Given recent posts here at TSZ challenging the validity of presuppositions and self-evident truths I thought the following list might be worthy of debate.
Presuppositions of Science
1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. The knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers
When critics object to the Logos as a presupposition and offer instead 10 other presuppositions, Ockham’s Razor flies out the window.
Hey, Fifth. Did you ever read The Damnation of Theron Ware? That’s a novel about Annabaptists, IIRC. It was recommended to me years ago by a UU minister, if that makes any difference.
Benevolence is when fifth and I put up with your posts. 🙂
Why ought anyone care what you think about Christians, or about anything else for that matter? What sort of moral realist are you?
And how did you come to be so certain about such matters?
🙂
I do, you know, but it’s mephistimacated bullshit. 😉
BTW, mods, this thread now opens to the THIRD most recent page!
I think everyone just needs to stop posting and let the computer catch up.
I’m looking at you walto.
I’m buying you a virtual beer. It will have to do for now. 🙂
No I haven’t read it. A quick google search reveals it’s about a Methodist pastor.
Methodists are sometimes confused with Anabaptists especially by someone like a UU minister.
We evangelicals have been accused of all looking alike. 😉
The novel looks interesting I’ll keep it in mind
peace
I have. Quite some years ago.
Here’s the exact quote:
Your emendations are utterly gratuitous and unsupported by the facts.
keiths asserted that “Christianity is false” is not an assumption.
keiths asserted that “Christianity is false” is a conclusion.
Right now we are expected to take it on faith that this was a conclusion he and the mouse in his pocket reached. The actual argument is lacking.
Was he speaking for you and all the others here at TSZ when he made these claims?
Mung,
You’ll enjoy TSZ more if you understand what the grown-ups are talking about. Find a nice, quiet spot, close your eyes, and concentrate on these three items until you understand them:
1. TSZ is full of arguments I’ve made against Christianity, but you’ll miss them if you go looking for the specific words “Christianity is false because…” and nothing else. Instead, you’ll need to think about what you’re reading, as uncomfortable as that may be for you. For example, I am arguing against Christianity in this very thread. See if you’re smart enough to figure that out for yourself. If you can’t, then you’re going to have a very difficult time keeping up with the adults.
2. It is coherent to believe that murder is wrong without believing in objective morality, just as it is possible to believe that this woman is beautiful without believing in objective standards of beauty.
3. It is possible to be extremely confident of something without being absolutely certain of it. This is obvious to intelligent people. See if you can grasp it.
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
Not at all. It’s a straightforward inference that doesn’t depend in the slightest on emotions — just on the Christian definition of evil.
Here’s a parable I used in another thread:
To defeat the probabilistic argument from evil, the theist would have to show that in spite of the enormous amount of evil and suffering in the world, it is nevertheless more probable that their God exists than that he doesn’t.
Good luck to them.
Consider an analogy:
You are a child with an absentee father. Your mother and siblings all tell you how wonderful your father is; incredibly powerful, wise, and loving. Webcams and microphones are installed throughout the house. Your mother tells you that your father is constantly monitoring those so that he is aware of everything that happens in your home.
A neighbor comes by periodically and beats you and your siblings with a baseball bat, in full view of the webcams. You cry out to your father, but he doesn’t respond, and despite all his power, he does nothing to prevent the beatings. When your uncle sexually abuses you, the same thing happens; you cry out to father, but your father does nothing to prevent the abuse. You begin to wonder if your father is loving after all, or whether he is as powerful as your mother claims. You even sometimes wonder if he exists at all. Maybe he’s dead, and your mother is just telling you an elaborate story to make you feel watched over and loved.
You tell your mother about the beatings and the rape, and ask her why your father doesn’t intervene. She says that your father is far more loving and wise than you are, and that if he permits these atrocities, there must be a very good reason that’s beyond your ken. Perhaps he’s teaching you about perseverance in the face of suffering, or maybe it’s just really important to him that your neighbor and uncle be allowed to exercise their free will in beating and raping you.
Would it be rational to accept your mother’s explanation? Is that the best explanation available?
Of course not. It’s a ridiculous explanation, and the alternatives are far better.
I hope it’s obvious how this analogy relates to the problem of evil, and why the theistic responses are so inadequate.
I should add that my analogy considerably understates the problem for the omnitheist. In a more accurate analogy, the father himself would do some of the beating, and some of those beatings would be fatal.
The problem of evil is very real, which is why it is taken seriously in philosophical and theological circles.
keiths:
fifth:
WTF? If dogs didn’t eat babies’ heads, we’d think God was “winking at sin”?
And you’re as stupid to accept that as you would be to accept your mother’s rationalization in the parable above. You’re fighting against the evidence instead of taking it into account.
I’d probably enjoy it more and understand it better if the skeptics making claims actually defended them instead of offering assurances that they have done so in the past or will do so in the future.
