problem is a human fault' point) I can definitely see where you are coming from, but I also don't see it as a valid point, all things considered.

Spoiler

On Padding: As that this is an appropriate time to do so, I'll admit it. THIS (the assumption that knowledge comes from above in revelation, not from below in human striving) is generally a point I pad...which is why I specifically did not cast judgment on the author of the original article for padding in the first place, I just felt compelled to point it out. What she is defending is a position closely related to what she actually believes (I think...) and has a good reason for withholding her own beliefs from the field of play (in this case, to attract a greater audience and be less divisive.)

The reason I pad my cognitive model is because, with very few exceptions, it is very divisive. It surrenders the humanism most people harbor in such an intimate way that either you love it, or you hate it.

Even padding it out, it has been more divisive than I would have wished.

[Reflectionist]

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Reflectionist said:

Don't read too much into the 'positive' description, a better word would be 'active' belief as opposed to 'inactive' belief. That might be splitting hairs a bit, but I found it obvious.

Point conceded...sort of. I can see what you mean now that you mention it, but I can't think of any good reason to say 'positive' when what you mean is 'active.'

I know, it's a little silly.

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Quote

That's incorrect. Until you can walk down the street to the local vending machine and get some Jesus, there is absolutely no way to confirm or deny with any degree of valid certainty the existence of any gods or spirits or any metaphysical claims whatsoever. There is no proof where there is no repeatability and no two people have the exact same religious experiences. I know how you like to say that it can be proven, just not to everyone's satisfaction, but I think we both know that's a cop-out argument (in fact, I'd love to hear how you'd respond to me regurgitating that conveniently as a response to "I have yet to hear a good justificaqtion for compartmentalizing this into JUST metaphysics," because I'm sure you've got a great counter to it that you're keeping just in case someone shines a light on your hypocrisy. Whatever that counter is, I'm raising for you, here). It can't be proven, because it can't be repeated. If it can't be repeated, it can't be relied upon, epistemologically speaking, of course.

The blunt answer is that I don't compartmentalize the 'to everyone's satisfaction' to just metaphysics. It's just that in most other fields of knowledge there are many more ways to verify claims more people find more concrete... it's much easier to GET to everyone's satisfaction in these areas. It doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE in metaphysics, just more difficult.

Case in point would be Galileo and the phases of Venus. The phases of Venus Galileo observed demonstrated that Venus went around the Sun, not the Earth. Of course, as that Church doctrine was considered AS concrete (if not more concrete) an approach to knowledge as scientific inquiry -and the Church had adopted many Aristotelian inaccuracies into it's theology- this was NOT evidence which took the matter 'to everyone's satisfaction,' even though TODAY, when scientific inquiry is regarded with much more concreteness, it seems obvious Galileo proved the point.

Which reinforces my point about repeatability leading to verification. You, by citing Galileo's utter disposal of a previous epistemological standard, actually proved my point.

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Quote

Also, agnosticism makes no absolute claim, except that no absolute claims can be verified, not that they cannot be made. While your accusation leveled at agnosticism is somewhat correct, theism and atheism are both guilty of it to a far greater degree. By the very nature of what you would define a god as, one claims himself omniscient in order to make a claim of existence for such an entity. As it stands, agnosticism is the position which 1) makes the least amount of assumptions (whereas atheism and theism both assume that 'god' has a quality by which to define, find, and prove / disprove*), 2) is the least egotistical (whereas atheism and theism both assume that 'god' has a tri-omni quality, and then profess to be able to not only know, but understand the three together to such a degree that logic can explain it in a clear and concise fashion to compel another human being of its truth), and 3) is the most logical, yet skeptical position (which is kind of a given, considering #1 above).

While much of what you say is true, you also make an egregious omission by leaving out an assumption both atheism and agnosticism make, but is fundamentally untrue of theism. Both atheism and agnosticism ASSUME that the only way to come to knowledge is by human striving, therefore they both operate in an inductive bottom-up structure.

Atheist: There is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist.

Agnostic: There are many contradictory metaphysical models, therefore they cannot be proven or disproven.

In BOTH of these, the decision making is the self. After all, who better? Well, perhaps we should take a look at the third before jumping the gun on that assumption.

Theist: God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us.

Yet the entire argument falls apart if you consider the statement "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," a human construction. Given your narrative "That's what a Theist says," I would say it's not a difficult stretch. In the end, you've got the same problem, only the theist doesn't admit it. The statement only works if you make the assumption that the statement is true. And there's absolutely no reason to do that unless you just want to--but that's not philosophy or logic, it's just stubbornly sticking to an assumption so that you can pretend you're doing actual philosophy. It's entirely possible (as much as you or I may disagree) that there is no God whatsoever. I say it's entirely possible that there is and entirely possible that there isn't. I won't say 50-50, because it's more like a 100-100 chance (lets face it, given infinity--the unquantitative, the numbers and logic itself are worse than useless, especially considering Christianity's Man-God paradox) of there being a God / no God. And here's the kicker: it may be completely independent of our system of logic, and there's nothing any of us can do about it unless we're omniscient.

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

In many ways, the Theist and the Agnostic are (or at least can be) in agreement (The Theist may or may not agree that bottom-up claims are unverifiable). But they differ in that the Theist specifically avoids two key assumptions common to both Atheism and Agnosticism. 1.) That human striving is the ONLY way to come to knowledge, and 2.) That the self is the best measure to judge what the self should believe.

That's the long and the short of it. Those answers some will embrace, others will hate with all that they are. Atheism and Agnosticism function on an instinctive (humanistic) trust of human faculties, while the Theist fundamentally DIStrusts them in the knowledge that they have been wrong before.

Yes, I think I addressed this inadvertently above. Game on!

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Quote

* - You said above that agnosticism is self-defeating by proposing an answer to the question "is there a cognitive barrier?" and while the answer an agnostic would give you is 'Yes,' think of the ramifications of saying 'No.' I think you'll find that what one really has left is a God-sized ego. What you've just claimed is omniscience. Congratulations, you've just argued in favor of blatantly extreme humanism. Got your ticket to Hell ready? I don't think Jesus digs that.

Tangets aside, the agnostic position doesn't necessarily have to call all truths into question indefinitely, and you've conceeded the point by casually referring to it as 'truths' instead of 'truth.' You at least recognize the subjectivity and I think, deep down, you know that your argument here really has no merit at all.

In saying that there is a fallacy in a position that is comprised of nothing but claiming ignorance of a metaphysical claim, all you're really doing is bullying someone into making a rash decision about something that should be given a lot of thought.

