"Is There Evidence for God?" Craig v Krauss

[Stevil]

Craig is an excellent logician and I fail to see that his arguments have been refuted as they are certainly sound in that if the premises are valid then the conclusion is true.  

There is a deceptive trick you are conjuring here. You are asserting the premise to be true.

So lets take a look at Craig's first argument within the referenced debate.

Premise 1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence...
Premise 2 The Universe exists
Premise 3 If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is God.

So if we assert these premises to be true then no doubt the conclusion is true simply because the conclusion is none other than a rewording of the third premise devoid of the condition and replaced with an assertion that the universe has an explanation for its existence. You could say that the "if" condition was elevated to fact by derivation from premises 1 and 2 but premise 1 was a baseless assertion, a presupposition, making premise 4's elevation of premise 3's condition a fallacy.

The "surprise" injection of the god concept within premise 3 is none other than a presupposition drawing on the Christian epistemic viewpoint. Hence the argument is not only baseless but is also circular in nature limited only to a Christian relevance. In essence this is a perfect example of preaching to the converted.

With this in mind I completely understand why you fail to see that his arguments have been refuted. To use your own terminology, It is just sad that the blinded Christian is so confused

Note: In a response to my analysis of Craig's argument you provided additional information that you no doubt deemed necessary to fill in the gaps of Craig's argument. Rather than address your additional information I choose to avoid this diversion in an attempt to remain on topic with regards to addressing the merits of Craig's argument.

You may find that he keeps presenting them because he would welcome a valid refutation as this would present genuine challenge.

With the first argument Craig merely regurgitates the Cosmological argument of which he is not the author and of which the successful refutes are well documented.

So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

The Atheist's stance is that of disbelief. Disbelief does not require proof to the contrary, only rejection of the proofs offered by the proponents of the god hypothesis are necessary for the Atheist's stance.

I don't profess to have all truths or knowledge but what I find out there points to the Christian God.  

Finally we are starting to get some kind of definition of what is meant by the term "God". Not simply the creator of the universe, but also an intelligent, all powerful, all loving being who sent forth two she bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head.

And with an open mind I can recognize what counts as evidence.

I assume your definition of an open mind would be knowledge of, acceptance of, and adherence to the Christian epistemic viewpoint.

[fester30]

Freeservant, perhaps there is a God, but if so I don't believe in it.  I can't prove nonexistence of this God, and I realize that, but it doesn't matter because I don't care if you or anybody else decides to believe in it.  I can understand if someone chooses to believe in a God because of things we cannot yet explain.  I choose, however, to believe that just because there are things we cannot explain, it doesn't prove that there is a supernatural being controlling or creating it all.  Gaps in scientific knowledge, to me, are not evidence that there is a higher power to fill in those gaps.  Your premise 3 doesn't do it for me, because I could just as easily insert Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, my Dad, Whitney, The Magic Pudding, or Tank in place of God.  

If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is God.
If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is fester30.

I could tell you I'm God, and I could use Christian methods to refute your arguments that I'm not.  I could even write my own book and call it the Holy Truth of Fester30's Godness.  You wouldn't be able to argue against that book.  I could also guarantee that I could write it with far fewer inconsistencies and contradictions than the Bible.  It's even possible I could start my own religion with it... just look at L. Ron Hubbard, who started a religion to win a bet with a friend.  All my followers would be Festering with love for me!

Whether or not there is a God, or decent arguments in favor of the existence of a God, there really aren't decent arguments for the validity of Christianity as God's chosen religion.  You try to use logic and debating skills to prove God's existence, and then you choose Christianity as your vessel of faith.  Why not dump Jesus and just believe in a creator God who created and then just left things alone?  At least then you don't need to lean on such a broken text as the Bible, and you wouldn't have to worship a God who has sinned by the Bible's definitions far more than any human.  You could be just like Thomas Jefferson!

So... who all wants to Fester?

Perhaps I need to find a new name for myself.  I don't think Festering would be a very attractive thing for people to want to follow.  Kinda sounds gross.

[freeservant]

Craig is an excellent logician and I fail to see that his arguments have been refuted as they are certainly sound in that if the premises are valid then the conclusion is true.  

There is a deceptive trick you are conjuring here. You are asserting the premise to be true.

First you have not stated the premises correctly.

So lets take a look at Craig's first argument within the referenced debate.
Premise 1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence...

You omitted an important part and that is the conditional Begins.

Did you begin to exist?  I would hope you look to your parents for that answer.

The Universe did Begin to exist.  This leads to a condition that has to be outside of this universe and before Time=0  and points to a Timeless and spaceless entity.

Premise 2 The Universe began to exist
Premise 3 If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is God.

