Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Metalking]

"Perfect Design"? Ask New Orleans.

We can never understand the fullness of God’s ways. We must simply have enough faith to believe that, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).Trying to figure out God's plan is certainly a task not for the light-hearted.
:crackup:

 

[Jukia]

We can never understand the fullness of God’s ways. We must simply have enough faith to believe that, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).Trying to figure out God's plan is certainly a task not for the light-hearted.
:crackup:

Are you saying that Hurricane Katrina was part of God's plan?

 

[Metalking]

Are you saying that Hurricane Katrina was part of God's plan?

I thought you said "ask New Orleans?"..., ...anyway mankind was removed from the Garden of Eden with the help of a certain fallen angel.
:chew:

 

[Mr Jack]

Hi Mighty Duck,

If at any point in time you remove your presupposition of the verity of logic, you are stuck in irrationality. So in fact, without presupposing logic, nothing can be proved.

You can derive logic using induction, so you need only presuppose induction.

But, of course, induction doesn't get us certainty anyway.

 

[Jukia]

I thought you said "ask New Orleans?"..., ...anyway mankind was removed from the Garden of Eden with the help of a certain fallen angel.
:chew:

You made a comment in Post #622 about a perfect design and perfect designer. I was just wondering how all that perfection could lead to the destruction that Katrina caused in New Orleans. The last part of your post here makes no sense to me.

 

[Metalking]

You made a comment in Post #622 about a perfect design and perfect designer. I was just wondering how all that perfection could lead to the destruction that Katrina caused in New Orleans. The last part of your post here makes no sense to me.

My point being we don't live in the Garden of Eden anymore...we are subject to conditions that did not happen to mankind in that area, conditions like Hurricane Katrina ..etc..etc..etc..
this isn't taking anything away from perfection in design seen all around us.
atrol:

 

[Jukia]

My point being we don't live in the Garden of Eden anymore...we are subject to conditions that did not happen to mankind in that area, conditions like Hurricane Katrina ..etc..etc..etc..
this isn't taking anything away from perfection in design seen all around us.
atrol:

Hmmm, I guess my point is that there never was a Biblical Garden of Eden.

And the existence of storms, earthquakes, disease etc really presents an issue about the perfection all around us. Unless you consider that the world is perfect for bacteria as opposed to human beings.

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Mighty Duck,

You can derive logic using induction, so you need only presuppose induction.

But, of course, induction doesn't get us certainty anyway.

Interesting point. It really made me think. I suppose we can bundle them up as "human reasoning" anyway, since I'm not sure we can really imagine going without either. Is this the result of hard-wiring in our brain, or the collective experience of our whole life?

In the limited context of this thread, it has been stipulated that you CAN prove things. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this assertion (at least in the way the proof is defined here). If we do want to play by these rules, then, as I see it, the basic laws of logic are accepted axiomatically. We treat them as true, even though it can't be proven. After accepting these basic principles, we can actually go about proving things by using them.

Induction without omniscience can't really prove anything, so we may have to add a line about the semi-reliability of human induction - IE it is reasonable to infer a rule based on a sample.

 

[Mr Jack]

Hi Duck,

Interesting point. It really made me think. I suppose we can bundle them up as "human reasoning" anyway, since I'm not sure we can really imagine going without either. Is this the result of hard-wiring in our brain, or the collective experience of our whole life?

I think humans are hardwired with a form of reasoning, but I don't think it's actual logic. The number of logical fallacies that people both come up and fall for, demonstrates that.

In the limited context of this thread, it has been stipulated that you CAN prove things. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this assertion (at least in the way the proof is defined here).

I agree proof is logically impossible.

If we do want to play by these rules, then, as I see it, the basic laws of logic are accepted axiomatically. We treat them as true, even though it can't be proven. After accepting these basic principles, we can actually go about proving things by using them.

This happens to be one of my bug bears from studying philosophy (particularly the philosophy of science): that philosophy tends to assume the primacy of deductive reasoning. I prefer a approach of pragmatics, in which we assume there is a real world, and it corresponds in a meaningful way to our senses. We then accept logic because it seems to work without ascribing it any special place.

 

[phil121]

Thank you Hilston

Thank you Hilston

Jim,

I wanted to say thank you for the interesting debate, and the work you do on the comments here. As an old earth creationist (see Hugh Ross), I was rather skeptical of your approach at first. As the debate went on I began to see that your approach in fact addressed the issue of whether evolution was science. Your round 7 post was really good at clarifying your point in the debate.

This debate really highlights how many scientists (evolutionists) blindly accept (by faith), as Dr. Stratnerd apparently does, a pragmatic and materialistic worldview. I really appreciated your comments regarding the importance of worldview issues. In fact, millions of people dead under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao might even say that it eventually makes a pragmatic difference. I too care about my kids, and because I care about them and other people's kid's I want to help convince others that their value is rooted in a loving God who gives them value.