Now you're assuming I'M making the assumptions listed above. Considering that I have consistently argued AGAINST trusting the self (as seen in my common references to self-deception, arguing 'to everyone's satisfaction' , oh, and the latest installment was in the spoiler bracket you quoted from me, a rather obvious 'the problem is a human fault' point) I can definitely see where you are coming from, but I also don't see it as a valid point, all things considered.

Yes, but arguing against an action (alliteration aside, lulz) doesn't keep you from employing it in the course of arguing against something else. In order for you to make your argument credible, you have to make yourself look credible (otherwise, people will just laugh at you), which is to embrace the human side of things. Given that you are a human, Egann (hopefully), I think that your argument is the epitome of self-defeating.

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Spoiler

On Padding: As that this is an appropriate time to do so, I'll admit it. THIS (the assumption that knowledge comes from above in revelation, not from below in human striving) is generally a point I pad...which is why I specifically did not cast judgment on the author of the original article for padding in the first place, I just felt compelled to point it out. What she is defending is a position closely related to what she actually believes (I think...) and has a good reason for withholding her own beliefs from the field of play (in this case, to attract a greater audience and be less divisive.)

The reason I pad my cognitive model is because, with very few exceptions, it is very divisive. It surrenders the humanism most people harbor in such an intimate way that either you love it, or you hate it.

Even padding it out, it has been more divisive than I would have wished.

"Intimate" is definitely not the word I would use. More like... 'stoic' and 'detached.'

This post has been edited by Reflectionist: 11 February 2010 - 03:28 PM

[Egann]

Quote

Quote

The blunt answer is that I don't compartmentalize the 'to everyone's satisfaction' to just metaphysics. It's just that in most other fields of knowledge there are many more ways to verify claims more people find more concrete... it's much easier to GET to everyone's satisfaction in these areas. It doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE in metaphysics, just more difficult.

Case in point would be Galileo and the phases of Venus. The phases of Venus Galileo observed demonstrated that Venus went around the Sun, not the Earth. Of course, as that Church doctrine was considered AS concrete (if not more concrete) an approach to knowledge as scientific inquiry -and the Church had adopted many Aristotelian inaccuracies into it's theology- this was NOT evidence which took the matter 'to everyone's satisfaction,' even though TODAY, when scientific inquiry is regarded with much more concreteness, it seems obvious Galileo proved the point.

Which reinforces my point about repeatability leading to verification. You, by citing Galileo's utter disposal of a previous epistemological standard, actually proved my point.

...OK...I don't see how. Rephrasing what I said into as close as I can the exact vocabulary of your original post, what I was trying to say is that it isn't like a particular argument is not repeatable. It's just it is ONLY repeatable for people who think within the same paradigms. Your assertion that repeatability is how you should test metaphysical claims is, itself, a paradigm of how you think, and others who share that paradigm are likely to agree with the conclusions. "Proven to everyone's satisfaction" can also be understood as "repeatable, but only by those who share the prerequisite paradigms of thought."

Superficially, that looks like more evidence for agnosticism, I'll grant you. (See below why it's not.)

Quote

Yet the entire argument falls apart if you consider the statement "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," a human construction. Given your narrative "That's what a Theist says," I would say it's not a difficult stretch. In the end, you've got the same problem, only the theist doesn't admit it. The statement only works if you make the assumption that the statement is true. And there's absolutely no reason to do that unless you just want to--but that's not philosophy or logic, it's just stubbornly sticking to an assumption so that you can pretend you're doing actual philosophy. It's entirely possible (as much as you or I may disagree) that there is no God whatsoever. I say it's entirely possible that there is and entirely possible that there isn't. I won't say 50-50, because it's more like a 100-100 chance (lets face it, given infinity--the unquantitative, the numbers and logic itself are worse than useless, especially considering Christianity's Man-God paradox) of there being a God / no God. And here's the kicker: it may be completely independent of our system of logic, and there's nothing any of us can do about it unless we're omniscient.

....Huh? I get the first part, but after "...statement is true" you quickly delve into things I've never heard of and, frankly, have no idea what you're talking about. "100 percent chance of God and 100 percent chance of No God" doesn't sound like a coherent position...it sounds like you've been smoking pot, because I have no idea what you are saying and less about what you mean. Rephrase. And. Expound. Please.

About the first part. You do realize that this is begging the question, I hope, not to mention that it make a non sequitor. To paraphrase, The Theist saying "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," is what a Theist says, therefore it is a human construction, therefore it is self-defeating.

The first problem is that you have not demonstrated that because someone says it that what that person says must, in the nature of the case, be a human construction (non sequitor). Secondly, you are assuming that the only way for humans to come to knowledge is through human constructions, and more to the point, you apply this as a universal absolute that must be true of all human knowledge. This can be rephrased as a universal negative "there is no human knowledge which did not come about except through human constructions" and to make matters worse, you offer less than no evidence to warrant this.

For the sake of argument, let's say an alien craft really did crash in Roswell, New Mexico. Also for the sake of argument, let's say that human engineers disassembled the craft and thanks to that reverse-engineering, we now have laser technology. Now, the question before the house is 'is the laser a human construction?' Well, in a sense, yes. We design and build lasers, understanding the physics behind them perfectly well, so yes, we humans construct lasers. But the question is not "do humans construct lasers?" but "is THE laser a human construction?" With emphasis placed on the proper article, it becomes clear that what is at issue is not applying physical or mental skills, but intellectual property, and here, we must admit that, NO, THE laser is not a human construction. We stole the idea from someone else.

Now, I'm not saying aliens crashed in New Mexico. What I'm saying is that, given the content associated with it, there is no need to regard the statement "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," necessarily as a human construction. Oh, of course, it can be INTERPRETED that way, but interpretation isn't at issue. There are interpretations of World War II which deny the Holocaust, too.

Quote

Yes, but arguing against an action (alliteration aside, lulz) doesn't keep you from employing it in the course of arguing against something else. In order for you to make your argument credible, you have to make yourself look credible (otherwise, people will just laugh at you), which is to embrace the human side of things. Given that you are a human, Egann (hopefully), I think that your argument is the epitome of self-defeating.

Have you ever made a mistake? I don't mean a moral mistake, here. I mean a factual mistake. Said 1+1 is 3 in kindergarten? Did you believe in Santa Claus when you were younger? I don't see how it is self-defeating for a human to admit insufficiency so long as the human is not relying on being self-sufficient, just like I don't see how it is self-defeating for a pilot to fly an aircraft in poor weather using instruments, not any human senses. (Imperfect analogy, I know.) On the other hand, you are stuck with two things. On the one hand, you wish to use your logic, your experience, your intellect, your own abilities to guide you and make your own philosophy. On the other hand, you know that you are human and make mistakes, omissions, forget things, and cannot see the fullness of everything in an instant. The two may not contradict in such a way that I would call "self-defeating," but I would hope it is obvious that they cannot be reconciled, either.

