Keith Devens .com

Lewis treats this topic in depth in The Problem of Pain. If you liked Mere Christianity, I think you would enjoy that one as well.

Keith,

I looked at your previous post about evil and found this:

In short, the existence of "evil" requires objective moral standards which are only provided on the Christian worldview.

But then in one of your comments, you say this:

Gravity acts the same on everybody, but not everyone agrees about what's moral.

You demand an explanation for objective moral standards, yet we cannot all agree on what they are. Even if objective standards were required for some reason, you cannot claim that your postulated standards are any better than anyone elses. (I won't even get into why the Bible is self-contradictory when it comes to morality.)

You seem to be searching for an absolute reason why people should act according to a certain moral code, presumably because you think that if they only knew, they would automatically be good people. Unfortunately, very few people act with any philosophical coherence. Even if there were an objective moral standard, people wouldn't feel compelled to act within its framework. I know this because religious groups don't follow their own supposedly objective standards. Most people are morally good for personal or utilitarian reasons, not philosophical reasons.

There is no objective moral system. We can study game theory and ethics, and we can identify systems that allow us to live better lives based on some set of criteria. However, this study will not force anyone to live according to the rules.

Philosophically, there's no requirement that there be a objective moral standard, and it certainly cannot be used to justify the Christian faith.

You demand an explanation for objective moral standards, yet we cannot all agree on what they are.

I think you're arguing that because we can't all agree on our basis for ethics, therefore there is no objective basis for ethics. That's a complete non sequiter.

Even if objective standards were required for some reason, you cannot claim that your postulated standards are any better than anyone elses.

Of course I can, simply because my standard is not "postulated" (i.e. I didn't just make it up). It's revealed by the creator of the universe! Whereas others just make their ethics up, and therefore have no authority behind them, the basis of ethics in Christianity is objective and universal and carries the authority of God Himself.

You seem to be searching for an absolute reason why people should act according to a certain moral code, presumably because you think that if they only knew, they would automatically be good people.

Heh, no. I think people generally know what is good and what's evil, and behave how they want anyway. The Bible says that we know the truth but suppress it.

Even if there were an objective moral standard, people wouldn't feel compelled to act within its framework.

Of course. There is, and they don't. But at least the fact that there is an objective standard for right and wrong means that we can meaningfully say that, say, rape and murder are wrong, and Hitler was evil for killing millions of people. Without that, how can we even judge (beyond merely saying "well, I don't like that")?

There is no objective moral system. We can study game theory and ethics, and we can identify systems that allow us to live better lives based on some set of criteria.

Sure, but if everyone makes up their own criteria, that's not ethics at all.

Philosophically, there's no requirement that there be a objective moral standard...

For ethics to mean anything at all, there must be an objective, universal standard for right and wrong. Otherwise, the words "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" merely become shorthands for "pleasing to me" or "displeasing to me". If you think otherwise, I'd like to see you provide justification for your ethical system.

Most people are morally good for personal or utilitarian reasons, not philosophical reasons.

In your view, what does it even mean to say that people are "morally good"?

I think you're arguing that because we can't all agree on our basis for ethics, therefore there is no objective basis for ethics.

No, I am arguing that because we cannot all agree on our basis for ethics, we cannot derive an objective basis based on experience. Not that I'm sure you are trying to do this. I'm just sealing off potential exits.

Of course I can, simply because my standard is not "postulated" (i.e. I didn't just make it up). It's revealed by the creator of the universe!

I know you didn't make it up. You couldn't have. You're not that old.

How was it revealed? It appears to me that you read it in a collection of inconsistent, Iron Age poetry. Or rather, a popular interpretation of that collection.

Why do you grant revelational status only to the Bible instead of other books? Preference, perhaps?

Without that, how can we even judge (beyond merely saying "well, I don't like that")?

We cannot judge except by saying "I don't like that." It's an inconvenient fact about the universe.

Sure, but if everyone makes up their own criteria, that's not ethics at all.

Ethics is the study of possible moralities, it's not a single, unique philosophy.

Besides, why does it matter to you? Since people would not follow an objective morality if it existed, it seems that the world would be pretty much the same whether there were an objective standard or not.

Indeed, there are two reasons why you cannot say your position is justified on the grounds that the results of adopting that position will be morally good. First, you have already admitted that the world wouldn't be any better off ("suppression" as you put it). Second, taking this line of argument would indicate that you knew what was morally good before you adopted your position.

Otherwise, the words "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" merely become shorthands for "pleasing to me" or "displeasing to me". If you think otherwise, I'd like to see you provide justification for your ethical system.

I don't think otherwise, though I do think your reduction is a little simplistic. I think that what we each think of as good and evil are emergent structures in our respective neural networks. The brain is a pattern matching network of autoassociative memories. That network is easily capable of finding a pattern of thoughts and sensations that we regard as good for us (or bad for us). Activating this region of the brain plays back all memories and sensations that match the pattern. That's why the definition of "good" is so fuzzy. Neural networks are great at finding answers. They're not very good at figuring out what the question was.

Nonetheless, our societies and our biologies tend to provide us with overlapping definitions of right and wrong.

In your view, what does it even mean to say that people are "morally good"?

To act in a manner consistent with the Golden Rule.

I'll try to get a more lengthy reply down in the over the weekend when I have a bit more time, but for the moment, I have this to say:

I am intrigued by this idea that we kick our foundations out from under ourselves when we use terms like "unjust" but try to maintain an atheist viewpoint. I can see the point that is trying to be made here (I think), but can 'justice' be grounded in something other than Christianity? I already know your answer to this Keith, but it is at least plausible that it could have come from somewhere else.

I for one had usually argued about the problem of evil in less ambiguous terms such as 'suffering'. I have argued in the past that 'undeserved suffering' is , regardless of what emotionally charged terms we might attach to it, something that a being such as God ought not to allow to happen. Now I accept that this can be interpreted as me saying "undeserved suffering is unjust".
You could try to counter this asking where I got my ideas of justice from. This is irrelevant. There are two possibilities, either undeserved suffering is just, or it isn't. It seems to take a lot of theological bells and whistles to show that it is just and God exists.

It could also be argued that it is just because they deserve it. I accept that there are parts of the Bible that can be taken as supporting this. But can this response drag itself up by it's bootstraps? eg, only if God exists is the Bible a valid source of information about God, hence to cite the Bible in attempting to prove God's existence on begs the question, by presupposing the issue at hand. I know that you won't accept this, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway.

No amount of cleverness with regard to whether or not I can coherently use word like 'just' hides the state of the world. I could concede your point (I don't really, but just pretend that I do). But the world is still cruel. Events can still seem like they are incongruent with the existence of an Existent, Omniscient, Omnipotent and perfectly Benevolent Being.

I mention 'Existent' specifically because it is the last thing about God that I would dispute because it is the last thing I could prove either way. The others, particularly the last two are more accesible to critique in my opinion.

Reduce the argument to its core. Life Hurts. We don't like it, and I see no need for justification of this reaction. If things have to be this way, then we will take it. But if this suffering could be prevented, and it wasn't, are these the actions of a just God? If they are, then many have preferred to choose to believe in the non-existence of God, rather than the frightening prospect of a divine being that we could not understand the terms of in our own, finite morality. It does not make much difference, as a God whose idea of right and wrong are inscrutiable to us is as good as one that is not there at all.

It seems to me that Lewis' presuppositionalist argument would extend to challenge all 'absolute' foundation of any opinions...such as can we truely say anything is true, without a firm foundation of truth?

The truth issue is slightly different though i guess, because often we manufacture our own definition of the situation in which something is true. (i.e. we know that 2+2 = 4 because we choose to accept that the definition of 2 is 4).

I can't see a way in which such an explanation could applies to justice however. In order to say that 'the world is unjust' we cannot simply define the world as unjust - the world is beyond our control, while numbers remain within it.

I'm with Lewis, and you Keith in struggling to find a way in which we have defined our own objective moral standard with any absolute, without the help of God.