So if we assert these premises to be true then no doubt the conclusion is true simply because the conclusion is none other than a rewording of the third premise devoid of the condition and replaced with an assertion that the universe has an explanation for its existence. You could say that the "if" condition was elevated to fact by derivation from premises 1 and 2 but premise 1 was a baseless assertion, a presupposition, making premise 4's elevation of premise 3's condition a fallacy.

The answer is no... No there is no fallacy... One is not a baseless assertion.  Here is what you need to then prove.

1: things that begin to exist can do so ex nihilo  and further that that ex nihilo does not necessitate an intelligent proscriptive cause.  This bald assertion is made by Krauss in the debate

2:  Ex nihilo causation to be established begs the question of observation or evidence of your five senses observing magic.  (defined in this case as un caused causation)  On could even say POOF there it is.

And don't think to at this point ask what caused God as there can be no cause for a timeless being just as there is no cause for the laws of logic or mathematics.

The "surprise" injection of the god concept within premise 3 is none other than a presupposition drawing on the Christian epistemic viewpoint. Hence the argument is not only baseless but is also circular in nature limited only to a Christian relevance. In essence this is a perfect example of preaching to the converted.

With this in mind I completely understand why you fail to see that his arguments have been refuted. To use your own terminology, It is just sad that the blinded Christian is so confused

I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir.  I was an atheist.  I am well versed that there is no true atheist{as tank has never found one]  I am well versed in the preaching of the tautology that the atheist has no need for evidence and proof for their certainty.

I will find here many atheists that are certain that they need no evidence or confirmation for their belief that is a non-belief that shows just how self defeating atheism is as a worldview.

Speaking of preaching I put together a little example: All hail the truthieness of atheism
For the utility of the tool of science shall lead us
The meaningless purposeless emergence shall be our righteousness
We shall fear no evil unless we say it is evil
Christianity is the virus of evil that we shall defeat with non-belief as we evolve to the evolution of a godless utopia
though we walk through the pratfalls of outrageous fortune Darwinism shall comfort us.
Bring forth our vaunted Scientism so that we may worship at the greatness of Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and the amazing Randi
The way is bleak and the end is death so we shall then celebrate the short life we have as the only god of solipsism that we shall ever know is ourselves.
Our baseless assertions shall be a light upon our twisted footpath
Our dogma of non-belief is the Captain of our guard-less defenses against any intellectual burden to show the evidence for our views that are non-views
Tis a  far far better light that the atheist shall bring
For we face the demon of a Beneficent God that we do exorcism of by our wishful thinking
To strawman and satirize all the days of our life as we commit the fallacy of poisoning the well with the hegemony of empiricism.
Bye our wisdom we do reject ontological arguments unless we doth smuggle them in for our own righteous means.

This is an attempt at humor so some of the spelling is intentional

also see if you are a fundamentalist atheist: http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html

Are you certain that premise one is a baseless assertion?

Ludwig Wittgenstein also seems to connect certainty with indubitability. He says that “If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty” (1969, §115). What makes possible doubting is “the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn” (1969, §341). Although Wittgenstein's view is sometimes taken to beâ€"or to provide the basis forâ€"an epistemically satisfying response to skepticism (see, e.g., Wright 2003 and 2004), it is hard to see the kind of certainty he has characterized as being epistemic, rather than merely psychological, in nature (on this point, see Pritchard 2005). Thus, when Wittgenstein says, “The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing” (1969, §166) it seems clear that the so-called hinge propositions are ones that we are psychologically incapable of calling into question. This is, of course, compatible with their being false.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Are we not BOTH certain of our respective positions?

Are we not BOTH on and epistemic journey?

We BOTH must operate from a doxastic position.  IF one operates from a pure lack of any conviction or noetic effect is that what I am to think atheism is??

Note: In a response to my analysis of Craig's argument you provided additional information that you no doubt deemed necessary to fill in the gaps of Craig's argument. Rather than address your additional information I choose to avoid this diversion in an attempt to remain on topic with regards to addressing the merits of Craig's argument.

Trying to dodge the issue of Gödel's incompleteness theorems?  It is germaine to the issue.  It is germaine to the issue regarding how God comes into the question.  But if you don't want to address it then that speaks to your credibility when you make the following bald assertions.

You may find that he keeps presenting them because he would welcome a valid refutation as this would present genuine challenge.

With the first argument Craig merely regurgitates the Cosmological argument of which he is not the author and of which the successful refutes are well documented.

One does not have to keep up formulation new ideas if there are ones that work.  But I understand your investment in this ad-hominem

So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

The Atheist's stance is that of disbelief. Disbelief does not require proof to the contrary, only rejection of the proofs offered by the proponents of the god hypothesis are necessary for the Atheist's stance.  