[Mark]

ok, first off.

I reckon we should have a proper official "Reflectionist vs Egann" discussion thread, with a topic, judges and some rules.
We could vote on who has the most persuasive argument. that could be fun - but just an idea.


for Reflectionist:
I do think that there are some metaphysical things which have 'evidence'.
now you can only believe in the existence of any 'evidence' if you have assumptions, but I think some of them are fair ones.
as an example: most people casually believe that if they stub their toe, then it will cause them pain.
but obviously correlation doesn't imply causality, so their belief is not grounded in strict logic.
but people still believe that because they seem to always feel pain after stubbing their toe, this is somehow 'evidence' for causality.
I agree with them, and I presume you do too - and I presume that we both agree that such a positive belief is reasonable.

and I don't think that belief in statements involving 'for all' necessarily display some kind of presumptive arrogance or ignorance of "the infinity" - as you've put it.
for instance I dont think a person is particularly arrogant -if at all- to believe "all cats are cats" or that such things are "worse than useless".


and for Egann:
unless you claim God directly plants his truth into your psyche, I dont think you can claim that theism does not so totally rely upon trusting in the 'self'.
the only way you can know any interpretation of the Bible is true is if you think there is some form of proof, evidence, indication or intuitive reasoning (etc.) to support a particular interpretation over any other.

If I had an interpretation of the Bible that included the belief that "Jesus claimed to be a deluded porcupine", on what basis other than your "self's" reasoning could you not believe me?

so Christianity (at least) is totally be established on the "self's" bedrock assumptions about truth, evidence, and intuition etc.

the statement: "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us" is a statement of human beliefs (the implication of possible action from divine attributes)
Presumably your Theism is based on your continued chosing to believe things like this, and that stuff like this leads to the truth - is this not completely relying on your 'self'?

This post has been edited by Mark: 12 February 2010 - 06:48 AM

[fin]

Mark, on 12 February 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

I reckon we should have a proper official "Reflectionist vs Egann" discussion thread, with a single topic, judges and some rules. and we could vote on who has the most persuasive argument that could be fun. - just an idea.

I thought contro was officially the Reflectionist vs Egann forum. <.<

This post has been edited by Fin: 12 February 2010 - 04:20 AM

[wisp]

And we've already had a Reflectionist vs Egann poll, in our last awards. XD

[Mark]

wisp, on 12 February 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

And we've already had a Reflectionist vs Egann poll, in our last awards. XD

lol.

[Jasi]

Reflectionist has not been arguing with Egann half as much as he used to in the summer! Give him a break.

[arunma]

Shit...I was going to make a quick post before bed. I see I have to first do some background reading on Egann's and Reflectionist' posts.

...tomorrow.

[SOAP]

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 04:42 PM, said:

While much of what you say is true, you also make an egregious omission by leaving out an assumption both atheism and agnosticism make, but is fundamentally untrue of theism. Both atheism and agnosticism ASSUME that the only way to come to knowledge is by human striving, therefore they both operate in an inductive bottom-up structure.

Atheist: There is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist.

Agnostic: There are many contradictory metaphysical models, therefore they cannot be proven or disproven.

In BOTH of these, the decision making is the self. After all, who better? Well, perhaps we should take a look at the third before jumping the gun on that assumption.

Theist: God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us.

In many ways, the Theist and the Agnostic are (or at least can be) in agreement (The Theist may or may not agree that bottom-up claims are unverifiable). But they differ in that the Theist specifically avoids two key assumptions common to both Atheism and Agnosticism. 1.) That human striving is the ONLY way to come to knowledge, and 2.) That the self is the best measure to judge what the self should believe.

That's the long and the short of it. Those answers some will embrace, others will hate with all that they are. Atheism and Agnosticism function on an instinctive (humanistic) trust of human faculties, while the Theist fundamentally DIStrusts them in the knowledge that they have been wrong before.

This caught my eye. I disagree. I think the distinction isn't that theists avoid trusting in their own faculties but rather they trust what they put trust in what they've been indoctrinated to believe in by other human beings. Which is not to say atheists and agnostists aren't quilty of the same nor is it to say that any supernatural experiences a theist has never happened. I'm sure many things might have happened in your life that can't be explained by science that reinforces your beliefs in God, but it's still a belief you were already predisposed to the idea through your parents, your local priest, your friends, ect. Even if you weren't raised in a religious family. Even if you started out skeptical of what you were taught, you were still aware of the idea because sometime in your life, somebody, who was very human, told you there was a God. So when something strange happens to you, you assume it's God revealing himself to you. Specifically the Christian God everyone around you keeps talking about. But why? If humans can be wrong, couldn't it just as possible that everyone whose ever told you there was a God was wrong? If you were raised in a totally different enviroment where there was no notion of God, or indeed the word "God" didn't exist in your vocabulary, but you still had the same supernatural experiences, would you still attribute them to God? Or would they just be weird experiences? No matter how you cut it, we're all products of the enviroments we're raised in and thus filter our beliefs accordingly. I have yet to meet a theist who had came to revelation of God's existence out of a complete vaccum.

There could be a God I suppose. And maybe he can pick and chose when, how, and to whom he can reveal himself. But I'd at least expect some consistency amongst those who believe. Christianity alone is a mess with all it's different views on who God is and what he wants, let alone getting into ALL the different religions and various forms of theism. Looking at it all, could you really fault me for believing your god is just another human construct? After all, as a Christian you could confidently say gods like Zeus or Ra are entirely man-made. Why should your god be any different? Maybe the God revaeling himself to you was really Krishna. And why not? You're only human and could be wrong, right?

[Egann]

All right. Two posts with points worth addressing.

Mark said:

and for Egann:
unless you claim God directly plants his truth into your psyche, I dont think you can claim that theism does not so totally rely upon trusting in the 'self'.
the only way you can know any interpretation of the Bible is true is if you think there is some form of proof, evidence, indication or intuitive reasoning (etc.) to support a particular interpretation over any other.

If I had an interpretation of the Bible that included the belief that "Jesus claimed to be a deluded porcupine", on what basis other than your "self's" reasoning could you not believe me?

so Christianity (at least) is totally be established on the "self's" bedrock assumptions about truth, evidence, and intuition etc.

the statement: "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us" is a statement of human beliefs (the implication of possible action from divine attributes)
Presumably your Theism is based on your continued chosing to believe things like this, and that stuff like this leads to the truth - is this not completely relying on your 'self'?

1. Yes, precisely. I AM arguing that God 'implants His truth into your psyche.' There's more to it than this, of course, but the rest is appropriate to put in after #2.