At the heart of what Lewis is saying is that he could 'only' understand Justice if he'd been given some benchmark of comparison.

In the same way ... would anything hurt, if we did not on some level understand the benchmark of Love?

My Dad once shared with me a question he used to offer in response to those who would say we're purely the product of genetics. I think it's relevant - maybe. 'How do you explain Love?'

People do not want to believe, and are on some level unable to believe that Love is the product of chance. Deep down we all have these benchmarks... of what hurts, and of what feels good.

The Atheist must ask where they've come from.

Indeed, is it a reflection of man's quest for these benchmarks that we are so prone to defining our own context for truth (i.e. that 1 is half of 2) ... Why do we look for benchmarks, if we have not already been given some.

I predict that this debate is going to be settled by experiment within 30 years.

Why? Because we will soon be able to create artificial intelligences by simulating human brains. When this happens, not only will we put to bed all dualistic models of mind, but we will also empirically understand the relation between concepts and language.

I believe that each concept, whether simple like "yellow", or more complex like "insect", is a learned, recognized pattern in the brain. The speech centers associate a word in language with each concept. We often get tripped up when these concepts are very fuzzy. Our neural networks do not reason in a logic way, but instead pick out complex patterns and correlations from stimuli. This is why we may often know something when we see it, but not be able to describe what "it" is in terms of other concepts. This is to be expected because a pattern recognizing network can take thousands of inputs from different types of sources, from direct sensory inputs (e.g., hormone levels), to low level patterns (like colors and sounds), to high level concepts like "female" or "anger". There will be many stimuli that trigger recognition of the "love" pattern, each with a different amount of lust, tenderness, "motherness" etc. We can tell that we love person X, but we cannot easily write down a formula for why we love them.

However, brain simulations will one day (soon) be able to provide us with an understanding of these mechanisms. For the first time, we will see what the concept of "love" is in empirical terms (i.e., we will be able to write down the formula, at least for that particular brain sim), and we will have proof of the mechanisms that make it fuzzy. The same goes for justice, evil, right, wrong, etc. And yes, we will find these things to be partially subjective.

Sorry for being lax in responding. Haven't given up... I plan to get back to y'all tomorrow night.

Hmm, will respond to one thing now:

For the first time, we will see what the concept of "love" is in empirical terms (i.e., we will be able to write down the formula, at least for that particular brain sim), and we will have proof of the mechanisms that make it fuzzy. The same goes for justice, evil, right, wrong, etc.

That completely misses the point of an ethical system. A system of ethics must tell us what is right and wrong... i.e. what should and shouldn't be done. In other words, a system of ethics must be normative, not merely descriptive. Any account of ethics based on what is done or based on a computer model that predicts, based on analyzing the human brain or by looking at human language and discovering some lowest-common-denominator version of what most people consider "evil", is by definition descriptive, not normative. In short, it can't tell us anything about what's right and wrong. Best it can do is tell us what some people consider to be right and wrong.

doctor(logic),

I find your last postulation ironic in the utmost. Like Hawkings (I am referring to the recent elegant though simple work, "On Intelligence"), you seem to subscribe to this materialistic Kantianism that places the magic of meaning in the mechanism of the brain (vs. the magic of the Kantian mind). There will be an answer forthcoming in AI and it will confound this notion that meaning is found through the magic of the brain working on teleologically-free signals. If it were that simple, there would be no way to keep those patterns between agents closely in sync and communication would be impossible. As someone who quotes Descartes on your website, I really shouldn't have to explain why this would be the case - and I don't have to be a dualist either.

Of course, we don't really have to wait to for this to emerge. We can just be good logicians and realize that your argument is incoherent. If these mechanisms that you believe will be discovered will only serve to further vindicate how subjective the "truths" that are adhered to by the brain really are, then how is it that the objectivity of the system and terminology by which you use to describe it will be reinforced? Will not the contrary be true? I.e. to the degree that you render the objective nature of these transcendental concepts subjective- and I don't want to import the baggage of the "transcendental" label here, I merely mean that they are trans-agent concepts - how do you mean to articulate them to others who will have the same relativity and subjectivism in their understanding of your message to them?

The problem with the type of epistemic agnosticism that you are espousing is that it is destabilizing and serves to undermine the web of belief (and I am deliberately alluding to Quine here) that you function under. Far from the dualism that you want to discount, you seem to have dualism all your own:

(1) the empirical and scientific method with a materialist bias and
(2) the "value" area that is a place for skepticism, uncertainty and skepticism

And here I thought that logical positivism had been fairly well vanquished from respected discourse with the eradication of the Verificationist Principle... But I suppose a new coat of paint can make even that old car seem respectable for a few drives. For the trained philosophers out there… is it not another historic irony that had the Vienna Circle actually listened to Wittgenstein instead of misreading the Tractatus, the whole logical positivist school could have been avoided?

PS- Keith's (and Lewis') point still stands. They can throw off epistemic justification to an Almighty God because He has presumably done the Infinite Induction necessary for an empirical method to hold and make "objective" pronouncements. The only doubt would be legitimate estimation of the noetic impact of our finite faculties and our potentially great ethical deficiencies in the interpretations of those objective pronouncements. You may take issue with his reason for believing that a particular set of scriptures holds the accurate rendition of those pronouncements, but as far as suggesting that it is epistemically insufficient in any way… Well, I’m sorry you haven’t got a Verificationist Principle to stand on. :-)

One more note....

Having read a substantial portion of your blog - particularly 0ct 12th, 2004 - I realize I have mislabeled you.

You are actually a pragmatist masquerading as a positivist.

Oh, and the AI issue isn't anywhere near as simple as what Eliezer or Ben Goertzel think it is. This isn't to take away from either of their very capable intellects (particularly Ben's). They are just looking at the problem all wrong.

And... don't even get me started on your politics. Based on what I do and who I know, your understanding of the Intelligence situation going into Iraq is beneath your otherwise respectable intellect. I'm not even going to bother citing things here. You've got Google and media archives before 2002 available to you. If you wanted to see the case, you could. Just like your philosophy, you stand behind a system of assumptions that are easily shown to be refuted or self-contradictory. So you hold them as a matter of will and desire, not logic. You're a postmodern pragmatist in self-denial manifesting itself through this vacuous positivism.

At least Richard Rorty has the guts to be consistent and honest about what he thinks.

[minor errata] - Hawkings should have been Hawkins in the previous post

I haven't had time to read all posts but for Tim:
Most excellent response. Like most atheists (bad term here...all atheists are just agnostics), Dr. Logic does not want to do the heavy lifting when it comes to examining the philosophical bias of his argument. Now that Tim has philosophically sliced and diced you, I suggest that you (and the others) ponder on a bit of scripture to understand the problem of evil. Try Isaiah 45:7..."I form the light (Hebrew used here is translated as truth) and create the darkness (Hebrew used here is translated as sin). I make peace and create EVIL. I the Lord do ALL these things." So understanding of why there is evil is very simple.
Your problem is not in the understanding of why there is evil. Your problem is in not understanding the righteousness of God.
Once I have time to read all posts I would like respond on other issues like free will (or the lack thereof) and love.

Keith & Tim,

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear here. When you look for an objective standard of morality (or love, or evil), you're looking for something that doesn't exist per se. My claim is that our brains all have a neural homes for these concepts, but that they are different for each of us. That is, science will show that our intuitive definitions for these things are subjective. I am also saying that, because of the way neural networks find solutions without knowing questions ahead of time, there's no guarantee (and no reason to believe) that a concept like "evil" even has an objective, absolute definition beyond the neuroscientific one.

That said, societies may agree on laws that are consistent with most peoeple's subjective definition of morality.

I agree with you, Keith, that an ethical system should define what is right and what is wrong. Where we disagree is whether there is an one, unique system, and if so, how we should identify it.

Your claims for the Bible as the only source (or even a viable source) of that ethical system are illogical.

1) The Bible isn't self-consistent. For any given action you can probably find one verse in the Bible that tells you to take the actions, and another verse that says otherwise. I would turn the other cheek, but I'm supposed to take an eye for an eye.