But rest assured, I can learn. When I make a claim I can say I have made many posts here at TSZ and push the actual defense off into the indefinite past or I can say that I defend my claims and push the actual defense off into the indefinite future.
Sort of like your follow-up post on moderation here at TSZ. Actual evidence not required. Or your repeated claims that you responded to my arguments in the Angry At God thread. You know, the ones where your “rebuttal” preceded my actual posts.
The grown-ups here want you to justify your moral judgments. And your lack of doubt concerning them. We want to know why your accusations against fifth ought to be taken as something more than an emotional outburst.
So you say, without any argument whatsoever to support your claim.
The question is, are you a moral realist?
You and Patrick both accuse fifth of intellectual dishonesty. You can believe all you like that intellectual dishonesty is “wrong.” Who cares. The terms objective and empirical come to mind. Subjective judgmental keiths.
Oh man. I just LOVE obvious truths. Don’t you?
I don’t know if what you say is possible or not. No argument for it was given.
Just how “extremely confident” of these latest claims of yours are you? Can you defend them?
What is the objective empirical demarcation between extreme confidence and absolute certainty?
It’s entirely subjective. Admit it.
Mung,
See if you can figure it out without being spoon-fed.
Mung,
Without commenting on specific instances, I’m in general agreement with Mung here.
*waits for Mung to regain consciousness*
One pattern I saw repeatedly at Uncommon Descent when I used to read it was for an IDCist to claim to be able to prove a proposition, to bloviate extensively, then to claim to have proven said proposition. None were able to point to exactly where they’d done so.
It’s more effort, but worthwhile, to provide links to where a claim was supported rather than simply waving one’s hand toward a few threads containing hundreds of comments.
Mung,
It’s possible to separate the identification of a behavior from the moral judgement of it.
I choose not to associate with dishonest people because doing so has negative value to me.
I’m sure this was my mistake, not his. I read it a long time ago.
ah the problem of evil the last refuge of the defeated atheist.
Please tell me what the “christian definition of evil” is and the criteria you used to verify that your chosen definition was the actual Christian definition.
Then tell my how you know that your chosen criteria is correct.
Once we have established all that we can move on.
peace
1) God is the creator of everything.
2) There is evil.
3) Therefore, God is the creator of evil.
1)define evil.
2) how do you know your definition is the correct one
peace
I can cite examples of God’s creation that I consider evil, because they cause undeserved severe suffering. You can tell me which ones are not evil. And/or which ones were not created by God.
1) Dreadful diseases, such as paralytic poliomyelitis, bubonic plague, the many mansions of Cancer, river blindness, elephantiasis, malaria, Ebola, degenerative nervous system diseases.
2) Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, typhoons and hurricanes.
None of these things are intrinsically evil in themselves. It depends on the context.
Now that I’ve answered your question please answer mine
1)define evil.
2) How do you know your definition is the correct one?
peace
peace
Not an answer. I have no idea what you mean by “context.”
Please provide the context in which each of the things I listed is not evil.
For example, what’s the context that makes torturing a child to death with cancer a good thing?
And I notice that you did not deny that God is the cause of all the items in my list. If you agree to God’s responsibility for all those context-sensitive items, we’re making progress.
It really depends
For example the plague is not evil from the perspective of Yersinia pestis and earthquakes are not evil if they happen in Antarctica. I’m sure you could think of other contexts in which your examples are not evil if you put some thought into it.
In order to call something evil you need to know everything that lead to it and everything that resulted from it. Or you need to know the intention of the responsible party.
Now will you please answer my questions?
peace
“…the perspective of Yersinia pestis…” That’s a hoot! (Then again, why not? Your God seems to favor germs.)
You’ve nicely indicated that in your world evil can’t be defined or even identified. (Assuming that you actually think before you type.)
How could anyone presume to know the intention of God (the responsible party) in causing the agony of childhood cancer for the child or those that love the child? (One might try asking him. Maybe you have his number and could ask him why he created childhood cancer and those other nasties.)
In my world evil is any action contrary to the law of God. Simple huh
using that definition evil is easy to identify. For example murder is evil so is adultery.
now
How do you define evil in your world? And how do you know that your definition is the correct one?
peace
So the only evil in your world is human evil. Natural evil doesn’t exist.
I identified evil things in my world, but you just brushed them off.
You don’t argue in good faith.
Patrick,
I agree, too — when the questioner is being honest. Mung isn’t.
I’m arguing against Christianity in this very thread, via the problem of evil. If Mung really wanted to engage me over the truth of Christianity, he would respond to my argument instead of pretending that I haven’t presented one.
I think he’d prefer not to engage, given how that usually turns out for him.
fifth,
Here’s another comment, from April this year, on the dog that ate the baby’s head:
Steve:
Think about it, Steve. If God is omniscient, he knew that the dog was about to eat the baby’s head. If God is omnipotent, he could have prevented it. He knew it was going to happen, but he made the choice not to prevent it.