2. Distrusting my faculties doesn't equate to completely surrendering them to any and every current there is. I CAN use my own faculties to both piece together things and deconstruct others, and it would be foolish for me to say otherwise. What I am arguing is NOT that human faculties are useless, but that they ultimately wind up being useless as long as they are used in a vacuum. Jesus told an appropriate parable to cite here, about two men, one built his home on rock, the other on sand. Both are building houses with their own faculties, but only one isn't depending completely on them.

Given that God either exists, or He doesn't, it follows that there are two possible structures that knowledge can be arrived at.

In the absence of God, all knowledge is bottom-up, meaning it is from watching particular observations and making inductions, inferences, and abstractions. The important point here is that this MUST be categorically true of all knowledge, and as that inferences can never be properly justified, no knowledge can ever be considered certain. In fact, considering the infinitesimal slice of experience that this knowledge must be carved from, it can scarcely be considered able to come up with anything with validity to begin with, if at all.

If God exists, however, Top-down knowledge becomes possible, meaning that knowledge CAN have a foundational base. Don't get me wrong, most knowledge we handle in daily life is bottom-up, but it CAN (and in all likelihood, would) be based on something known with certainty. Because the base is much firmer, conclusions -both good and bad- come much more easily.

What I am saying is that I think each and every person has an epistemic base centered around top-down knowledge, on which that person builds the bottom-up knowledge of everyday knowledge and experience. The bottom-up experience can wind up with fundamentally different conclusions than the base it is built on (mostly because the bottom-up knowledge is so woefully incomplete) but the only reason it can actually come to those conclusions is because it has the base to come to firm conclusions to begin with.

SOAP said:

I think the distinction isn't that theists avoid trusting in their own faculties but rather they trust what they put trust in what they've been indoctrinated to believe in by other human beings. Which is not to say atheists and agnostists aren't quilty of the same nor is it to say that any supernatural experiences a theist has never happened. I'm sure many things might have happened in your life that can't be explained by science that reinforces your beliefs in God, but it's still a belief you were already predisposed to the idea through your parents, your local priest, your friends, ect. Even if you weren't raised in a religious family. Even if you started out skeptical of what you were taught, you were still aware of the idea because sometime in your life, somebody, who was very human, told you there was a God. So when something strange happens to you, you assume it's God revealing himself to you. Specifically the Christian God everyone around you keeps talking about. But why? If humans can be wrong, couldn't it just as possible that everyone whose ever told you there was a God was wrong? If you were raised in a totally different enviroment where there was no notion of God, or indeed the word "God" didn't exist in your vocabulary, but you still had the same supernatural experiences, would you still attribute them to God? Or would they just be weird experiences? No matter how you cut it, we're all products of the enviroments we're raised in and thus filter our beliefs accordingly. I have yet to meet a theist who had came to revelation of God's existence out of a complete vaccum.

There could be a God I suppose. And maybe he can pick and chose when, how, and to whom he can reveal himself. But I'd at least expect some consistency amongst those who believe. Christianity alone is a mess with all it's different views on who God is and what he wants, let alone getting into ALL the different religions and various forms of theism. Looking at it all, could you really fault me for believing your god is just another human construct? After all, as a Christian you could confidently say gods like Zeus or Ra are entirely man-made. Why should your god be any different? Maybe the God revaeling himself to you was really Krishna. And why not? You're only human and could be wrong, right?

You're largely correct. But there are two problems.

1.) Ingrained in your post is the assumption that God -upon revealing Himself- would ALLOW Himself to be misunderstood. If we were speaking of two humans talking to each other, then misunderstandings would be understandable, but as that we're not...I really don't see how that could follow in this context. If God is revealing Himself, why would He be willing to allow Himself to be misunderstood? I CAN see what you mean by "looking for consistency among those who believe...but then you have to define who you are enumerating as believers and those who are just products of their environments who thought they'd just tweak this little point here....

2.) In traditional Christianity at least (I'm not sure about other religions) salvation has nothing to do with metaphysical knowledge. So yes, I am blatantly contradicting lots of Evangelicals saying, "You gotta have a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with CHRIST or you're SCREWED!" The "unforgivable sin" (blasphemy) IS NOT not knowing God, it's knowing His authority and refusing to acknowledge it. Granted, generally -thanks to self-deception and other aspects of the human condition- the two DO usually go together, but not always. The Christian Walk through life is a different matter which DOES profit greatly from a personal relationship with Christ, but salvation in and of itself is an attitude issue.

This post has been edited by Egann: 15 February 2010 - 04:18 PM

[SOAP]

I am not assuming God would allow himself to be misunderstood when revealing himself. Quite the opposite. If it's the same God revealing himself to multiple humans, then their grasp of God should be the same across the board. This is not always true. Otherwise we wouldn't have theists killing each other for thousands of years over religion. It may be some are correct while others are either misquided or intentially tweaking God's image to their own liking. But of course every theist would automatically claim their veiw of God is the correct one and point at each other for getting it wrong. It's always "I'm right, they're wrong" by default.

Who brought up salvation by the way? I certianly did not.

This post has been edited by SOAP: 16 February 2010 - 05:11 AM

[Mark]

Egann.

Hmm. you've said a lot of interesting things.

Since I am not precisely sure what you mean by "bottom up" or "top down", I think the only way I can respond is to provide an instance of a possible non-theist worldview, and then compare this to theism.

Lets have a particular non-theist worldview, and lets call it 'NT-ism'.
Now according to NT-ism, everybody begins conscious existence with a set of basic beliefs, and that the appearance of these beliefs are unexplainable - eg. it is a flat fact that as soon as matter is arranged in a sufficient way to spontaneously cause consciousness so too it will spontaneously cause those basic beliefs.
NT-ism holds that these basic beliefs are shared by every human being, and that it is not possible to change these beliefs in any person whatsoever.
NT-ism holds that whatever beliefs are correctly inferred from these basic beliefs will be true, because the basic beliefs are true.

And why are the basic beliefs true? - "Because the Universe Just Is Like that"

lets turn to have a look at a theistic worldview, and lets call it 'T-ism'
now according to T-ism, everybody begins conscious existence with a common set of basic beliefs that cannot be changed whatsoever.
except that T-ism holds that the existence of these basic beliefs are caused by God's chosen actions.
T-ism holds that whatever beliefs are correctly inferred from these basic beliefs will be true, because the basic beliefs are true.
And these basic beliefs are true because God is good and God always knows what is true.

And why does God always knows what is true? - "Because the Universe just is like that"

in these cases "The Universe Just Is Like that" is just a placeholder for the reasserting of the proposition under question. - ie. 'X is a fact because X is a fact'.