Ahh the certainty of pure skepticism aye??  see this link again: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Even if you are certain of your uncertainty then you need something to ground that with so the atheist can't get away from the fact that they have something that gives them reason to believe or reason to be certain otherwise the tautology in my signature works with incorrigible devastation!!! rofl

I don't profess to have all truths or knowledge but what I find out there points to the Christian God.  

Finally we are starting to get some kind of definition of what is meant by the term "God". Not simply the creator of the universe, but also an intelligent, all powerful, all loving being who sent forth two she bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head.

ROFL!  MOAR PREACHING.... I love it.  Let's do a bible study sometime.

And with an open mind I can recognize what counts as evidence.

I assume your definition of an open mind would be knowledge of, acceptance of, and adherence to the Christian epistemic viewpoint.

Bottom line is that my definition of an open mind is the acceptance of the laws of logic and a viewpoint that seeks TRUTH.  Nothing more and nothing less.

[Stevil]

The Universe did Begin to exist.

There is no evidence for the beginning of the Universe as per Craig's definition of the Universe "SpaceTime reality"
It seems to me that Space has always been there. Space being simply a 3 dimentional coordinate system. Time is realitive to each piece of energy/matter but not equivalent for all energy/matter in existence. Reality is simply Space, Time and Energy/Matter combined.
Although the sum total of energy/matter is always the same as theorised via the Conservation of Energy law, it is likely that that sum total = zero. I feel that it is likely that there was not a single instance where all energy/matter began, I feel this is a continual process even though the sum will always be zero. Our "expanding Universe" (that which is theorised to have been expanding from the big bang) is only a very small part of all that exists within reality. There are likely an infinite amount of expanding Universes, this is a perpetual system that has no beginning and no end. This is my current hypothesis, not my belief.  

This leads to a condition that has to be outside of this universe and before Time=0  and points to a Timeless and spaceless entity.

I find my hypothesis much more likely than an intelligent being outside of SpaceTime made of nothing that decided to conjure it all up. Even if there were a
Timeless and spaceless entity that created the universe there is no proof to say this was an intelligent being or in anyway fits the description of the god of the bible.

Here is what you need to then prove.

I don't need to prove anything. I hold a weak Atheist stance. I am simply asserting that there is not enough evidence to suggest there is a god, any god of any religion.

And don't think to at this point ask what caused God as there can be no cause for a timeless being just as there is no cause for the laws of logic or mathematics.

Agreed, there was no cause of these things into existence. None of them exist, they are merely concepts imagined by humans.

I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir.  I was an atheist.

Noone needs to be reminded. Everyone and everything that is or was ever in existence is or was an Atheist. To have a belief in god one must be taught.

I am well versed in the preaching of the tautology that the atheist has no need for evidence and proof for their certainty.

Atheists need no preaching, no teaching, no knowledge. My neighbor's dog is an Atheist. My car is an Atheist. So am I.

I will find here many atheists that are certain that they need no evidence or confirmation for their belief that is a non-belief

A disbelief is not a belief. Atheists are open minded and will accept evidence as it is presented, with lack of evidence an Atheist my form hypothesis but will reserve judgment.

Are you certain that premise one is a baseless assertion?

Until evidence is presented to the contrary my answer is yes

Are we not BOTH certain of our respective positions?

I am certain that there is no proof or evidence of gods. I am not certain whether or not gods exist, I am uncertain of the definition of god.

Are we not BOTH on and epistemic journey?

My knowledge comes from what is predictable and recreatable. I know that many scientific theories are simply models of observations and may not be 100% accurate but many can accurately describe future events to a high certainty.
Your knowledge it seems comes from a very old book of stories.

Trying to dodge the issue of Gödel's incompleteness theorems?  It is germaine to the issue.  It is germaine to the issue regarding how God comes into the question.  But if you don't want to address it then that speaks to your credibility when you make the following bald assertions.

What you added to Craig's argument didn't make much sense, there was much epistemic Christian belief assumed within. What spoke volumes to me was your meed to add to Craig's argument. Maybe you thought it was lacking.

Finally we are starting to get some kind of definition of what is meant by the term "God". Not simply the creator of the universe, but also an intelligent, all powerful, all loving being who sent forth two she bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head.

ROFL!  MOAR PREACHING.... I love it.  Let's do a bible study sometime.

I have much better things to do than study the bible or look to interperete it as inevitably the Christians do

Bottom line is that my definition of an open mind is the acceptance of the laws of logic and a viewpoint that seeks TRUTH.  Nothing more and nothing less.

So you would have no problem accepting that there is no proof or evidence of any god theories and hence keep an open mind for when some might come along.