2) There are thousands of religious texts, some older than your scriptures. Others have the same pedigree, but for various reasons never made it into the final edit of the Torah or the New Testament. So why are your texts the only valid ones, and all the rest of the worlds religious books false? Certainly, you don't have adequate grounds for ignoring history: there are known cases in which people have written religious texts free from inspiration from supernatural entities. The Book of Mormon and Dianetics come to mind.

In order to gloss-over these two objections (and many more), you have to have some very compelling argument. So far, that argument appears to be that we cannot define evil without the Biblical definition (whatever you decide that to be). Well, that's the whole point of my post. You can only define evil objectively inasmuch as it can be defined neurologically.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you don't have any evidence. As far as I have been able to tell, you don't even have any independent archeological evidence for the existence of the Biblical character of Jesus. That's a pretty weak case.

Tim,

I hope my previous post has cleared up some of your misconceptions about my argument. As you can see, I do not claim that everything is subjective. I claim that there exist some concepts that are subjective because they are by their nature emergent, nonlinear properties of human brains, and they are not concepts that that are directly representative of externalities.

Logical positivism may have been displaced from most philosophy departments, but not for good reason. The core tenet of logical positivism is that meaning is empirical. Though early versions of LP were flawed, the Verificationist Principle still holds, with minor modifications. To say otherwise is to claim that every proposition that is grammatically correct is also semantically meaningful.

The excuse given for abandoning LP was that imprecision in language made logical positivism impractical. However, this conclusion is unjustified based on the works of Wittgenstein or of Quine. Language can be made as precise as we want it to be by defining and performing more precise experiments. We learn languages (even internal ones) by using empirical measurements, so language cannot have meaning that extends beyond empirical measurements (and, yes, mathematics is empirical, too).

Of course, were the positivist enterprise to succeed, there would be a lot of philosophers out of work, and all of the glamour (i.e., metaphysics) would be gone. There's no "philosophical technology" to validate the work of philosophy departments, so I see no near-term force that will halt or reverse the sad, post-LP retreat into metaphysics.

There will be an answer forthcoming in AI and it will confound this notion that meaning is found through the magic of the brain working on teleologically-free signals. If it were that simple, there would be no way to keep those patterns between agents closely in sync and communication would be impossible. As someone who quotes Descartes on your website, I really shouldn't have to explain why this would be the case - and I don't have to be a dualist either.

Keith, I would like to hear more about this idea. Are you saying you cannot imagine a mechanism that has the observed effects, or are you saying something stronger?

I don't see why the "agents" need a high level of synchronization or cooperation. It seems to me that having some pathways be more dominant than others is all that is required for mental focus. Besides, there's no reason why the actual "self" should be any more continuous than actual vision. Perception is all that counts. Just as there are optical illusions, there are identity illusions: Freudian slips, the subconscious, and rationalization of hidden desires, etc.

P.S. I am not especially enamored with Descartes. I just like the quote.

P.P.S. Since your comments about my political views contained zero information content, they are but a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Buffy,

bad term here...all atheists are just agnostics

This statement is false. If I were agnostic, I would believe that the proposition "god exists" might be true or might be false.

However, I believe that propositions about your god are neither true nor false, they are nonsensical.

Is there any experiment you can do that will falsify the following propositions?

a) god is good

b) god exists

c) god created the universe

For example, is there any way you could tell that you were talking to god instead of an alien with advanced technology? Is there any event you could witness that would indicate that god might not be good?

If you say that there is no possible experiment that could falsify these propositions, then you are saying that these propositions are disconnected from all experience. In that case, the propositions are totally meaningless (i.e., they are senseless). Yes, they are grammatically correct, but they have no semantics. You think you know what they mean, but you are confused. They are no more meaningful than "Purple cuts dinosaur squared."

As you can see, this is not agnosticism. It is atheism.

Now, if your proposition were falsifiable, things would be different. If god were a powerful alien, subject to the laws of nature, then I would gladly count myself among the agnostics. Your proposition would be perfectly meaningful, just ridiculously far-fatched.

Finally, you cannot use the authority of the Bible to argue for the Bible's validity when that authority is precisely what you are trying to prove. That's circular reasoning. Perhaps, you have something, um, heavier?

It has become awfully quiet in here. Surely Mr Devens can answer Dr Logic? I would like to see that.

It has become awfully quiet in here. Surely Mr Devens can answer Dr Logic? I would like to see that.

Sorry, been super busy. Honestly haven't even gotten to read the most recent comments. I hope to respond soon.

Just wanted you to know that I haven't forgotten you Dr. Logic. Work has been brutal and I've been covered up.
But first, I want to ask Keith's permission to proceed with the debate. I don't want to hijack his blog to start a presuppositional debate on the existence of God unless he gives permission.
Keith, I await your response. Perhapps the others will weigh in as well.

Permission? I welcome it

Thanks Keith.
Now to set a couple of ground rules..
I may have some intermittant time during the rest of the week to respond but most likely the weekend will be better. So I ask that everyone have patience with response time on my part.
Next, my intent is to prove the existence of the Christian God of the Bible and His Sovereign Authority, not debate Dr. Logic's arbitrary opinions on whether God is real or not.
So, shall we begin?

Dr.Logic,
What say you?

Hi Buffy,

I'm happy to be patient.

You say you don't want to debate my "arbitrary opinions on whether God is real or not."

I hope that isn't one of your ground rules, for, if it were, you could simply categorize all of my rebuttals as "my arbitrary opinions" and not bother to confront them. Whether god is real or not is precisely what we are debating.

While we're talking about ground rules, let's include this one:

You cannot use the authority of the Bible to argue for the Bible's validity when that authority is precisely what you are trying to prove.

Atheists believe that many people contributed to the Bible over the centuries, and that, as such, the Bible is no more truthful than any other political document.

I look forward to reading your proof. Seriously. It's refreshing when someone makes a sincere effort to understand and explain the logical foundations of his or her beliefs. Most people don't care why they believe stuff, they just go with their gut.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it as well.

Good Evening Dr. Logic,
Glad you have engaged. Yes, I can agree to not using the Bible as the authority to argue the existence of God. But, I would like to use it to footnote the reason for the Christian worldview and belief for those that are watching this debate since that is actually what we are debating... the theist (in my case the Christian)worldview vs. the atheistic worldview as it pertains to cogency of knowledge, rationality of thought, intelligibility and so on.
Now I would like to ask that you in turn to present with irrefutable factual basis your proof that God does not exist and not just your opinion. Not personal conjecture. Not referencing the actions of others. Not just the popular rehearsed response. Not just some regurgitation of Michael Martin. Just give me the bottom line.

Agreed?

Still haven't gotten to catch up with the comments here. However, for reference I wanted to link to the post that preceded this one:
http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Jul/04/inductive-principle

(This discussion pretty much migrated from that post.)

Buffy,

Here are two of my core arguments. I will divide definitions of god into two kinds. The first is unverifiable and meaningless, and the second is naturalistic and unworthy of worship.

God Type I
How do we determine whether a proposition has any meaning? We can create propositions by stringing nouns, verbs and adjectives together, but following the grammatical rules of the English language is not sufficient. Pick some words at random, and you may get a proposition that is grammatically correct, but nonsensical, e.g., "humidity cogitates on libertarianism". Similarly, you cannot have a meaningful proposition created out of symbols that are undefined, e.g., "x = (5 p + 4 q) * 7".

So the question is, where does semantic meaning come from? I argue that when we learn language (even our native language), we are creating theories about what words and propositions mean. The first time you ever saw a guy say "what's shaking?" to his friend, and his friend reply "not much," you created a theory about the meaning of the expression "what's shaking?" Since you saw nothing physically shaking, you theorized that the expression meant "how are you feeling?" or "what is going on in your life?" You tested this theory by observing other people use the expression, or by testing it out yourself.

Our entire system of language is built out of many such theories, each one confirmed by empirical evidence.