Now suppose that the baby’s uncle had been present, that he had observed the dog killing the baby, and that he hadn’t lifted a finger to stop it. Who in their right mind would say, “Oh, what a loving uncle!”
Your God is that uncle — but even worse, because he could have stopped the tragedy before it even got started. He knew it was going to happen, after all.
You can tie yourself in knots trying to make excuses for God, or you can accept the obvious conclusion: your omniGod doesn’t exist. If there is a God, he isn’t the omniGod. And more likely still, there is no God at all.
Not just human evil demonic evil and alien evil is also possible.
I did not brush them off I simply showed that they weren’t evil in every context. Therefore we need to know the exact context before we can determine if they are evil.
Then I asked how you defined evil and how you know your definition is the correct one. You failed to answer my questions
How so? It seems to me that you are the one who is refusing to answer a direct question
peace
Or you can simply recognize that you are not omniscient and are in no position to know all the cosmic context of the event so therefore are in no position to judge God.
peace
peace
Some follow-up questions:
First: if a person prays for, say, their child’s cancer to be remitted, it increases the probability of SOME child’s cancer being remitted, somewhere, but not (except infinitessimally) that of their own child, right?
Second: does this not suggest to you that God is limited in some way, and that God’s power to intervene is proportional to the amount of prayer offered?
Third: why should God’s power to intervene be limited to naturally remitting diseases like cancer, and not extend to naturally non-remitting conditions such as limb-loss or chromosomal abnormality?
No, that is not the purpose of prayer or how prayer works.
When you pray, if God chooses to graciously grant your request you increase the probability that you will recognize his gift. This knowledge is a great benefit to you
Prayer is not about changing God’s mind it is about preparing yours.
See above
God’s power is not limited. God can do whatever he pleases.
What God is pleased to do is maximize his own glory and the good of those who love him. Often times the greater good is served by saying no to heartfelt requests.
quote:
And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
(Mar 14:35-36)
and
And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.
(1Jn 5:14-15)
end quote:
peace
One thing is certain. Faith has never healed a lame argument.
That is definitely a high point among the posts in this thread!
EL said:
Your logic is flawed. Assuming there is no scientific evidence that prayer works in any statistically significant manner, that doesn’t mean that prayer doesn’t work. It may just mean that the success of prayer – for whatever reason – doesn’t show up as significant in a statistical analysis. It may be that not all things that exist or occur are amenable to statistical or scientific scrutiny.
I think you go completely wrong right there. The claim that prayer produces no discernible difference in outcomes is testable. “The power of prayer” invariably fails such tests. That prayer is ineffective in changing anything about the real world is a claim supported by evidence – not an assumption.
What you are saying is that imaginary events do not impinge on reality. There, I agree with you. If theists kept their claims untestable – that imaginary cannot impinge on real – there’s no real issue. Basing a morality that they wish to impose on others on their imagination is a step too far.
ETA clarity
You are mistaken here, People who pray are more content and well adjusted and live longer. that would definitely count a a difference in outcomes.
peace
How about those who meditate?
Glen Davidson
Maybe that has been confirmed by studies. It wouldn’t surprise me. It seems a very normal attribute of humans – to have an emotional need for some kind of spiritual aspect to their life and the explanations they find comforting*.
Well, satisfying an emotional need can contribute to wellbeing, I guess. Maybe there are many ways to satisfy that emotional need.
OT
Why doesn’t God cut out the middle man and dispense with this world altogether and pop us all straight into heaven? Seems a lot more straightforward.
ETA missing comforting*.
Ninja’d by Glen!
them too
quote:
I will ponder all your work, and meditate on your mighty deeds.
(Psa 77:12)
end quote:
peace
Regarding God’s failure to intervene while a dog ate a living baby’s head, I wrote:
fifth:
Yet you, who are also not omniscient, judge that God is good. Why? Because the dogma says so. Dogma overrides evidence for you, and truth is a threat to dogma — something to be fought against rather than welcomed.
A rational person will draw a conclusion based on the available evidence, with a willingness to revise that conclusion if necessary when new evidence shows up. The available evidence, including the awful baby head story and all of the other evil and suffering in the world, fits far better with the idea that the omniGod doesn’t exist. A rational person will follow the evidence where it leads.
An irrational person like you will ignore the evidence and stick to the dogma.
NO NO no.
I don’t judge that God is good
God revels it to me
peace
Amazing what a virtual beer can accomplish. 😉
Ought people always be honest then keiths? Or only when dishonesty might do more harm than honesty? If one is not certain about the potential harm, should one toss a coin? Or does lying always cause harm? Do tell.
I don’t think it’s the last refuge. I think it pretty much underlies the entire enterprise. Which isn’t to say it should not be taken seriously.
I have no problem agreeing, for instance, that the problem of evil is the most (only?) serious objection that can be offered against the existence of God.