[Recusant]

I'm pleased to see you here upholding Dr. Craig's ideas, freeservant.  Argumentative theists help keep this place more interesting, I think.  Stevil is doing just fine, so I'll try not duplicate his responses or step on his toes too much in my own reply.

Here is what you need to then prove.

1: things that begin to exist can do so ex nihilo and further that that ex nihilo does not necessitate an intelligent proscriptive cause. This bald assertion is made by Krauss in the debate

Actually, Dr. Krauss gives a basis for his assertion from current thought in physics and cosmology; it's not bald at all.  Did you just ignore that, or do you have another reason for thinking that Krauss made a "bald assertion"?

2: Ex nihilo causation to be established begs the question of observation or evidence of your five senses observing magic. (defined in this case as un caused causation) On could even say POOF there it is.

As pointed out above, Krauss is not talking about un-caused causation.  You seem to be making an argument from incredulity; because you find the statements of a well qualified and knowledgeable speaker hard to swallow, you dismiss them.  Quantum fluctuations are an established reality in physics.  As Krauss pointed out, this fact may mean that our space-time is a necessary result of the nature of reality.  We don't know that our space-time is all that there is.  The universe may actually be an eternal multi-verse; there is nothing in our current understanding of cosmology which prevents that from being the case.

And don't think to at this point ask what caused God as there can be no cause for a timeless being just as there is no cause for the laws of logic or mathematics.

i can't resist this one (pace Stevil). Despite Craig's philosophically based assertions to the contrary, there is nothing in current cosmology or physics which makes an eternal universe or multi-verse (something beyond our present space-time) impossible.  Hypotheses based on that idea are still very much current, as Krauss pointed out.  Dr. Craig enjoyed trotting out his taxi-cab idea a couple of times.  I guess his thinking means that with God, the taxi-cab ride ends. The same may be true of the multi-verse.

I am well versed that there is no true atheist{as tank has never found one] I am well versed in the preaching of the tautology that the atheist has no need for evidence and proof for their certainty.

Who (other than yourself) says that a necessary condition of atheism is certainty? There are some atheists who are certain of their position that there is no god or gods, and others who assert that they are open to considering any reasonable evidence to the contrary. As you can see, I'm trying to avoid getting into a definition dispute about whether atheism is a lack of belief or not.

We BOTH must operate from a doxastic position.

Please define the term "doxastic position."

IF one operates from a pure lack of any conviction... is that what I am to think atheism is??

Atheists who use the "lack of belief in God" definition are not saying that they lack convictions on anything, rather that they do not have a belief in God.  Most are also non-solipsist; they are quite convinced that reality outside their skulls exists.  That does not mean that non-solipsism is a necessary component of atheism though.

... or noetic effect ...

Please define the term "noetic effect."

With the first argument Craig merely regurgitates the Cosmological argument of which he is not the author and of which the successful refutes are well documented.

One does not have to keep up formulation new ideas if there are ones that work. But I understand your investment in this ad-hominem

Actually, Dr. Craig's particular brand (Kalaam) has been refuted (see "Cosmological Kalamity" for one example out of many); it doesn't work any more than the standard cosmological argument does. Craig and his followers will not admit this however, and blithely continue to use it.  The thing is, the cosmological argument is not evidence, even if it hadn't been debunked long since.  This debate was about evidence, not omphaloskepsis and hot air.

Even if you are certain of your uncertainty then you need something to ground that with so the atheist can't get away from the fact that they have something that gives them reason to believe or reason to be certain...

Many atheists are only certain of things that they can say about themselves ("I love my wife") or things for which they have evidence ("The flame of the candle is hot.")  The "god hypothesis" falls outside those two categories for such atheists.

[Recusant]

Debate post-mortem by Dr. Krauss

Debate post-mortem by Dr. Craig

[freeservant]

I need to reply briefly to some issues and can go more in depth when I am through with some personal issues.

I say again that the argument has not been successfully refuted.  Granted there have been many failed attemps and Dan Barkers is a poor attempt at best.


Let's look at some responses to the "Cosmological Kalamity"

http://sguthrie.net/barker_response.htm

I am sorry for the copy-pasta but I have been given the STRONG impression that contempt prior to investigation is the modus operandi for some.

(i) He is ignorant of the metaphysical claim "everything that begins to exist has a cause" used outside of theistic philosophy.  This claim is much older than David Hume who went to great lengths to defeat it (but to no avail).  Immanuel Kant (18th century) believed that this claim was a synthetic a priori truth and that it was unquestionable.  Barker's limited understanding of these sorts of claims is just made more evident.