So, we create theories about the meaning of every proposition, and these theories can only be confirmed or falsified by experience. If you deliberately construct a proposition whose theory of meaning can never be confirmed or falsified, then the proposition itself has no meaning.

If you claim "X is true" and that nothing we ever experience will ever confirm or refute "X is true", then I can make the exact same claim for "X is false". If you claim "God is good" and that nothing we ever observe can convince us otherwise, then I can equally well claim that "God is evil" and that nothing we ever observe will convince you otherwise. This is because you are saying that "God is good" has nothing to do with anything we ever experience. If you believe such things, you have fallen into a trap where everything you see is interpreted as evidence for your proposition, and nothing can be seen as evidence against it. This is a fallacy. An observation, O, cannot be construed as evidence for a proposition, P, unless not observing O is evidence against P.

Now what I have said above applies to the traditional Christian God which is defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, perfectly good, etc. All these superlatives are stated to be unverifiable even in principle. So, all propositions about this god are nonsensical. We may intuitively think we know what they mean, but we are actually confused. Intuition alone is not an adequate guide to the meaning of language.

God Type II
The argument about semantic meaning does not apply when you are talking about a super-powerful alien being with technology so far above ours as to look like magic. For, in principle, we could attain technology comparable with the alien, and do experiments that expose his parlour tricks. However, neither you nor I would consider such an alien to be god, per se.

A second aspect of atheism is rejection of worship of pure power. Even if an alien created our universe, that would not justify our worshipping that alien. Might does not make right. Suppose that the devil was actually the one god/alien who created the universe. Would it be ethical to do evil because he says so? Would evil then become "right"? I don't think so. In other words, what an alien says is right isn't necessarily so. I don't think that it is right to hold slaves or to stone people to death like the Bible says we must. Even if I believed that the Bible wasn't just made up by humans, I still wouldn't agree with what it has to say. To follow a path arbitrarily specified by the almighty, I would have to sacrifice my conscience and become a collaborator.

In summary, I have made two points here. First, if your propositions about god are not falsifiable (not even in principle), then they are nonsensical. Second, if your propositions about god are falsifiable, then the god you're talking about is an alien subject to the laws of nature (even if those laws are different outside of our universe). In the latter case, you have to not only say why you think that alien exists (the burden of proof is yours not mine), but also why that alien is a god, i.e., why that alien deserves worship.

DL,
Let's take your first premise. In a nutshell, after all the verbosity, what you are actually saying is that all things must be experienced (empirical proof) and since you can't physically experience God then He must not exist.
Is that about right?

Now for your second premise. Basically what your saying is that since you don't agree with Biblical doctrine or the authority of the Scriptures then God does not exist.
Have I got it?

Buffy... he's all yours.

Afterwards, I look forward to correcting his very bad reading of Wittgenstein and Quine but your current train of discussion cuts to the heart of the matter.

Doc Logic, we can trade quantifiers latter...

Buffy,

Let's take your first premise. In a nutshell, after all the verbosity, what you are actually saying is that all things must be experienced (empirical proof) and since you can't physically experience God then He must not exist.

No, you are missing my point. Though it is an oversimplification, I would paraphrase myself as follows:

The only propositions that make any sense (i.e., that have any definition) are those which are falsifiable in principle with sense-data. If your propositions about god (e.g., about his existence) are not falsifiable, then they aren't true or false, but just nonsense.

In other words, I don't claim your god doesn't exist because that would be as much nonsense as claiming he does. Literally, you can't even define your god adequately to make any claims of existence.

Buffy,

Now for your second premise. Basically what your saying is that since you don't agree with Biblical doctrine or the authority of the Scriptures then God does not exist.

Not exactly.

In ancient Rome, the Emperor Trajan was regarded as a living god. He held the power of life and death over entire cities. Was he a god? For some, he was. But not for those who rejected his divinity.

Here's another example. If you watched Star Trek: The Next Generation, you'll be familiar with the character Q (if not, see Q Continuum). The Q have technology so great that they are omnipotent and omniscient by human standards. Would you regard Q as a god? Q's behavior is impish. Does that disqualify him? Does the fact that he didn't create the universe disqualify him? If this is your decision to make, then you agree with me that divinity is in the eye of the beholder.

If you define your god as a member of the Q continuum, then he has god-like powers, but I reject his divinity.

Note that this argument applies to beings that do have scientific definitions. Your personal idea of the Christian God probably doesn't fall into this category.

tim,

Afterwards, I look forward to correcting his very bad reading of Wittgenstein and Quine but your current train of discussion cuts to the heart of the matter.

I think my reading of Wittgenstein most closely parallels that of A.J. Ayer (so I'm in good company). Wittgenstein's great contribution was to recast philosophy as an effort to prevent people from tripping up on language. Alas, the actual mechanics of both the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations were deeply flawed.

DL,

Digging yourself in deeper.

Let's take one point at a time.

Missing your point?

"The only propositions that make any sense (i.e., that have any definition) are those which are falsifiable in principle with sense-data. If your propositions about god (e.g., about his existence) are not falsifiable, then they aren't true or false, but just nonsense."

That statement makes no sense. Therefore you are wrong.

Try this one:
Whatever implies what is false is itself false.

You are self-contradictory so therefore you are wrong.

Next:

"In other words, I don't claim your god doesn't exist because that would be as much nonsense as claiming he does. Literally, you can't even define your god adequately to make any claims of existence."

Define adequately. It is subjective. You have slipped into the trap that most self acclaimed atheists do. You argue with mere opinion and relativisim. You do not have a logical leg to stand on here.

Okay,
Let's do some heavy lifting. If things only exist with empirical observation or otherwise are false or nonsense...explain the existence of the laws of logic. Everyone understands them...they are universal...heck you use them everyday...I await a well reasoned response.

Remember -
"The only propositions that make any sense (i.e., that have any definition) are those which are falsifiable in principle with sense-data."

PS sense-data...is that what makes sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me...laws of logic.

Dl
Have to go to work now...but just a brief note about the second issue.
Interesting you mentioned Q in Star Trek...without realizing it you have made my point.

Do you personally know Q?

Have you met him?

Is he real?

You have seen a representation of a character on TV that has human characteristics, miraculous abilities and transcendental properties that in actuality does not exist. You understand his actions and personality, He is intelligible to you...Get my point?

More when I have time.

Cheers

I'm just spectating, but I can't let you citing Ayer as a good way to read Wittegenstein stand. Like many who misread the Tractatus, Ayer ignores most of the concluding section where Wittgenstein reveals that the intent of the Tratatus was as a reductio ad absurdum. A decent review of his Notebooks from the Nachlass shows that Wittgenstein had abandoned the logicism of Russell and moved to a more intuitionist and, dare I say, "spiritual" view of the origin of the "meaning" of propositions. He was already stumbling into what some AI researchers term the problem of "Original Intentionality." L.W. was so far ahead of his time.

Back to Ayer...

Wittgenstein directly rebuked Ayer's reading of him in a letter in 1935. Wittgenstein also debated Schlick and Waismann's understanding at meetings of the Vienna Circle... This is covered in Ray Monk's biography. Now... he doesn't completely get the Unified Wittgenstein right because he still sees him in phases with some disjunctions. Other researchers with decades of work studying Wittgenstein (Cora Diamond, Rupert Read, Stanley Cavell, Jim Conant, Hilary Putnam, et. al) have more contiguous readings that I would subscribe to.

Ayer and positivists read what they wanted to out of Wittgenstein and ignored what they didn't what to hear. Seems to have started a trend...

Ps- You didn't get the subtlety of Buffy's question... maybe you can pick it up this time.

Buffy,

I said

If your propositions about god (e.g., about his existence) are not falsifiable, then they aren't true or false, but just nonsense.

Your response to my claim suggests that you don't really appreciate what I'm trying to say.

I don't mean that every meaningful proposition about the world is false. That would indeed be silly. I mean that, for every meaningful proposition about the world, you must be able to state what experiment would prove the proposition to be wrong (if it were, in fact, wrong). This is not self-contradictory.