So between these two I find it difficult to see why T-ism has any advantage over NT-ism, as both ultimately end up just stating a fact.

NT-ism and T-ism are only examples of their respective worldviews, but I think this kind of reasoning applies generally.

If you ask a Theist or Atheist why their beliefs are true, then you are asking for an explanation of a fact (assuming it is one), and It seems to me that you can only answer this question in terms of other facts.

here is the way it seems: for any positive number of facts ( including fact P ) the explanation for P's facthood and the facts that explain it must either:
A: terminate.
B: lead us round and round in an explanatory circle
C: involve an infinity of facts without termination or circle

Examples:
* A is a fact because B is a fact - there is no explanation further
* A is a fact because B is a fact, and B is a fact because A is a fact
* A is a fact because B is a fact, B is because C, C is cos D, D - E, E-F, FG ... and so on.

now I think each of these possibilities is open for the Theist and the Atheist.
So If NT-ism is just as good as T-ism when it comes to the basis of truth, then so to should Theism be just as good as Atheism in the same way.


you've said:

Quote

If God exists, however, Top-down knowledge becomes possible, meaning that knowledge CAN have a foundational base.

my point is that I cannot see a nessisary and significant relationship between God's existing, and the possible foundational basis of our knowledge. (regardless of what you mean by 'top-down' knowledge)

sorry to have taken so long - mann, I need sleep.

[Mark]

SOAP, on 16 February 2010 - 08:09 PM, said:

I am not assuming God would allow himself to be misunderstood when revealing himself. Quite the opposite. If it's the same God revealing himself to multiple humans, then their grasp of God should be the same across the board. This is not always true. Otherwise we wouldn't have theists killing each other for thousands of years over religion. It may be some are correct while others are either misquided or intentially tweaking God's image to their own liking. But of course every theist would automatically claim their veiw of God is the correct one and point at each other for getting it wrong. It's always "I'm right, they're wrong" by default.

Who brought up salvation by the way? I certianly did not.

So your point is:

1. if the Christian God does exist, then we should expect him to make his his nature clearly known
2. we have good reason to believe that God hasn't made his nature clearly known (as demonstrated by the actions of believers)
3. we have reason to suppose God not to exist.

Interesting argument.

Well there is allways the skeptic's card -how should we expect anything- (to deny 1).
(if God exists and is perfectly Good, then we should not expect gratuitous evil, but how we should expect to claim right not to expect any other evil ...)

And also if the religious peoples kill each other and behave atrociously apon a false belief about God's nature it dosnt follow that God's actual nature isn't clear to them. (so denying support for 2)

But in support we could say:
1. if God's nature were clear, we should not expect people to behave as if it weren't
2. people behave as if it weren't
3. therefore we have reason to believe God's nature not to be clear.

[Reflectionist]

Sorry it took so long to reply, everyone. And I doubly apologize to Egann, because I'm going to have to address your post in a somewhat non-linear fashion to avoid missing any points.

Egann:

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

Quote

Yet the entire argument falls apart if you consider the statement "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," a human construction. Given your narrative "That's what a Theist says," I would say it's not a difficult stretch. In the end, you've got the same problem, only the theist doesn't admit it. The statement only works if you make the assumption that the statement is true. And there's absolutely no reason to do that unless you just want to--but that's not philosophy or logic, it's just stubbornly sticking to an assumption so that you can pretend you're doing actual philosophy. It's entirely possible (as much as you or I may disagree) that there is no God whatsoever. I say it's entirely possible that there is and entirely possible that there isn't. I won't say 50-50, because it's more like a 100-100 chance (lets face it, given infinity--the unquantitative, the numbers and logic itself are worse than useless, especially considering Christianity's Man-God paradox) of there being a God / no God. And here's the kicker: it may be completely independent of our system of logic, and there's nothing any of us can do about it unless we're omniscient.

....Huh? I get the first part, but after "...statement is true" you quickly delve into things I've never heard of and, frankly, have no idea what you're talking about. "100 percent chance of God and 100 percent chance of No God" doesn't sound like a coherent position...it sounds like you've been smoking pot, because I have no idea what you are saying and less about what you mean. Rephrase. And. Expound. Please.

Certainly. It all boils down to God being non-quantifiable, which is how I would define any spiritual or metaphysical entity or claim. There are numerous Biblical passages which directly reference the infinitude (or unlimited nature) of God, and I think it's obvious that the Bible is where Christians should draw their axioms from. The first assumption I've made here is that the concept of 'existence' is a human construct--we made up the word, we defined it, we used it--potentially at direct contradiction with God's nature. Our definitions are there to box concepts up and make them accessible, while the entirety of God's mind just isn't available to us. We're supposed to be His creations, not the other way around. Given that kind of immense infinitude, added to our complete ignorance of that notion, has left us with these rules of logic and my argument, in a nutshell, is that the laws of logic, specifically the Law of Non-contradiction, are only applicable to otherwise quantifiable (or limited) entities. God cannot be subject to the Law of Non-Contradiction while maintaining an infinite, unlimited, or non-quantifiable status. If we are to subject God to that rule, God cannot possibly be Omnipotent or Omniscient. Otherwise, God can only be exactly half of anything. Which makes for a pretty useless, powerless God. Every basic assumption that I've used comes from your argument.

So what does that mean? First of all, the statement "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" is a completely useless piece of information. Both statements are wrong and both statements are correct--the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't necessarily apply. The biggest example is that the Bible states that Jesus was 100% Man, and 100% God. (Percentages indicate quantifiability, and Christian theology laughs at this.) The divinity of Christ (verified through resurrection), as Paul puts it, is the linchpin of Christianity and without believing that, there's no point in even trying (1 Cor 15:12-19). The entire Theology of Christianity is based on a paradox; a contradiction that--by our logic--should result in the universe completely imploding or something like that, but doesn't. Secondly, using logic to defend or attack a theistic stance is also silly, and in the case of taking a theistic stance, completely blasphemous. Not only is the apologist necessarily making the assumption that God is small and inconsequential enough to fit into the rules of logic, but that Christianity is too weak a theology to stand on its own and needs the apologist to defend it. The big one, though, is that using cold logic to defend Christianity directly blocks the Holy Spirit, which is not only blasphemy, but a concession to every argument and world view that you argue against, by simply playing their game on their field.

Spoiler

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

...OK...I don't see how. Rephrasing what I said into as close as I can the exact vocabulary of your original post, what I was trying to say is that it isn't like a particular argument is not repeatable. It's just it is ONLY repeatable for people who think within the same paradigms. Your assertion that repeatability is how you should test metaphysical claims is, itself, a paradigm of how you think, and others who share that paradigm are likely to agree with the conclusions. "Proven to everyone's satisfaction" can also be understood as "repeatable, but only by those who share the prerequisite paradigms of thought."