(ii) Barker wants the same premise (premise 1) to wrongly imply "everything except God begins to exist" which is a straw man of the premise.  Here's how it is twisted.  The original premise is only about everything that begins to exist and that's all.  The revised premise a la Barker is not just about everything that begins to exist but about God's eternality, too!  So, it is only the poorly reconstructed argument that assumes what it ultimately tries to prove (actually, the initial kalam argument does not immediately prove God per se but that the universe has a cause!).  The original premise concentrates simply on a subset of all things, namely those things that begin to exist.  Nothing else is to be presumed in the first premise. Worse, the revised conclusion "Therefore, the universe is not God" is also a howling straw man since the argument is completely remade.

(iii) Barker resurrects the old challenge that the conclusion could just as equally apply to impersonal causes as God.  Those who have read presentations of kalam in their entirety know that this issue has been discussed and debunked.  Eternal impersonal causes would necessarily yield eternal effects.  Since the universe is a temporal effect, then the cause cannot be impersonal.  The idea about God possibly evolving from initial sources is just a red herring and a category mistake.

(iv) Despite controversies surrounding God and time, Barker commits another fundamental mistake about an "actual infinite."  In the context of the kalam, one of the subarguments to the second premise is that there are no actual infinites.  And Barker complains that God is supposed to be an actual infinite, So isn't the kalam self-refuting?  When proponents talk about an actual infinite, we mean "an infinite number of discrete segments."  The infinity of God is to be understood in terms of an undifferentiated infinite entity.

Given the poverty of Barkers effort I am surprised it has been mentioned.

You can look at another response here:  http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles ... -konfusion

He does think that causation is entirely contained within the universe such that any attempt to justify talk of God's causing the universe to exist from observation is not allowed (I think). Here it seems plain that he just is not familiar with the literature surrounding the issues. There are many things that we can draw conclusions about that would "transcend" our universe (see here, for example). In fact, supposing he is right, he has adopted a principle (that what we learn inside the universe cannot be applicable outside of it) and defeated his own position. Does his principle apply to our universe? How does he know? Why can't we apply the principles of causation to our universe in the same way?

....Also get ready for another blockbuster debate on the 7th!!

http://is.gd/VGPdVA

http://calendar.nd.edu/events/cal/day/2 ... ar@nd.edu/

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=133604053378987

[Stevil]

This is going to be a long and painful exercise for me given I have virtually no free time in my life right now.
I have just seen argument 2. which is simply elaboration of the first half of proposition 3 of Craig's first argument which is the Cosmological Argument

3. If the Universe has an explanation for that existence

He ponders about infinity and decides it is only an idea but doesn't exist. I'm not sure what he basis this conclusion on.
He then concludes that history only includes a finite amount of events. I feel this is a faulty conclusion, but easily something that people ponder about. Infinity is indeed difficult to comprehend.

He then makes a statement that Scientists have concluded that an expanding universe has a beginning. But he avoids expanding on what is meant by the beginning. I have found in my experience of debating with theists that they often perform this trick. They know that a word has multiple meanings and they use this to confuse their audience. They discuss one point implying a definition of the word but arguing a different definition. This way they twist reality.
In the argument made by Craig he states that scientists agree that an expanding universe had a beginning. He is implying a beginning of existence but he knows that the scientists meant a beginning of expansion. His definition of Universe is also blurred. At the beginning of the debate he defined the Universe as SpaceTime reality, but within point 2 he is arguing the expansion of the big bang which is likely only a very, very small part of SpaceTime reality. I doubt the scientist in question was stating that SpaceTime is expanding and had a beginning.
He then bizarrely extrapolated this to a multiverse, as if a multiverse is expanding or if all the universes within a multiverse had some kind of correlation to each other with regards to their respective beginnings. How does this relate to SpaceTime reality? How does it point to a beginning of SpaceTime reality? It simply does not. Anything referring to universes outside our own is pure speculation since other universes are beyond our ability to observe.

He then states that the cause must be transcendent of SpaceTime but avoids the issue of how something can exist and not be part of SpaceTime.

His conclusion is that god's existence must be more likely given the beginning of the universe that without it. I struggle to see, even if the universe had a beginning that this makes god more probable. Again it is a twist. The bible states that god created the universe. Well, we could then say that if the universe was not created then the bible is incorrect. Would this mean that god definitely does not exist or would it mean that the bible is interpreted incorrectly? Now if the universe did have a beginning, does this mean god is more probable?
Lets look at the odds:
The Universe didn't have a beginning. Odds of god's existence equals zero
The Universe did have a beginning. Odds of god's existence is equal or greater than zero.
To improve the likelihood of god's existence we need to rule out zero probability therefore we must have evidence that points to greater than zero probability.
Equal or greater than zero includes the probability of zero which means that we haven't improved the probability of god's existence.