Many theologians would claim that no possible observation will constitute evidence that that their god does not exist. In other words, their claim is "our theory is that we will see the world exactly the way we see the world." They see (fill in the blank) and call it wondrous proof of god's existence, and yet nothing is evidence against his existence.

Buffy, do you subscribe to this point of view? How do you define god?

Indeed, this is the answer to your question of what constitutes "adequate" definition. What experiment can I do that will prove or at least provide evidence that god does not exist?

Q
My Q argument wasn't related to the claims about meaning, but I'm all too happy to address your conflation of the two. Q, as a poetic character, is someone we can intuitively understand. However, intuitive understanding is not adequate. In art and poetry, there is no requirement for logical consistency. For example, take the "Back to the Future" stories. They all make sense to us as long as we don't think about them too much. Yet, if we analyze them closely, we will find that the Back to the Future universe is fatally inconsistent, and riddled with paradoxes. We have an intuitive appreciation for a story that is self-contradictory.

Whether we can intuitively follow a story or work of fiction is entirely different from having logical consistency. In art, we are encouraged to suspend reason and belief. In science and philosophy, you're not allowed to do that.

In philosophy, we have to be clear and logical about our claims. Appealing to "common intuition" is illegal.

So, suppose we stipulate that Star Trek's Q is a well-defined creature, namely, a powerful alien with technology greater than our own. As I said, in that case I am more than happy to claim agnosticism.

Where you get yourself into trouble is when you start ascribing properties to the Q that cannot be measured, not even in principle.

Logic
Logic is a mechanism for tracking consistency. A priori, the world need not be self-consistent. Our experience shows us that the universe is consistent and that the logic is useful. If the universe had not been self-consistent, a) knowledge would probably be impossible, and b), if it were possible, we would not have thought logic to be useful or notable. You can create your own logics, or even try to operate without logics. However, empirically, logic works.

Mathematics is an extension of logic (no doubt, tim will want to debate this). Consider Fermat's Last Theorem. It took centuries for mathematicians to prove it. Even some of the recent proofs were found to have flaws in them. This demonstrates that we cannot even be certain of mathematical claims because we might have made a mistake in our calculations. We can repeat the calculations and reduce uncertainties to very low levels, but the process is still empirical. Consistency, (and consequently, logic and mathematics) are empirical properties of the universe.

If the universe were not fully self-consistent, we should expect to be surrounded by logical paradoxes. We would find that historical events both happened and did not happen, etc.

DL,
Of course I know what your trying to say...I understand wholly. You are borrowing my Christian Worldview to make your points. I don't mind. Just give credit where it is due.

"I don't mean that every meaningful proposition about the world is false. That would indeed be silly."

See, now backing down didn't hurt so bad did it?

"I mean that, for every meaningful proposition about the world, you must be able to state what experiment would prove the proposition to be wrong (if it were, in fact, wrong). This is not self-contradictory."

Do you know every meaningful proposition about the world? Have you seen and tested every experiment for infallibility or are you just taking someone elses word on the outcome.. That takes a lot more faith than I have.

"Many theologians would claim that no possible observation will constitute evidence that that their god does not exist. In other words, their claim is "our theory is that we will see the world exactly the way we see the world." They see (fill in the blank) and call it wondrous proof of god's existence, and yet nothing is evidence against his existence."

Which theologians? Name them. DL, once again you are missing the point of the the debate. I am not arguing the existence of the Christian God evidentially. I am arguing pre-suppositionally.

"So, suppose we stipulate that Star Trek's Q is a well-defined creature, namely, a powerful alien with technology greater than our own. As I said, in that case I am more than happy to claim agnosticism."

Well, Dr. Logic another revelation. That wasn't so hard. Take a bow.

"Where you get yourself into trouble is when you start ascribing properties to the Q that cannot be measured, not even in principle."

Actually you are the one in trouble here. An atheistic world view can not make sense of the unmeasurable, miraculous properties of a Holy God. You have to borrow from the Christian Worldview the ability to understand such phenomena as miracles, transcendental arguments, Christ rising from the dead and such. I can make perfect sense of those things because I believe in a Sovereign God that directs my every step.

DL, I asked about the "existence of the laws of logic". Don't make me have to go over the argument again. That would be embarassing for you and wastes my time. The laws of logic are abstract. You can't touch, see, smell, taste or hear them. Therefore under your set of rules they don't exist. They can not both exist and not exist.

"If the universe were not fully self-consistent, we should expect to be surrounded by logical paradoxes. We would find that historical events both happened and did not happen, etc."

How do you know that the universe if self-consistent? Have you seen everything in the universe? Have you witnessed every event? You make the case for me. It can't be that God exists and does not exist.

You are begging the question.

Now that I have your attention ... here's the answer you have been waiting for...

The proof of God's existence is that without him you cannot prove anything.

The reason you are having such a hard time staying on track here is that you have a history of hit and run debates with evidentialists bloviating some unschooled gobble de gook that they can't respond to because they have spent their time memorizing trivia. I have asked you some very simple questions. You have failed to respond with any modicum of reasonable thought. You have skirted the issue time and time again. Your replies have been arbitrary and self refuting. If you don't see that, believe me others do. You see I can account and make sense of uniformity of the universe, moral absolutes, the laws of mathematics, the laws of logic and so on because I know there is a Sovereign God that directs all things.

Sam,
Haven't heard from you lately. You want to weigh in?

I have been lurking here, following this debate with some interest. At this point, I would have to give Buffy the edge, having backed DL into a corner --- so DL, what happened to your defense of atheism?

DL wrote: "If the universe had not been self-consistent, a) knowledge would probably be impossible, and b), if it were possible, we would not have thought logic to be useful or notable."

This is the same logical pattern used to justify the Anthropic Principle -- Cogito ergo mundus talis est (I think, therefore the world is as it is).

DL is saying that because logic is of such import (an unexamined assumption), the universe must therefore be self-consistent ... that a self-consistent universe will give rise to a useful set of cognitive rules we can call logic.

Given the syllogistic kinship between DL's logic and the Anthropic Principle, DL evidently supports the logic of some flavor of Creation -- perhaps it is but a short step to enlightenment.

An interesting note from DL's worldview is the inability to acknowledge a higher authority no matter what evidence is proffered. DL, it seems, will always suspect the proverbial burning bush to merely be Q, and will require further proof. But since Q can always fool him, DL would never be convinced that God exists, regardless of the evidence. Hence, faith is never a function of evidence. But rather, evidence can only support faith.

See, now backing down didn't hurt so bad did it?

Well, Dr. Logic another revelation. That wasn't so hard. Take a bow.

I find such comments to be childish and rude.

I have not conceded anything at all in this debate. Go back to my first argument and check for yourself.

"I mean that, for every meaningful proposition about the world, you must be able to state what experiment would prove the proposition to be wrong (if it were, in fact, wrong). This is not self-contradictory." Do you know every meaningful proposition about the world? Have you seen and tested every experiment for infallibility or are you just taking someone elses word on the outcome.. That takes a lot more faith than I have.

You really aren't paying attention, are you? My statement doesn't say that I have to know every meaningful proposition. It says only that for any given proposition to be meaningful to me, I must know what I will see differently as a consequence of it. All meaningful propositions are scientific.

An atheistic world view can not make sense of the unmeasurable, miraculous properties of a Holy God.

Neither can you, and that's what philosophy is trying to tell you. Just closing your eyes, clicking your heels and saying eternity three times isn't a method of "making sense."

You have to borrow from the Christian Worldview the ability to understand such phenomena as miracles, transcendental arguments, Christ rising from the dead and such. I can make perfect sense of those things because I believe in a Sovereign God that directs my every step.

I have as much intuition for these things as you do. The difference is that I know when I am deluding myself.

The laws of logic are abstract. You can't touch, see, smell, taste or hear them. Therefore under your set of rules they don't exist. They can not both exist and not exist.