Anyway, thanks again,

Mike

 

[Balder]

I agree with Jim on one thing: that materialism is ultimately a metaphysical paradigm, not just "the facts" as disclosed by objective and impartial scientific methods.

 

[Balder]

In another thread, I've been debating with Hilston whether there really are any eternal "laws of logic" that exist beyond or behind the universe, deterministically driving it, or if speaking "laws of logic" (and nature) is rather one way of describing and conceptually navigating the universe (the order of which derives from the holism and interrelatedness of the cosmos).

Since not being able to account for "laws of logic" was one of Hilston's most important lines of attack, I think it is necessary to question whether we really need to presuppose the actual existence of such laws. Although I posted this on other thread, I wanted to repeat my argument here:

the idea of "laws of logic" is just that, an idea. You can use the phrase, "laws of logic," as a conventional way of describing patterns of interaction and interrelationship in mind and nature, or you can "reify" the idea and assert that these laws are actual entities which stand apart from and actually dictate the behavior of phenomena.

Take it out to the level you consider ultimate. You say that logic is part of God's nature. In the case of God, are the "laws of logic" actual abstract entities which dictate the behavior of God? Or are "laws of logic" a way describing the essential nature of God?

If God Himself is also subject to abstract, eternal laws that dictate what God can and cannot do, then God is not Absolute.

If God, in His own being, is holistically coherent and orderly, then abstract, deterministic "laws of logic" are not necessary for order and coherence.

Best wishes,
Balder

 

[Clete]

In another thread, I've been debating with Hilston whether there really are any eternal "laws of logic" that exist beyond or behind the universe, deterministically driving it, or if speaking "laws of logic" (and nature) is rather one way of describing and conceptually navigating the universe (the order of which derives from the holism and interrelatedness of the cosmos).

Since not being able to account for "laws of logic" was one of Hilston's most important lines of attack, I think it is necessary to question whether we really need to presuppose the actual existence of such laws. Although I posted this on other thread, I wanted to repeat my argument here:

the idea of "laws of logic" is just that, an idea. You can use the phrase, "laws of logic," as a conventional way of describing patterns of interaction and interrelationship in mind and nature, or you can "reify" the idea and assert that these laws are actual entities which stand apart from and actually dictate the behavior of phenomena.

Take it out to the level you consider ultimate. You say that logic is part of God's nature. In the case of God, are the "laws of logic" actual abstract entities which dictate the behavior of God? Or are "laws of logic" a way describing the essential nature of God?

If God Himself is also subject to abstract, eternal laws that dictate what God can and cannot do, then God is not Absolute.

If God, in His own being, is holistically coherent and orderly, then abstract, deterministic "laws of logic" are not necessary for order and coherence.

Best wishes,
Balder

The three laws of logic are utterly irrefutable Balder. Even this post uses them. Even you must concede that the laws of logic either exist or they do not. This is the second law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which states that everything must either be or not be.
This will always happen. Every attempt to deny one or more (in your case all three) of the laws of logic utilizes those very same laws. Any such argument is therefore self-refuting and ridiculous.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Clete,

I think you've missed an important part of what I'm saying. I am not challenging the fact that logic provides relatively reliable ways to describe, navigate, and interact with the world. I am challenging the notion that there are abstract entities called "laws" that exist behind the universe, governing them and dictating the behavior of all members of the universe.

Although it is something of a tangent, I would also suggest that the "logic of the excluded middle" may represent a contingent, relative perspective. You may not be familiar with it, but Lupasco and other modern logicians have fully formalized a "logic of the included middle," which is transcendental in scope, and which functions best when describing complex, holistic systems (which is how Buddhism describes the nature of our world).

As an example of "undivided wholeness" in which opposites are co-arising and co-determining, think of a magnetic field. If you have a magnetic bar, one end will be positive and the other negative. As you continue to cut the magnet, the positive or negative poles will continue to manifest, even when you have reduced the magnet down to the "end" that was originally negative. The positive and negative "ends" are particular (polarized) expressions of the properties of the field as a whole, rather than truly existing at some point on the metal.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Clete]

Clete,

I think you've missed an important part of what I'm saying. I am not challenging the fact that logic provides relatively reliable ways to describe, navigate, and interact with the world. I am challenging the notion that there are abstract entities called "laws" that exist behind the universe, governing them and dictating the behavior of all members of the universe.

It doesn't matter Balder. You have to use logic to posit the idea that logic may not exist. It's self-refuting.