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

Have you ever made a mistake? I don't mean a moral mistake, here. I mean a factual mistake. Said 1+1 is 3 in kindergarten? Did you believe in Santa Claus when you were younger? I don't see how it is self-defeating for a human to admit insufficiency so long as the human is not relying on being self-sufficient, just like I don't see how it is self-defeating for a pilot to fly an aircraft in poor weather using instruments, not any human senses. (Imperfect analogy, I know.) On the other hand, you are stuck with two things. On the one hand, you wish to use your logic, your experience, your intellect, your own abilities to guide you and make your own philosophy. On the other hand, you know that you are human and make mistakes, omissions, forget things, and cannot see the fullness of everything in an instant. The two may not contradict in such a way that I would call "self-defeating," but I would hope it is obvious that they cannot be reconciled, either.

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

About the first part. You do realize that this is begging the question, I hope, not to mention that it make a non sequitor. To paraphrase, The Theist saying "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," is what a Theist says, therefore it is a human construction, therefore it is self-defeating.

The first problem is that you have not demonstrated that because someone says it that what that person says must, in the nature of the case, be a human construction (non sequitor). Secondly, you are assuming that the only way for humans to come to knowledge is through human constructions, and more to the point, you apply this as a universal absolute that must be true of all human knowledge. This can be rephrased as a universal negative "there is no human knowledge which did not come about except through human constructions" and to make matters worse, you offer less than no evidence to warrant this.

Okay, fair points--if the first statement was begging the question, it's only because I didn't show my work, not because it's an incorrect conclusion. I think I touched on the 'human construction' bit above, but I'll expound. I think we covered most of this when we had the PM back-and-forth in June about Humanism, if you've still got those PMs to review, it'll save me a lot of time explaining. Anyway, my definition of 'human construction' jumps off of your argument about bottom-up knowledge vs. top-down knowledge. You say that the top-down gives the bottom-up verification, but I say that there's a contradiction in that because what the top-down ends up verifying is the inability of top-down to give verification to anything. Logic itself is what keeps that contradiction going, because the top-down is non-quantifiable. Not only that, but I argue that the dichotomy of 'top-down' vs. 'bottom-up' is a false one, because it's dependent on a faulty concept: existence. Adding to that that your argument is usually that 'top-down' verifies logic itself, and the argument quickly deteriorates into something ridiculously close to:

The below statemet is false. (Or "faulty," I guess.)
The above statement is true. (Or "verified.")

Do you see how there's a problem, here? That's what logic's given us as far as where the base of epistemology is. Something has to be wrong, and that's not for us to say, because we're biased, but we can't say that it's the 'top-down' epistemology that's correct, either, because we're the ones saying that. The bottom-up is what we experience first-hand, first person--and that's what we use to assess and interperet the top-down knowledge, which makes that just as unreliable by default. The resulting conclusion, then, is either subjectivity or agnosticism. Hell, even uncertainty and faith fall into those things. All we've weeded out as being completely 'wrong' views are those views that are absolutely 100% certain or confident in one or the other type of knowledge. (The percent sign is a clue about the weakness of that statement.) That should address the 'second' contention you have as well, which was a straw-man.

Egann, on 11 February 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

What I'm saying is that, given the content associated with it, there is no need to regard the statement "God exists, therefore He can reveal Himself to us," necessarily as a human construction. Oh, of course, it can be INTERPRETED that way, but interpretation isn't at issue. There are interpretations of World War II which deny the Holocaust, too.

Fair enough, but then the question again becomes "Which interpretations are more credible than others, and why?" Which there isn't going to be an answer to, because there are different axioms and each person's opinion dictates the axioms they believe are true, which could be complete lies according to another man's axioms. Interpretation is entirely subjective, and we both know that's a dead end road that we could map out with our eyes closed. It's especially redundant because of the problem with "top-down" vs. "bottom-up" illustration you gave. The simple answer is that no interpretation is better than any others--there can be no right ones, but there could be a million wrong ones. So the idea that there's a hierarchy of interpretations is only an opinion at best and there can be no logic behind it without pandering to a bias which cannot be verified or falsified. And I'm guessing you recognized the absurdity of such a discussion, because you felt the need to associate the opposite view with Holocaust denial, which is pretty low and desperate. Brilliant loaded implication, though. It's in the same vein as "Is it true you no longer beat your wife?" And I'm pretty sure that it's a fallacy, but I don't care enough to name it.



And as for Mark, I'm sorry, but my brain is completely fried right now having replied to Egann, so I'll respond to your points later tonight. My apologies. For a teaser, your reply to me was wildly irrelevant because you used a physical metaphor (to argue a metaphysical point) and a psychological axiom to argue a question of scientific induction. Not at all the same thing on both counts, however I found your most recent reply to Egann to be particularly interesting, so I'll respond to that tonight.

This post has been edited by Reflectionist: 16 February 2010 - 04:50 PM

[Egann]

All right, rather than going line-by-line, I'll group quotes together into topics.

SOAP said:

Who brought up salvation by the way? I certianly did not.

I brought it up to make a point that "knowledge" was not as contingently a requirement as you were implying. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

SOAP said:

I am not assuming God would allow himself to be misunderstood when revealing himself. Quite the opposite. If it's the same God revealing himself to multiple humans, then their grasp of God should be the same across the board. This is not always true. Otherwise we wouldn't have theists killing each other for thousands of years over religion. It may be some are correct while others are either misquided or intentially tweaking God's image to their own liking. But of course every theist would automatically claim their veiw of God is the correct one and point at each other for getting it wrong. It's always "I'm right, they're wrong" by default.

Mark said:

So your point is:

1. if the Christian God does exist, then we should expect him to make his his nature clearly known
2. we have good reason to believe that God hasn't made his nature clearly known (as demonstrated by the actions of believers)
3. we have reason to suppose God not to exist.

Interesting argument.

Well there is allways the skeptic's card -how should we expect anything- (to deny 1).
(if God exists and is perfectly Good, then we should not expect gratuitous evil, but how we should expect to claim right not to expect any other evil ...)

And also if the religious peoples kill each other and behave atrociously apon a false belief about God's nature it dosnt follow that God's actual nature isn't clear to them. (so denying support for 2)

But in support we could say:
1. if God's nature were clear, we should not expect people to behave as if it weren't
2. people behave as if it weren't
3. therefore we have reason to believe God's nature not to be clear.