[Recusant]

Freeservant, in your understanding is there anything which exists (other than the creator god which Craig in the Kalaam is attempting to prove is the cause of the universe) which did not begin to exist?

[freeservant]

Freeservant, in your understanding is there anything which exists (other than the creator god which Craig in the Kalaam is attempting to prove is the cause of the universe) which did not begin to exist?

As a rationalist I think this will help you to understand some things that are both universal beyond the material entity we know as the universe but also can't have a means to have never not existed.  These are necessary, incorrigible, and like numbers where never not present.

The FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts.  They are fundamental.  And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof.  So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

To restate that which was said before, without the fundamental “truths”, logic cannot exist.  Logic must be based upon something simple, consistent, and clear. Yet there are those that reject the first principles.  Rejecting them would have the effect of eliminating “rational” logic, and replacing it with a non-rational substitute.  For example, Nietzsche rejected the first principles and developed an antirational philosophy.  But any antirational philosophy must be considered fantasy by true rationalists.

Since rationalism depends entirely upon the validity of logic, it also then depends upon the validity of the first principles.  This is especially true of empiricism, which depends on the principle of cause and effect, and the principle of non-contradiction.  Were these not valid, empiricism would never have come into being.

So science, at least empirical science, is totally dependent upon the continuing validity and consistency across the universe of the first principles of logic and rational thought.

And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.  Thus, if science is thought to be valid, then intuition is also assumed to be valid.

Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist ... ciples.htm

---If link does not work: http://is.gd/qZrFKy

Transcendence is part of the very fiber of not only this reality and how we understand all that is around us as rational thinking human beings but also points to a greater necessary being that is the end of any supposed infinite regress.

http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley ... scendental

[The Black Jester]

So...I've been away for a fair while.  I was here, ever so briefly, and then...zip...off like a politician after a prostitute.

 

And I see you've all been having quite the time while I've been gone.

So...let's see...

Consider the law of the excluded middle

Consider the fallacy of the false dichotomy...

The FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts. They are fundamental. And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof. So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

Not all intuitions are equal.  Some are very poor indeed.

I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir. I was an atheist.

Really?!  What fun!  I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian!  Ah, the talks we shall have.  Makes me quiver, a little, in anticipation.  But of course, as you have obviously considered, and dispensed with, every possible argument in favor of an atheistic world-view merely by having been once self-identified as atheist - I mean, you must have, it couldn't possibly be that you were simply mistaken in your assessments somewhere along the way - and as I have once self-identified as a Christian, it must be that I have done similar work with the Christian world-view, and therefore both and neither of us are correct, and between the two of us, we have actually disproved the LNC!  Again, I say, what fun! amiright?!

And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.

Once axioms, and the laws of relations holding among them, have been posited, we are on an inexorable course to certain conclusions.  But we would only continue to rely upon those axioms (and the posited, or observed, laws of their relations) if they did work in the real world, by modeling or explaining reality as we experience it.  Numbers and such thorough-going concepts are only considered "universals" because they are everywhere useful in describing relations among real objects.  If they ceased to do so, it is my strong "intuition" that we would cease to use them. And if you remark that they would exist in any case, if there were no one to think them - I say - PROVE IT!  Actually, I don't say that, that's childish...I say - what really exists are relations among objects.  Our numbers and theories are our ways of accounting for such relations.

Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

Again, not all intuitions are equally valid. Just because some intuitions prove useful doesn't mean that all intuitions are true.

Wow, this guy IS FUN.  Livens up the place, yaknow! amiright?!

[Recusant]

As a rationalist I think this will help you to understand some things that are both universal beyond the material entity we know as the universe but also can't have a means to have never not existed.  These are necessary, incorrigible, and like numbers where never not present.

First, atheism does not equal rationalism. Trying to say that the atheist position is defined by rationalism doesn't work.  Many atheists came to the atheist position by relying on rationalism, but there are plenty that did not.  Many atheists pride themselves on striving to order their thoughts and lives in a rational manner, but some us really don't give a damn about that. I myself started on the infidel path  for emotional reasons, and only later used my rational capabilities to confirm that it was the right path.

Humanity began to exist.  Any conscious entities which are part of our space-time began to exist.  With that in mind:

What evidence do you have to show that I'm wrong when I say that in all likelihood numbers begin to exist when humans became capable of conceptualizing numerical concepts beyond "one, some, many"? What evidence do you have that numbers even exist other than as a construct of conscious entities such as outselves?  Why are they necessary except for the purposes of conscious entities such as ourselves?

The FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts.  They are fundamental.  And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof.  So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

I would say that "First Principles" began to exist when humans became capable of thought on an abstract level.  Do you have any evidence that they existed before that, let alone are eternal, existing infinitely into the past as well as into the future? Again, these only seem necessary for the purpose of conscious entities such as ourselves.

To restate that which was said before, without the fundamental “truths”, logic cannot exist.  Logic must be based upon something simple, consistent, and clear. Yet there are those that reject the first principles.  Rejecting them would have the effect of eliminating “rational” logic, and replacing it with a non-rational substitute.  For example, Nietzsche rejected the first principles and developed an antirational philosophy.  But any antirational philosophy must be considered fantasy by true rationalists.

Since rationalism depends entirely upon the validity of logic, it also then depends upon the validity of the first principles.  This is especially true of empiricism, which depends on the principle of cause and effect, and the principle of non-contradiction.  Were these not valid, empiricism would never have come into being.

So science, at least empirical science, is totally dependent upon the continuing validity and consistency across the universe of the first principles of logic and rational thought.

If the space-time we know as the universe did not exist, would logic and first principles exist?  If in your opinion that is so, do you have evidence to show that position is valid?

And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.  Thus, if science is thought to be valid, then intuition is also assumed to be valid.

Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

That last sentence is totally unproved by the preceding writing. What does "transcendent" mean in this context anyway?  What makes intuition transcendent?

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist%20Talking%20Points%20first%20principles.htm

---If link does not work: http://is.gd/qZrFKy

Transcendence is part of the very fiber of not only this reality and how we understand all that is around us as rational thinking human beings but also points to a greater necessary being that is the end of any supposed infinite regress.

This sounds like so much theist double talk to me.  If by transcendence you mean intuition, that seems to be a component of how we apprehend the universe, nothing more.  How it points to a "greater necessary being" is not explained. Causality seems to be a property of our space-time, but it may actually only be a property of the way that we, as conscious entities interact with space-time.  Either way, we have no evidence that causality exists beyond the space-time we are aware of, and in fact, it seems that causality as we understand it may not even apply on the quantum level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nice to see you again, Black Jester. I do agree; I'm grateful for the stimulating presence of such members as freeservant. I hope I haven't duplicated too much of your response, if any; I started writing mine before you posted.  I really haven't read any of it beyond the last bit, but will proceed to do so now...

Well, after reading your post, I don't think we duplicated effort overmuch, though I think your response may be a bit more on-target than mine.  I'll leave my puerile requests for evidence in there, just to give freeservant something to tackle/sneer at.

[xSilverPhinx]

Freeservant, I'm going to assume that since you put 'christian' in your worldview that you think that the universe began with an intelligent creator intentionally designing the universe. That is a positive claim that theistic religions make. Is there evidence for an intelligent creator?  We know a universe was created and that each of us exists - how does that tie into an intelligent creator?

And I won't even get into an intelligent being (complex) which had no beginning or wasn't itself intelligently designed...

Also, don't over simplify and group atheists into one "godless box" as if it tells you anything about us as a whole other than our lack of belief in god(s). It's annoying. Atheism is just one facet of irreligious people, atheism makes no claims other than 'I have not encountered evidence for god(s)'.[/u]

Myself for instance, I would be an agnostic and ignostic in regards to whether a god created the universe (I think that nobody knows, because of and based on theistic claims being not at all convincing or well constructed enough while a deistic god is beyond our reach anyways. We only have our horizon of the universe to gain viable scientific knowledge) and I'm an antitheist when it comes to claims I see as false. People might confuse a claim that atheists make that a theist is not providing sufficient or good evidence (which is mostly what happens) as antitheism, but it is not.

I think that both theists have a difficult time understanding our position and atheists also miss the mark when equating the psychology of a belief in a god to the belief in Santa or leprachauns.'God' morphs into different concepts like a multipurpose tool . It's a sophisticated system, not just one aspect. Which of those aspects do you think that atheism makes negative claims against?

[The Black Jester]

For those interested, here is Craig's alleged solution to the "Euthyphro Dilemma":

"We don't need to refute either of the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma, because the dilemma it presents is a false one: There's a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good. What do I mean by that? I mean that God's own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.
So moral values are not independent of God because God's own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature. Therefore, they're not arbitrary. When the atheist demands, 'If God were to command child abuse, would we be obliged to abuse our children?' he's asking a question like 'If there were a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides?' There is no answer because what it supposes is logically impossible.
So the Euthyphro dilemma presents us with a false choice, and we shouldn't be tricked by it. The morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it."

(Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010. pp. 135-36)

Here is an interesting response to Craig's points regarding both the Euthyphro Dilemma and the existence of "objective" morality by a participant on the RationalSkepticism.Org website:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/craig-vs-harris-atheists-prepare-your-excuses-t21174-360.html

And here is an interesting paper pointing out some issues with trying to ground Morality in God (granted, this really should go in the thread on the Harris/Craig debate:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.pdf

[freeservant]

Consider the law of the excluded middle

Consider the fallacy of the false dichotomy...

The proposition is simple:  God?  True or False

If you content that it is false then no false dichotomy as you have a duty to express validation for why you believe it is false.  The false side of the assertion needs just as much an epistemic burden as does the proposition that God is true.  Logic dictates that both sides make positive assertions.  The evidence for irrational / anti-rational atheists and their tautology of non-belief or that poisoning the well and saying absence of evidence is evidence for the absence of God does not escape the exigency of the need for both sides to make positive affirmations of their respective positions.

The FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts. They are fundamental. And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof. So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

Not all intuitions are equal.  Some are very poor indeed.

Yes as exampled by the idea that there can be such a false dichotomy as weak or strong atheism.  Atheism is the a statement that there is no deity of any kind.  Simple to understand hard for some atheists to accept.

I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir. I was an atheist.

Really?!  What fun!  I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian!  Ah, the talks we shall have.  Makes me quiver, a little, in anticipation.  But of course, as you have obviously considered, and dispensed with, every possible argument in favor of an atheistic world-view merely by having been once self-identified as atheist - I mean, you must have, it couldn't possibly be that you were simply mistaken in your assessments somewhere along the way - and as I have once self-identified as a Christian, it must be that I have done similar work with the Christian world-view, and therefore both and neither of us are correct, and between the two of us, we have actually disproved the LNC!  Again, I say, what fun! amiright?!

I have not dispensed with every possible argument in favor of an atheistic worldview.  I even seek to find one that is minimally consistent with both logic and a criteria for truth.  You may think that I poison the well by claiming that I have yet to find a good argument for atheism that is both consistent with how some atheist want an empirically demonstrable God and a self contained materialistic universe.  But this is the reason I am a seeker of truth regardless of how painful truth can be.  

Yes what fun it must be to be a former Christian and yet think yours is the intellectually or ontologically superior position.  My materialistic deterministic brain functions do quiver and vibrate at the juicy reductionism we must all be operating under for atheism to be true.

I am sorry but I have to point out that we can not both be wrong on this simple proposition as the excluded middle is so efficacious at pointing out.  Theism is true or Atheism is true but both can't be wrong.

And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.

Once axioms, and the laws of relations holding among them, have been posited, we are on an inexorable course to certain conclusions.  But we would only continue to rely upon those axioms (and the posited, or observed, laws of their relations) if they did work in the real world, by modeling or explaining reality as we experience it.  Numbers and such thorough-going concepts are only considered "universals" because they are everywhere useful in describing relations among real objects.  If they ceased to do so, it is my strong "intuition" that we would cease to use them. And if you remark that they would exist in any case, if there were no one to think them - I say - PROVE IT!  Actually, I don't say that, that's childish...I say - what really exists are relations among objects.  Our numbers and theories are our ways of accounting for such relations.

Umm... My quantum effects in a sodium channel called a brain does see this as a challenge.  Consider this:

Nearly everyone agrees that math is incomplete. The idea that the universe is also incomplete apparently makes some people very uncomfortable. If the universe cannot explain itself then there has to be some kind of higher power at work.

The debate essentially comes down to this:

    If the universe is illogical and inconsistent then it is possible for it to be complete.
    If the universe is logical and consistent then it is incomplete.
    If the universe is incomplete, then it depends on something on the outside.

In other words, if the laws of mathematics and logic apply to the universe, then the universe has to have a metaphysical source. Atheism can only be true if the universe is irrational.

http://www.perrymarshall.com/10043/gode ... s-and-god/

Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

Again, not all intuitions are equally valid. Just because some intuitions prove useful doesn't mean that all intuitions are true.

Wow, this guy IS FUN.  Livens up the place, yaknow! amiright?!

Yes!  The appellation I use in some other places is Jackanapes.  It is a dated pejorative I use upon myself to keep me in my proper place so as fellow jesters or if you want to look for me on facebook then look for Jape Jackanapes I see that we can both have a place.  Not to mention that I also tend to favor a polemical style of writing.

Keep up the good work friend.  

Also let me make a promises in that I understand that I can change no heart that is hardened against God.  I have no power to change someones mind as that is the jurisdiction of the loving God I honor and try to obey.  His jurisdiction in that only those who seek God diligently will have God give a personal revelation.  All I ask is for critical thinkers to seek truth.  As for me... I am but a humble servant who only has found freedom by God's will.