Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, tiget. I answered for myself.
Here is what I meant:
I answered the OP, then KC answered the OP. You responded to KC's response to me rather than simply responding directly to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
IMO, there doesn't need to be "logical reasons to dismiss the argument". Is the burden of proof not on people making the claim that it is conclusive evidence of a creator?
Evidence can be and most often is, subjective. Evidence can be and most often is, fragmentary. Does the argument for absolutes, in-and-of-itself provide proof for the existence of a creator? Apparently, philosophers such as Kant have been convinced that it does. Others apparently disagree. Personally, I find all of the classical arguments to be reasonable and logical. I'm also convinced that we have a basically reliable account of the life and ministry of Christ and a basically reliable history of Christianity and the Christian church. Does this prove the existence of a creator? Is the "burden of proof" on me to demonstrate the reasonableness of that which has already been argued to be reasonable for hundreds of years? In other words, these things I've listed are what they are. It would seem logical to me to reason that those objecting to the classical arguments and the basic historical reliability of scripture, at the very least, are obliged to give a LOGICAL REASON for their objections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I don't see the argument as unreasonable, either.
This is contrary to the statement in your OP where you state that it "seems like a leap in logic." Have you undergone a sudden conversion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Are logical absolutes evidence that there *may* be a "God" or intelligent creator? Could be. It could also simply be the realities of the natural laws of the world in which we live and nothing more significant than that. Not that I mean to imply that is an insignificant thing, mind you.
I appreciate your honesty. The majority of responses I get at this point normally trail off to obfuscation and other assorted forms of pointless verbiage.
I answered the OP, then KC answered the OP. You responded to KC's response to me rather than simply responding directly to me.
I responded to KC's post because it roughly echoed the same thoughts I have. It seemed more efficient than responding to your post saying essentially the same thing that he/she said. What's the problem with that? Am I somehow obliged to respond directly to every post in this thread, simply because I started it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Evidence can be and most often is, subjective. Evidence can be and most often is, fragmentary. Does the argument for absolutes, in-and-of-itself provide proof for the existence of a creator? Apparently, philosophers such as Kant have been convinced that it does. Others apparently disagree. Personally, I find all of the classical arguments to be reasonable and logical.
Well, perhaps from a philisophical standpoint it does "prove" the existence of a creator. I'm not philosopher, so I choose to approach things from a more scientific angle. From that approach, I don't feel that logical absolutes are "proof" of anything more than what I've already stated. I might be right, but I may well be wrong - hence my asking for other opinions on the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm also convinced that we have a basically reliable account of the life and ministry of Christ and a basically reliable history of Christianity and the Christian church. Does this prove the existence of a creator? Is the "burden of proof" on me to demonstrate the reasonableness of that which has already been argued to be reasonable for hundreds of years? In other words, these things I've listed are what they are. It would seem logical to me to reason that those objecting to the classical arguments and the basic historical reliability of scripture at the very least are obliged to give a LOGICAL REASON for their objections.
And I believe I have. I think it's a rather significant assumption to say that since logical absolutes exist that means a personal creator must exist.
I would also disagree with the statement that we have a "basically reliable account of the life and ministry of Christ" or of the history of the Church. This "history" has been written, by and large, by Christians and people who stand to benefit, in earthly ways, from the advancement of the Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This is contrary to the statement in your OP where you state that it "seems like a leap in logic." Have you undergone a sudden conversion?
Not at all contrary. I said it's not an unreasonable argument, I did NOT say it was convincing argument. This is completely consistent with my OP, I feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I appreciate your honesty. The majority of responses I get at this point normally trail off to obfuscation and other assorted forms of pointless verbiage.
Thanks, and I yours. I started this thread with the hopes of calm, rational discussion of what are likely opposing views - we've done well so far, in my estimation. This wasn't a flame-bait thread or one designed only to elicit opinions that agree with mine.
I remain open to the possibility that an intelligent creator exists, I just don't see this argument as a particularly strong one for that opinion.
I responded to KC's post because it roughly echoed the same thoughts I have. It seemed more efficient than responding to your post saying essentially the same thing that he/she said. What's the problem with that? Am I somehow obliged to respond directly to every post in this thread, simply because I started it?
I don't see any problem with it. It just seemed to me that you were trying to avoid a direct one-on-one discussion with me. This was important due to KC's failure to respond to the primary point of my assertion. It just presented the appearance that you were attempting to evade a discussion of my assertion. Be that as it may, it's all water over the dam by now being that we are now obviously engaged in a one on one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Well, perhaps from a philisophical standpoint it does "prove" the existence of a creator. I'm not philosopher, so I choose to approach things from a more scientific angle. From that approach, I don't feel that logical absolutes are "proof" of anything more than what I've already stated. I might be right, but I may well be wrong - hence my asking for other opinions on the topic.
It seems to me that philosophy primarily concerns discussion of reason and logic. Hence, I don't see science as being any way in opposition to philosophy. Without reason and logic, there can be no real science IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
And I believe I have. I think it's a rather significant assumption to say that since logical absolutes exist that means a personal creator must exist.
You apparently opined that you find the argument for absolutes to be unconvincing. That's not the same thing as arguing logically in rebuttal to the argument itself. Unless I've missed something, this you have not done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I would also disagree with the statement that we have a "basically reliable account of the life and ministry of Christ" or of the history of the Church. This "history" has been written, by and large, by Christians and people who stand to benefit, in earthly ways, from the advancement of the Church.