No, the laws of logic are more than abstract. Logic and mathematics are computable, and that makes them as real as you and me. Is the product of 5255 and 25698 equal to 135042990? How would you know? Thermodynamics applies to computation. Computation requires energy. So computation is empirical. If I repeat a computation (correctly) I get the same answer every time. It is meaningful in the sense that I can tell a child how to do multiplication, even if that child does not understand the correlation between the calculation and any application of multiplication. The steps in the calculation are no different from the steps in any physical experiment.

How do you know that the universe is self-consistent? Have you seen everything in the universe? Have you witnessed every event? You make the case for me. It can't be that God exists and does not exist.

I don't have to know that the universe is self-consistent, and that's the point. Its consistency (so far) is an empirical fact. I don't have to walk on every planet in the universe to know about gravity. I can use what I know about our solar neighborhood to land on the moon or predict the motions of Pluto. I don't rule out the possibility that there are other regions of spacetime where gravity behaves in ways never seen before. I don't rule out the possibility that local laws of gravity might one day shift.

You see I can account and make sense of uniformity of the universe, moral absolutes, the laws of mathematics, the laws of logic and so on because I know there is a Sovereign God that directs all things.

This is utterly illogical. You cannot argue that X is true just because you say there is some magic rabbit who makes it so. That is a non-argument. It is an axiomatic statement of your final objective. As such, you don't even need any chain of reasoning at all. I'm sorry, but this isn't a theological "get out of jail free" card.

DL,

Can you answer one simple question:

Do you believe in the concept of infinity?

This is a concept accepted in most modern mathematics and readily used in statistical mechanics (and therefore in Quantum Field Theory and related areas).

Is there any measurement that could be done BY MAN to falsify or verify infinity?

DL,

"I find such comments to be childish and rude."

You responded to tim on 7/18/05:
"P.P.S. Since your comments about my political views contained zero information content, they are but a thinly veiled ad hominem attack."

You can dish it out but you can't take I see.

"You really aren't paying attention, are you? My statement doesn't say that I have to know every meaningful proposition. It says only that for any given proposition to be meaningful to me, I must know what I will see differently as a consequence of it. All meaningful propositions are scientific."

Who's not paying attention? You're the one who stated that "for every meaningful proposition"...and so on...not me. I have just used your own words here. If you've not witnessed every (all) meaningful propositions then how can you say that they are scientific? You can't. Inconsistent again.

"Neither can you, and that's what philosophy is trying to tell you. Just closing your eyes, clicking your heels and saying eternity three times isn't a method of "making sense."

To paraphrase you earlier....
"I find such comments to be childish and rude."

I am still waiting for you to engage in the debate.

"I have as much intuition for these things as you do. The difference is that I know when I am deluding myself."

Another Ad Hominem. Can't you do better than this?

"So computation is empirical. If I repeat a computation (correctly) I get the same answer every time. It is meaningful in the sense that I can tell a child how to do multiplication, even if that child does not understand the correlation between the calculation and any application of multiplication. The steps in the calculation are no different from the steps in any physical experiment."

How do you know you get the same answer every time..Have you witnessed every time the computation has been done? Ever? If you have not then you can not make a logically fallacious statement such as that. With your worldview you can not account for that. My Christian Worldview can. I can account for the consistency in outcome of computation because I know that there is a Sovereign God that holds all things together through Christ.

Isn't that Philosophy? What do we know. How do we know what we know and using what we know how do we live our lives. It is as simple as that.

"I don't have to know that the universe is self-consistent, and that's the point. "
Well exactly. I don't either because there is a transcendant, omnipotent, omniscience Holy God who has revealed Himself to us.. who has promised to hold all together until Christ comes again.

"This is utterly illogical. You cannot argue that X is true just because you say there is some magic rabbit who makes it so. That is a non-argument. It is an axiomatic statement of your final objective. As such, you don't even need any chain of reasoning at all. I'm sorry, but this isn't a theological "get out of jail free" card."

You make my case about your worldview. You can not argue that there is no God because you say it is so. That is just mere opinion. We are not arguing opinion here. It can not be that X exists and X does not exist...you are the one that set that example up. You can't answer the question of the existence of God without using my Christian Worldview. So much for Doctor LOGIC.

tim,

Do you believe in the concept of infinity?

Yes. Infinity is a recipe for a mathematical manipulation. x goes to infinity means that x grows beyond any assigned value. The concept is well-formed and meaningful because you can describe the mathematical steps required to apply it.

Is there any measurement that could be done BY MAN to falsify or verify infinity?

Inifinity isn't a proposition. Infinity is a computational act, not a specific number. As such, it does not "exist" any more than any other action verb exists. One cannot say that "folding" exists, even though folding is a well-defined concept. Like other action verbs, infinity can be used in meaningful propositions, but it is not itself a proposition.

Buffy,

I apologize for being snarky. No matter what was written to me, I have no excuse for responding in kind. I shall endeavor courteous and diplomatic in future.

"If I repeat a computation (correctly) I get the same answer every time."...How do you know you get the same answer every time..Have you witnessed every time the computation has been done?

I stand corrected. I am not certain that you are guaranteed to get the same result every time, even though this has been the case throughout the history of mathematics. Allow me to restate my point. I do not rely on the inductive principle as an axiom to support my argument.

Personally, I adopt the inductive principle on the strategic grounds that, if induction were invalid, there would be no way to win the game of life. My apparently tangential comment about induction will have relevance below.

So, back to what I was saying (minus the induction bit):

It is meaningful in the sense that I can tell a child how to do multiplication, even if that child does not understand the correlation between the calculation and any application of multiplication. The steps in the calculation are no different from the steps in any physical experiment.

Therefore, in answer to your query about whether mathematical propositions are meaningful by my standards, the answer is yes.

My Christian Worldview can. I can account for the consistency in outcome of computation because I know that there is a Sovereign God that holds all things together through Christ.

Two questions. Your statement can be rewritten as:

"I can account for the consistency in outcome of computation because I know that there is X."

where X is "a Sovereign God that holds all things together through Christ"

Why can I not substitute, say, "the principle of absolute logical consistency" for X?

My second question is addressed to the actual meaning of your proposition. What would happen if you could not account for the consistency of computation? Or of the self-consistency of the universe for that matter?

As I see it, our calculations would be unaffected, and our confidence in induction would remain unchanged (my strategy above). Your proposition represents a statement of absolute faith in induction. It's not really a meaningful proposition because your proposition cannot be true or false. Instead, your proposition is a statement of affirming of your faith in induction. An analogy would be the statement "hooray for milk chocolate!", which is neither true nor false, but expresses a preference.

Not Sam,

DL is saying that because logic is of such import (an unexamined assumption), the universe must therefore be self-consistent ... that a self-consistent universe will give rise to a useful set of cognitive rules we can call logic.

This is quite close, but perhaps not fully accurate. I'm not saying that the universe will always be consistent, just that it has been in the past. I choose to apply induction here because I have no next move otherwise. I have no guarantee of winning (consistency could be fleeting), but I guarantee a loss otherwise.

I wouldn't say that my assumption was unexamined. Without logic, it would be impossible to tell the difference between a proposition, P, and its negation, ~P. It would seem then that knowledge itself would be impossible without logic. Also, logic would be of little value in a universe which was inconsistent because it would be impossible to correlate sequential observations.

Given the syllogistic kinship between DL's logic and the Anthropic Principle, DL evidently supports the logic of some flavor of Creation -- perhaps it is but a short step to enlightenment.

Please explain this. There are many forms of the Anthropic Principle. The one I subscribe to (based on my confidence in self-consistency and induction) is the one which states the necessary consistency conditions for our existence, i.e., we cannot exist in an environment incompatible with that existence. I don't see the connection to creation.

An interesting note from DL's worldview is the inability to acknowledge a higher authority no matter what evidence is proffered. DL, it seems, will always suspect the proverbial burning bush to merely be Q, and will require further proof. But since Q can always fool him, DL would never be convinced that God exists, regardless of the evidence.

This is well-put. If you claim that an entity called Q exists and can alight non-flammable plants, I can be convinced to raise my confidence level in your claim by seeing the burning bush. The problem arises when you ascribe to Q some property which cannot be measured, even in principle.