Although it is something of a tangent, I would also suggest that the "logic of the excluded middle" may represent a contingent, relative perspective. You may not be familiar with it, but Lupasco and other modern logicians have fully formalized a "logic of the included middle," which is transcendental in scope, and which functions best when describing complex, holistic systems (which is how Buddhism describes the nature of our world).

Your so called "contingent, relative perspective" either exists or it does not and thus cannot refute or in any way impinge upon the law of excluded middle. No matter what you do Balder every attempt to refute the laws of logic employs those very laws and thereby refutes itself. The laws of logic are therefore utterly irrefragable.

As an example of "undivided wholeness" in which opposites are co-arising and co-determining, think of a magnetic field. If you have a magnetic bar, one end will be positive and the other negative. As you continue to cut the magnet, the positive or negative poles will continue to manifest, even when you have reduced the magnet down to the "end" that was originally negative. The positive and negative "ends" are particular (polarized) expressions of the properties of the field as a whole, rather than truly existing at some point on the metal.

And yet you still have a north pole which is quite separate from the south. You've not turned the south pole into the north or vise versa you simply made the field smaller by reducing the size of that which is producing it. Every single partical of the magnetic bar are all magnetic themselves and as such produce a magnetic field. You example is meaningless. At the end of the day, you either have a magnetic field or you do not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Best wishes,

Balder[/QUOTE]

 

[Balder]

I have not said that logic does not exist. You are still missing my point.

Similarly, you have dismissed my magnet example without grasping the point of the argument.

 

[Clete]

I have not said that logic does not exist. You are still missing my point.

Similarly, you have dismissed my magnet example without grasping the point of the argument.

Explain it to me then. I don't want to be arguing against points that aren't being made.

Did you not say...

Since not being able to account for "laws of logic" was one of Hilston's most important lines of attack, I think it is necessary to question whether we really need to presuppose the actual existence of such laws.

 

[aharvey]

This debate really highlights how many scientists (evolutionists) blindly accept (by faith), as Dr. Stratnerd apparently does, a pragmatic and materialistic worldview.

You are inappropriately treating these as mirror images:

Hilston: presupposes the Bible is literal and inerrant.
Stratnerd: does not presuppose the Bible is literal and inerrant.

Notice where the "not" is! This is profoundly different from where you are implying scientists place it:

Cartoon version of scientist: presupposes the Bible is not literal and inerrant.

Do you see the critical difference between these two?

Stratnerd: does not presuppose the Bible is literal and inerrant.
Cartoon version of scientist: presupposes the Bible is not literal and inerrant.

The Bible might be true, it might not. Some of it might be true, all of it, very little of it. God might exist, He might not. He might exist exactly as Jim presupposes Him, He might exist in a slightly to extremely different version. No scientific theory presupposes a priori anything about God or the Bible, in general or in specifics. I can pretty much guarantee that.

It seems to me that the exact opposite of "blind faith" is to say that you don't make any assumptions in advance about something. Don't get caught up in the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[Clete]

Jim will correct me if I'm wrong on this but I do not believe that he presupposes that the Bible is true. The inerrancy of the Bible is a conclusion based on his presuppositions but I do not think that it is itself one of those presuppositions.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Clete,

I am not denying that there is order in the universe, or that logic -- which is a cognitive, conceptual process -- helps one to navigate and interact with an orderly cosmos. What I am questioning is the metaphysical model that assigns order to the deterministic influence of abstract, transcendent laws which deterministically impose order from above, or from "outside" the system.

Interestingly, and ironically, in presupposing the necessity of laws, not as conceptual conventions for describing order but as actual metaphysical entitites, the Christian who does so appears also to presuppose certain central tenets of the "blind chance universe" that he decries in his conception (caricature) of the modern scientific worldview: He presupposes that, without the influence of these laws, blind, random, disobedient matter would fly off into chaos and dissolution. He doesn't see that he still has one foot in the door of a worldview he rejects (and even most scientists now reject).

Concerning the logic of the excluded middle, if it is absolute -- meaning it is an inviolable description of how things are, with no perspective above it (and hence not contingent) -- then you are left with a contradiction. The logic of the excluded middle declares it impossible for a cause to directly create its total opposite, or something completely unrelated to it: turning on a light switch does not produce water, or jello. Buddhism uses this form of reasoning too. But if this is the case, and there is no higher order -- one which would accommodate a logic of the included middle, for instance -- then you are left with a problem. How could God, as pure Spirit and Life, and as first cause of the universe, ever produce something totally unrelated to him -- e.g., inert, dead matter? You are left, not with a logical explanation (under your current presuppositions), but a miracle.

There is more I could write on the logic of the included middle -- as a Trinitarian Open Theist, you should actually be interested in a ternary logical system which presupposes the fundamental openness of knowledge -- but I'm out of time this morning.

Best wishes,

Balder