I touched on the problem here, but apparently I didn't expound on it sufficiently. The problem here is that no matter how you cut it, who you define as the "believers" whom God has revealed Himself who disagree amongst themselves is inherently begging the question. On the one hand, it would clearly be begging the question for me to, say, define Southern Baptists as the ones whom God revealed Himself to at the exclusion of all others because I would be saying "God revealed Himself to them because He revealed Himself to them." On the other hand, precisely the same begging of the question results if I were to, say, broaden the definition to all theists. "God revealed Himself to them because He revealed Himself to them." Even though the disagreement amongst the group has radically increased, the problem remains.

There IS a solution, though. I'll get to it in my expounding of 'bottom-up vs top-down' knowledge.

There is also another (secondary) problem. The argument is, by nature, an opinion because both there being 'too much disagreement' among theists and 'the clarity of God's nature' do not have set end-caps. Even taking a single denomination -even one which has a standard confession, like the PCA uses the Westminster Confessions- there is enough disagreement among details you could argue this. Heck, even disagreements not over doctrinal issues could be used as grounds for this argument. Along this line of thought, for theism to be correct, to be a 'theist' would require each and every individual theist to be a precise copy of every other theist, perhaps not in body, but you get the point. The problem here is that the argument is an intuitive argument based on an opinion statement 'I think there is too much disagreement among theists.' And as long as there is no set end-cap, or a definition of how much disagreement is too much, it must remain that way.

Reflectionist said:

It all boils down to God being non-quantifiable, which is how I would define any spiritual or metaphysical entity or claim. There are numerous Biblical passages which directly reference the infinitude (or unlimited nature) of God, and I think it's obvious that the Bible is where Christians should draw their axioms from. The first assumption I've made here is that the concept of 'existence' is a human construct--we made up the word, we defined it, we used it--potentially at direct contradiction with God's nature. Our definitions are there to box concepts up and make them accessible, while the entirety of God's mind just isn't available to us. We're supposed to be His creations, not the other way around. Given that kind of immense infinitude, added to our complete ignorance of that notion, has left us with these rules of logic and my argument, in a nutshell, is that the laws of logic, specifically the Law of Non-contradiction, are only applicable to otherwise quantifiable (or limited) entities. God cannot be subject to the Law of Non-Contradiction while maintaining an infinite, unlimited, or non-quantifiable status. If we are to subject God to that rule, God cannot possibly be Omnipotent or Omniscient. Otherwise, God can only be exactly half of anything. Which makes for a pretty useless, powerless God. Every basic assumption that I've used comes from your argument.

So what does that mean? First of all, the statement "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" is a completely useless piece of information. Both statements are wrong and both statements are correct--the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't necessarily apply. The biggest example is that the Bible states that Jesus was 100% Man, and 100% God. (Percentages indicate quantifiability, and Christian theology laughs at this.) The divinity of Christ (verified through resurrection), as Paul puts it, is the linchpin of Christianity and without believing that, there's no point in even trying (1 Cor 15:12-19). The entire Theology of Christianity is based on a paradox; a contradiction that--by our logic--should result in the universe completely imploding or something like that, but doesn't. Secondly, using logic to defend or attack a theistic stance is also silly, and in the case of taking a theistic stance, completely blasphemous. Not only is the apologist necessarily making the assumption that God is small and inconsequential enough to fit into the rules of logic, but that Christianity is too weak a theology to stand on its own and needs the apologist to defend it. The big one, though, is that using cold logic to defend Christianity directly blocks the Holy Spirit, which is not only blasphemy, but a concession to every argument and world view that you argue against, by simply playing their game on their field.

OK, that makes sense. I still think it's wrong, but it makes sense.

Did you cite 1 Cor... knowing what it was a citation of? It's not a citation of Christ's divinity...it's a citation of the resurrection. And no, at this point, Paul is not arguing that the resurrection proves divinity...he's arguing that because it is true of Christ, it will become true of all believers. Far from being a proof-text of Jesus' divinity...this is a proof-text of His humanity. (That becomes particularly clear if you read the next paragraph.)

In any case, it's not like the theology that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God is found in the Bible, anyway. Yes, you're precisely right that the analogy is faulty because God IS unquantifiable and percentages are a quantification. We don't have the Bible telling us Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, what we have is texts which indicate He was fully human, and yet fully divine. The percentages are a metaphor derived from these proof-texts. (Derived, I might add, not by God, but by people trying to explain it.)

Ahh, but what about the explanations GOD gives.

Well, you do have a point that God is entirely explained and understood in terms of human constructions, but you know, I don't have a problem with that for two reasons. First, you haven't established that human constructions are insufficient for the task God requires of them. To quote Calvin "God lisps to us" so that we can understand Him. The implication being that the terms we use to understand God are radically different from the ones He would use to describe Himself...to Himself. That answers two points. 1) There can now be legitimate disagreement among Theists and 2) how the apparently contradictory aspects of knowing the truth and being in the human condition can be brought together; through an interpretation.

Come to think of it, I suppose you can use that to insist that everything is subjective, if you insist. There are other things I could say, but this post will be a mile long already.

The other reason I don't have a problem with it is that even if God invented a new language to explain Himself, upon reception you would argue that it is no longer divine, it's human. Doesn't matter if it was originally divine, it's human now. There's some equivocation going on here because on the one hand, you're arguing about what is possible within human constructions (i.e. original to humans) and now you're switching that out with the user. The combination would have the desired effect, granted, but I don't think you can bring them together and remain using the same definitions throughout both.

Quote

Fair enough, but then the question again becomes "Which interpretations are more credible than others, and why?" Which there isn't going to be an answer to, because there are different axioms and each person's opinion dictates the axioms they believe are true, which could be complete lies according to another man's axioms. Interpretation is entirely subjective, and we both know that's a dead end road that we could map out with our eyes closed. It's especially redundant because of the problem with "top-down" vs. "bottom-up" illustration you gave. The simple answer is that no interpretation is better than any others--there can be no right ones, but there could be a million wrong ones. So the idea that there's a hierarchy of interpretations is only an opinion at best and there can be no logic behind it without pandering to a bias which cannot be verified or falsified. And I'm guessing you recognized the absurdity of such a discussion, because you felt the need to associate the opposite view with Holocaust denial, which is pretty low and desperate. Brilliant loaded implication, though. It's in the same vein as "Is it true you no longer beat your wife?" And I'm pretty sure that it's a fallacy, but I don't care enough to name it.

It was brilliantly loaded because I wanted to steer the conversation away from interpretation because I don't see interpretation as being particularly relevant (although I'm guessing it was in vain.) Along with the declaration of having an interpretation comes the implied admission of the subject being something you regard as legitimately needing to be interpreted. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke and fogging up the issue for everyone else ( *Cough* like Jesus claimed to be a porcupine.) From this point, I can use rules established within biblical hermeneutics to do the rest.