I was actually trying to determine under what conditions worship is justified. If Q were a naturalistic phenomena, should we worship him? Is the definition of god just a person with far superior power? Does might make right?

Divinity is in the eye of the beholder.

Hence, faith is never a function of evidence.

Faith is that which is accepted as a basis for strategy without evidence.

But rather, evidence can only support faith.

My indictment of metaphysics is a little deeper than this. Statements of faith are not propositions that can be true or false. There is a temptation to regard empirical facts as evidence of the veracity of faith, when this isn't really the case.

For example, if I say "hooray for chocolate!", this isn't a true or false proposition, except as far as it is a proposition about my preference. So, the exception aside, no experiment can ever falsify my statement because it has no truth value, positive or negative.

If, in my worldview, the laws of chocolate were somehow used to "explain" other facts, e.g., that black currants taste good (because both have dark color), then it is easy to get confused and claim that the sweetness of black currants is evidence of my cheers for chocolate.

In religion, it seems to be the case that an affirmation of faith is treated as a true-false proposition (or equivalent to such), and that all empirical facts are interpreted as evidence for the affirmation. So, "god has property X" is incorrectly regarded as a true-false proposition, when the proposition admits no mechanism of falsification.

DL,
Apology accepted. Interesting comment about the "game of life".

Now for your first question.

"I can account for the consistency in outcome of computation because I know that there is X."

where X is "a Sovereign God that holds all things together through Christ"

Why can I not substitute, say, "the principle of absolute logical consistency" for X?"

For the Christian Worldview God is a necessarily existent being. He exists in every imaginable and unimaginable situation. He is not the result of causation. He was, is and always will be. God presupposes Logic. Logic is based on God's character. In other words, Logic is the very nature of God. Because of the neccessary relationship between God and Logic if God did not exist neither would logic and the world would be chaos.
Scripture tells us that. Hence, mathematical computation and the understanding thereof, the sun always rising in the East, sufficient gravity on Earth to hold us down and so on would not be consistent and no series of experiments could give us the universally undeniable evidence of that expectation.
Under your worldview you could substitute anything for "X". You could say that you can account for a candy bar for the consistency of computational outcome...but that would be silly and wrong. Since you have not witnessed all empirical evidence you can not be sure of consistent results. In arguing for the contrary, either God does or He does not provide the principal of absolute consistency. You have said that submitted that you can not account for the consistency of a variety of things. My worldview not only permits but supports that consistency.

Now your next question is actually headed for the issue of miracles. How can a consistent world actually explain the issue of miracles (unexplanable phenomena)? In my Christian Worlview miracles are a special(extaordinary)vivid revelation of God to His creation. In your worldview you cannot account for them.
They are unexplanable phenomena.

"As I see it, our calculations would be unaffected, and our confidence in induction would remain unchanged (my strategy above). Your proposition represents a statement of absolute faith in induction. It's not really a meaningful proposition because your proposition cannot be true or false. Instead, your proposition is a statement of affirming of your faith in induction. An analogy would be the statement "hooray for milk chocolate!", which is neither true nor false, but expresses a preference."

As I have stated, you are borrowing my Christian worldview to explain consistency in nature, mathematics, ect. In your worldview you cannot be sure of anything because you can not experience everything. It's really not that hard to understand.

You speak of my self affirming faith. That's a bit presumptuous of you isn't it? I have presented to you a cogent, well- reasoned argument for the existence of God by using your own argument to the contrary. It is not my place to convince you to believe, only to defend the Christian Worldview. I think I have done that effectively. You have not been able to defend yours. Once again you have just speculated on my proposition with mere opinion. You may want to re-examine your pre-suppositions.

Buffy,

It is not my place to convince you to believe, only to defend the Christian Worldview.

Okay, I think I understand what you are trying to say. You simply want me to defend my claims that god is not a meaningful concept. This is acceptable, but you cannot use your "worldview" to critique my claims. If you did, then my rebuttal would inevitably have to confront your worldview. Under these rules of engagement, you can only win by showing that my claims are contradictory, which they are not.

I have presented to you a cogent, well- reasoned argument for the existence of God by using your own argument to the contrary.

I disagree.

I have described a logically consistent system for assessing meaning in language.

Since you have not witnessed all empirical evidence you can not be sure of consistent results.

I don't have to be sure, so I don't have to witness all empirical evidence. This is really a straw man. Personally, I can accept that tomorrow there could be no laws of physics whatsoever. I'm just not betting on it.

How can a consistent world actually explain the issue of miracles (unexplanable phenomena)?

First, even in a consistent world, we are not guaranteed to be able to explain all events. For example, in the case of the perfect crime, we may not be able to identify the guilty party. Such a crime would be unexplained, but not unexplainable.

Second, the world may not be consistent, in which case, violations of the laws of physics are theoretically permitted. No such violations have ever been observed.

Indeed, no miracles or supernatural events have ever been reliably observed. That does not prove that they have never occurred, but none have ever occurred under scientifically accepted rules of observation. James Randi has for many years had $1 million awaiting anyone with supernatural abilities who can prove it in the lab. Meanwhile, it is a documented scientific fact that people will believe in fake miracles, and we see such reports all the time.

As I have stated, you are borrowing my Christian worldview to explain consistency in nature, mathematics, ect. In your worldview you cannot be sure of anything because you can not experience everything. It's really not that hard to understand.

No, I am borrowing nothing. Consistency does not require an explanation. It is an empirical fact. Tomorrow, that could all change. Again, my optimal strategy is to assume that consistency will not be rescinded.

DL,

Just a brief note on my defending the Christian worldview. It is not my place to make you believe in God. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.
I have shown that the atheist worldview does not hold up no matter how hard you try to defend it,

It is is relativistic:

"I don't have to be sure, so I don't have to witness all empirical evidence. This is really a straw man. Personally, I can accept that tomorrow there could be no laws of physics whatsoever. I'm just not betting on it."
That sure takes a lot a faith in a belief system that is based on no faith.

Inconsistent:

"First, even in a consistent world, we are not guaranteed to be able to explain all events. For example, in the case of the perfect crime, we may not be able to identify the guilty party. Such a crime would be unexplained, but not unexplainable.

You may not be able to explain consistency with your worldview but in a Christian Worldview I can account for the explantion. You just don't like to answer.

And mere opinion:

"I don't have to be sure, so I don't have to witness all empirical evidence. This is really a straw man. Personally, I can accept that tomorrow there could be no laws of physics whatsoever. I'm just not betting on it."

What an interesting thing to say since you have acclaimed the total opposite in your earlier posts.
I have used your formula that if not X then there can not be X. If God does not exists then it can not be that God exists. You can't have it both ways.

I have asked you for proof to the contrary. You have offered nothing but arbitrary conjecture.

"No, I am borrowing nothing. Consistency does not require an explanation. It is an empirical fact. Tomorrow, that could all change. Again, my optimal strategy is to assume that consistency will not be rescinded."

Most scientists and researchers would be surprised to here that theory.

You have responded to tim who has submitted the same points but is a different fashion. He has been quite eloquent. I am much more simple. Just as Paul debated the philosophers at Mars Hill, sometimes the most simple argument carries the greatest impact. But it not up to me to open your mind.. God choses whom He will quicken. .

Buffy,

I have shown that the atheist worldview does not hold up no matter how hard you try to defend it,

You have not done this, not in the slightest degree.

Let me take another approach with a new analogy.

Suppose we're playing Blackjack at Honest Joe's casino. No cheating has ever been recorded at Honest Joe's.

The dealer has 10 showing. Both of us have a 7 and a 2. Should you and I take another card?

We cannot prove that our next card will be sufficient to beat the dealer. That's fair, this is a game of chance, after all.

However, we also cannot prove that the deck is not stacked against us (e.g., a casino employee has manually selected our upcoming cards to be deuces and 3's). Though no cheating has ever been recorded in this casino, this fact does not constitute total proof that no cheating will ever occur.

Yet, we both know that if we don't take a card, we are guaranteed to lose.

I don't need absolute certainty that the dealer has not stacked the deck against me. No faith is required. Simply put, I have no chance of winning if I don't take a card, and at least some chance otherwise. Logically, I should take a card. I ask the dealer for another card.

In contrast, you demand absolute certainty that the game isn't rigged. No person at the table, including casino security, can tell you with total, unerring certainty that the game is fair (hey, it could be an inside job).

Since no measurable entity can guarantee fairness, you invent an unmeasurable one. You theorize that there is an invisible Inspector who guarantees the fairness of the game. Though the Inspector is totally invisible, you claim that he must exist if for no other reason than to guarantee fairness of the Blackjack table. Furthermore, you claim that, it would be impossible to even play Blackjack without the existence of the Inspector.

Finally, with your self-assured certainty in the existence of the Inspector, you tell the dealer that you want another card.

We're both dealt 10's and we both beat the dealer.

This is a good analogy for our debate so far. As this analogy shows, there is no need whatsoever for the Inspector to exist at all.

You may argue that the risk of fraud is too high at the casino, but I would answer that it's the only game in town, so we have to live with it, fair or not.

When asked how we might otherwise know of the Inspector's existence, you answer by saying that he will reveal himself in rare, miraculous cases of... cheating! Indeed, some players have reported cheating in the past (e.g., they claimed to have seen the dealer's up card change during a hand), but whenever the casino security tapes are reviewed, no evidence of cheating can be found.

Of course, the premise about the Inspector guaranteeing fairness of the game is really just a smokescreen. The real reason that the Inspector was invented was to guarantee that players can win every time you leave the casino. It is said that those who leave a tip for the Inspector are guaranteed a net payoff on their way out of the casino. Curiously, no one ever gets out of the casino alive, and the Inspector never collects his tips.

Wow, you guys have been busy. I 'll try to get through all of this in the next few days, then I'll see if I can contribute something.

DL,
I'm really rushed this morning so I won't be able to respond in full, but let's just for a moment take your analogy about Blackjack. Once again you are arguing for evidence. Evidence of equality. Evidence of winning or losing. Evidence of fairness.

You are still missing the point, and by now I think that it is part of the game you play. As I said before, you probably have a history of arguing this way. Your evidence against mine. Then what is real is in the eye of the beholder. (Relativism)

My proposition is not in the evidence. My proposition is you can not even understand (account for) the meaning of (the evidence) what card wins, or whether winning is better than losing with your worldview.

How do you know what is fair or not? The one who walks away with all the marbles may not know what the marbles are for or why it is a good thing.

I'm asking you to dig deeper.

Got to go now. I'm replay to the analogy later.

A friend of mine has pointed out that my Blackjack argument has another requirement: Before you are offered another card, the dealer reveals that he has 17 total and that he must stand on 17.

If the dealer does not reveal his hole card, there's a possibility that the dealer has 12-16 total, and could go bust if he takes cards. In that scenario, you could win even if you refuse cards. Having the dealer reveal that his hole card is a 7 resolves this problem.

DL, did your friend also point out the fact that you have ignored Buffy's most recent comment, the essence of which effectively reduces your entire Blackjack argument moot?

Not Sam,

Buffy stated a position without an explanation. I thought Buffy might be coming back to provide one.

Buffy has to give an example of a proposition about the world that, in the atheist worldview, is paradoxical, but which is soluble in the Christian worldview.

Buffy keeps using the expression "account for". Do you know what she means by this? There's no "accounting for", there is only logic. Things either compute or they don't. Whether we feel happy about them is irrelevant.

Moreover, one cannot claim something as a prerequisite for all elements of logic because that would be going outside of logic, and outside of argumentation. Such prerequisites cannot be logically justified.

DL,
I am going to respond but I don't have time right now. I'll try to get back to you later in the week.

DL,
I've got a fe minutes here. So, looking at you analogy about Blackjack at the Casino....Why play at all?

Buffy,

Why survive? Why be happy? Why have a coherent philosophy?

You cannot argue that your god is prior to your survival instinct or your desire for emotional well-being.

The purpose of philosophy is to understand whether our behaviors are consistent across different domains. We care about consistency because we don't want to undo with our left hand that which we have done with our right. For example, is it consistent to believe in your god and not worship him? Or to not believe in your god and yet still worship him? Or to believe, but torture people? If you think these questions are important, then they are important before you have answered them. You are admitting that the questions are important because the consequences are important, and the consequences are important for material and emotional reasons.

If you don't care that your life is inconsistent, if you don't care that your actions in one sphere undo your actions in another, then philosophy is totally unimportant. Yet you claim that having a coherent philosophy is important. Merely by philosophizing about god, you are admitting an a priori interest in global consistency and the material and emotional benefits it brings. I'm sorry, but god is not prior to these things.

Without logic, which guarantees consistency, philosophy would be a total waste of time. BTW, you cannot argue that god is somehow prior to logic because you cannot argue outside of logic itself.

DL,

"The purpose of philosophy is to understand whether our behaviors are consistent across different domains."

I always like to take it back to basics because I'm a rather simple person.

Philosophy...come from the Greek Words Phileo (M) (philein - to have a passing affection for or a non-committed love such as I have a love for my 57 Chevy..or I have a crush on Sean Connery...it requires no love or conditions in return) and sophia (F) a gnostic term for knowledge, learning, wisdom...not acquired by intellect but rather by a sensual source or feeling or emotions.

Logic comes from the Greek word Logos- an ancient term meaning word or Truth from a universal eminent force.

As stated for you from PBS (your kinda tv)
"The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God." The early Greek philosophical tradition known as Stoicism, which held that every human participates in a universal and divinely ordained community, then used the Logos doctrine as a principle for human law and morality. The Stoics believed that to achieve freedom, happiness, and meaning one should attune one's life to the wisdom of God's will."

I think that old Heraclitus has something on you with this one.

As I have stated before...Philosophy is what do we know..how do we know what we know...and now that we know it how do we live our lives. An atheist worldview gives us no hope on living our lives in any coherent manner. You have stated as such through your're pragmatic approach to this debate. You have a lot of faith in living in an inconsistent manner. I don't have enough faith to do that.

"For example, is it consistent to believe in your god and not worship him? "

No...Judas Ischariot is a prime example.

"Or to not believe in your god and yet still worship him?"

No...lots of people don't believe in the actual Triune God of the Bible and yet "worship another Jesus".

"Or to believe, but torture people?"

Depends on which people you are talking about...you mistakenly think that all professing Christians are the same. All that profess are not Christians. You should study the subject more to get a clear understanding of it.

"If you think these questions are important, then they are important before you have answered them. You are admitting that the questions are important because the consequences are important, and the consequences are important for material and emotional reasons."

What I believe is important is that you still have no real defense of why you cannot disprove the existence of a Holy God. You have no cogent argument. Just a lot of rationalizations from mere opinion that goes nowhere. Remember YOU set the formula...If X does not exist then it can not be that X exists...You've not proven to me that X does not exist.

What I have submitted ..that you could not even debate the concept without knowledge of the subject alone negates your proposition. In a public debate situation, you would have been laughed out of the hall. I am a bit more lienient because I have been where you are right now and can account for your inability to make sense. God graciously and mercifully chose me to be one of His and I can go forth and defend my faith.
You on the other hand are inconsistent and arbitrary in your reasoning giving way once again to mere opinion. You have asked for the evidence via way of experiment. Then when you admitted to not being able to verify every experiment and outcome you tried to change your stance to acceptance of inconsistency and hope for normality. That's pragmatic and useless in intellectual discussion. I hope you don't intend to still try to defend that silly position. You're not doing atheists any great good right now.

"Without logic, which guarantees consistency, philosophy would be a total waste of time. BTW, you cannot argue that god is somehow prior to logic because you cannot argue outside of logic itself."

How do you know logic is consistent? You've already stated that you hope for consistency but are willing to settle for less. Does that sound logical to you? Well if it does, then you're a legion of one. Your unargued bias is really laid bare here.

"If you don't care that your life is inconsistent, if you