If you REALLY want to talk about interpretation, be my guest. Like I said, I think it's not relevant to this argument, and it unneedingly adds to these already monstrous posts.


Top-down vs Bottom-up

For Mark

Spoiler

What I mean by top-down and bottom-up is the direction of where knowledge is coming from.

My experiences come together to make an inference. The inference is a categorical statement about my experiences, therefor it is 'above' my experiences. 'Bottom-up.'

God directly reveals to me knowledge. God is categorically 'above' my knowledge. 'Top-down.'

Quote

Okay, fair points--if the first statement was begging the question, it's only because I didn't show my work, not because it's an incorrect conclusion. I think I touched on the 'human construction' bit above, but I'll expound. I think we covered most of this when we had the PM back-and-forth in June about Humanism, if you've still got those PMs to review, it'll save me a lot of time explaining. Anyway, my definition of 'human construction' jumps off of your argument about bottom-up knowledge vs. top-down knowledge. You say that the top-down gives the bottom-up verification, but I say that there's a contradiction in that because what the top-down ends up verifying is the inability of top-down to give verification to anything. Logic itself is what keeps that contradiction going, because the top-down is non-quantifiable. Not only that, but I argue that the dichotomy of 'top-down' vs. 'bottom-up' is a false one, because it's dependent on a faulty concept: existence. Adding to that that your argument is usually that 'top-down' verifies logic itself, and the argument quickly deteriorates into something ridiculously close to:

The below statemet is false. (Or "faulty," I guess.)
The above statement is true. (Or "verified.")

Do you see how there's a problem, here? That's what logic's given us as far as where the base of epistemology is. Something has to be wrong, and that's not for us to say, because we're biased, but we can't say that it's the 'top-down' epistemology that's correct, either, because we're the ones saying that. The bottom-up is what we experience first-hand, first person--and that's what we use to assess and interperet the top-down knowledge, which makes that just as unreliable by default. The resulting conclusion, then, is either subjectivity or agnosticism. Hell, even uncertainty and faith fall into those things. All we've weeded out as being completely 'wrong' views are those views that are absolutely 100% certain or confident in one or the other type of knowledge. (The percent sign is a clue about the weakness of that statement.) That should address the 'second' contention you have as well, which was a straw-man.

Er...I think you're trying to put the top-down where I put the bottom-up. I put the top-down on the bottom as a foundation, you use the bottom-up. Much to my chagrin, this looks like an interpretation problem. (*irk*) In any case, I can kind of turn the tables to prove my point, even if I can't disprove yours.

Quote

The below statemet is false. (Or "faulty," I guess.)
The above statement is true. (Or "verified.")

What we have here is your straight-up liar paradox, and from it -using logic- I can arrive at the conclusion that the system itself is flawed because the two statements that make it up contradict. What's more, I know this with absolute certainty with objective knowledge. This system is FAULTY, and I know it. I know it in such a way that can only be explained by the top-down being on the BOTTOM.

That objectivity is the top-down speaking. It's the part of my cognitive model God gave me Himself, not what I came up with through my experience. My experience is subjective, bottom-up. The objective certainty in logic is so strong, even, that if I were to find an exception to the laws of logic, I would refuse to discard logic and would instead look for a (logical) reason for the exception. That's not subjective knowledge. That's objective.

For SOAP and Mark, this is what I meant by the solution; God reveals Himself to everyone. It's a shared knowledge and revelation, just not one that everyone is particularly aware of. In fact, it's at such a fundamental level even most people who believe aren't aware of it. Sure there's a lot of variation over the bottom-up knowledge on the top, but when it comes right down to it, the top-down knowledge at the bottom is common to all, so it's perfectly understandable why people all fundamentally share the same mental faculties, but come to radically different conclusions about life. The trick, when it comes to answering SOAP's paradox, is to understand what the question behind it really is.

EDIT: These are becoming doozies, not only to read but to write.

This post has been edited by Egann: 16 February 2010 - 06:51 PM

[SOAP]

Egann, on 16 February 2010 - 11:49 PM, said:

I brought it up to make a point that "knowledge" was not as contingently a requirement as you were implying. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

It is for me. If someone is trying to convince me there is a God and that I should respect this deity's authority, then they should know the nature of this deity. If they can't answer something as fundemental as "Who is God?" honestly and without being vague or interprative then how do they know it exists? Essentially, they have to know what the frak they're talking about before I buy anything they say. Isn't that fair enough?

If I have multiple people telling me there's a God but further inquiry gives me multiple versions of God's nature, then I'm going to be skeptical. While that in itself doesn't neccesarily preclude the possiblity of God's existense, it does little to help it. It just make God sound more like a meme, rather than an actual being that exists and can be known.

This post has been edited by SOAP: 17 February 2010 - 02:39 AM

[Mark]

Reflectionist, on 17 February 2010 - 05:30 AM, said:

And as for Mark, I'm sorry, but my brain is completely fried right now having replied to Egann, so I'll respond to your points later tonight. My apologies. For a teaser, your reply to me was wildly irrelevant because you used a physical metaphor (to argue a metaphysical point) and a psychological axiom to argue a question of scientific induction. Not at all the same thing on both counts, however I found your most recent reply to Egann to be particularly interesting, so I'll respond to that tonight.

what was my physical metaphor? and psychological axiom?
the physical and psychological details of my 'T-ism' and 'NT-ism' aren't really related to my point - they were descriptive fluff.

My point was that If our knowledge has 'top-down' cause then this should not necessarily give us any more confidence than otherwise.
because any explanation as to why our most basic beliefs are grounded can -at the very end- only state something like "The universe just is like that".

[Reflectionist]

Mark, on 17 February 2010 - 07:39 AM, said:

Reflectionist, on 17 February 2010 - 05:30 AM, said:

And as for Mark, I'm sorry, but my brain is completely fried right now having replied to Egann, so I'll respond to your points later tonight. My apologies. For a teaser, your reply to me was wildly irrelevant because you used a physical metaphor (to argue a metaphysical point) and a psychological axiom to argue a question of scientific induction. Not at all the same thing on both counts, however I found your most recent reply to Egann to be particularly interesting, so I'll respond to that tonight.

what was my physical metaphor? and psychological axiom?
the physical and psychological details of my 'T-ism' and 'NT-ism' aren't really related to my point - they were descriptive fluff.

Wasn't paying talking about the T-ism / NT-ism (more commonly and colloquially referred to as theism and atheism, but here in Contro, we like to confuse things for no discernable reason) argument. I'm saying that "Correlation doesn't imply causation," is a psychological axiom. The use of it is limited to explain tendencies, and doesn't have much use elsewhere. As such, stubbing your toe and experiencing pain isn't an applicable example.