...and it would logically follow that we should dismiss anything that anyone asserts about their own particular world view simply because they happen to be personally invested in said particular world view?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Not at all contrary. I said it's not an unreasonable argument, I did NOT say it was convincing argument. This is completely consistent with my OP, I feel.
We must agree to disagree I suppose. Both statements are there in writing and they are obviously contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Thanks, and I yours. I started this thread with the hopes of calm, rational discussion of what are likely opposing views - we've done well so far, in my estimation. This wasn't a flame-bait thread or one designed only to elicit opinions that agree with mine.
I remain open to the possibility that an intelligent creator exists, I just don't see this argument as a particularly strong one for that opinion.
My thanks to you as well. For what it's worth, I have not interpreted your OP to be "flame-bait."
ID is an artistic perspect and has nothing to do with logical absolutes.
The Demiurge Platonic arguments are basically the same, and they demonstrate that this "simple absolute original arguments" are the same in support of polytheism.
Religions are as exchangable as hats, you just wear which ever one is fashionable to you.
...It seems to me that philosophy primarily concerns discussion of reason and logic. Hence, I don't see science as being any way in opposition to philosophy. Without reason and logic, there can be no real science IMO.
I didn't say that philosophy was in opposition to science. I'm simply saying that I don't have any training or schooling in philosophy, so I'm in no place to put a judgement on the opinions of Kant and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You apparently opined that you find the argument for absolutes to be unconvincing. That's not the same thing as arguing logically in rebuttal to the argument itself. Unless I've missed something, this you have not done.
Perhaps you could explain why YOU feel the argument for logical absolutes *is* sufficient proof of an intelligent creator, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...and it would logically follow that we should dismiss anything that anyone asserts about their own particular world view simply because they happen to be personally invested in said particular world view?
That's a bit of oversimplification, no? Would you disagree that people who wrote/translated the early books of the Bible had a vested interest, both spiritually AND earthly (money, power, etc) in accentuating the positives and downplaying, if not omitting, any negatives? Should we then discount any likelihood that these sorts of things DID happen? I mean, Eusebius as much as admitted to doing precisely that in some of his writings, did he not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
We must agree to disagree I suppose. Both statements are there in writing and they are obviously contradictory.
How are they conradictory? How is "not unreasonable" the equivalent of "convincing" or "proof positive"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My thanks to you as well. For what it's worth, I have not interpreted your OP to be "flame-bait."
...The general presumption is that an absolute would imply the concept of something that would transcend humanity (relative concepts). Logically, in order to have a transcendent concept (logical or moral absolute apart from, and applicable to, all humans) one must have a transcendent source of authority - one that transcends all human forms of authority.
Does this still seem like a "leap" in logic?
To attempt to get this back on the original question - as I feel we've gotten a bit far off the track - here is your original response, tiget.
My answer: Yes, it still seems like a leap to say "one must have a transcendent source of authority" and positively link that to something like: One must have a transcendent source of authority and is proof that this source of authority is an intelligent creator of all things in our universe.
It's quite telling that you're the one forced to answer for the OP - really quite telling.
What does it tell you? It tells me you don't understand how a discussion forum works. Did you have anything else in mind when you wrote this, or was it a attempt as some sort of implied slur?
Quote:
Choosing to disagree with the implications of the argument does not address the apparent logic of the argument itself.
Not talking about the implications - the argument has as its premise that it is impossible for order to exist without the presence of a sentient god to create it. That's a pretty substantial jump. It's especially so since the conclusion of the argument is basically just restating this premise - which means it's a circular argument designed for an audience who already presupposes a particular view of god.
I didn't say that philosophy was in opposition to science. I'm simply saying that I don't have any training or schooling in philosophy, so I'm in no place to put a judgment on the opinions of Kant and others.
Again, I appreciate your honesty. I don't consider myself to be trained or schooled in philosophy either - other than reading a few books. I've come to appreciate the value of logic and reasoning in the field of epistemology - how, or what processes are used in order to come to have knowledge of anything in the first place. Science is basically about obtaining knowledge. Logic, reason in epistemology has to do with understanding how knowledge itself is understood/interpreted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Perhaps you could explain why YOU feel the argument for logical absolutes *is* sufficient proof of an intelligent creator, then?
I never offered it as sufficient proof. However, I do think that Kant makes a convincing argument. Basically, he concludes that humans must live as though moral absolutes do exist even if they in fact do not exist. He sees relative morality as being totally insufficient for maintaining the necessary degree of order necessary to allow for any true semblance of orderly society - at least, this is how I understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
That's a bit of oversimplification, no? Would you disagree that people who wrote/translated the early books of the Bible had a vested interest, both spiritually AND earthly (money, power, etc) in accentuating the positives and downplaying, if not omitting, any negatives? Should we then discount any likelihood that these sorts of things DID happen? I mean, Eusebius as much as admitted to doing precisely that in some of his writings, did he not?
No. Considering the simplicity of your original assertion, I think it reasonable to conclude that my response is on target. I mean, you've basically stated that we can't accept the Biblical record because it was apparently written by people with a vested interest. Am I missing something here?
As concerning Eusebius, you appear to be the one in the know - you tell me. If there are parts of the Bible that cannot be accepted as reliable due to Eusebius, please feel free to enlighten me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
How are they contradictory? How is "not unreasonable" the equivalent of "convincing" or "proof positive"?
From the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
The idea that logical absolutes are "proof" that there must be a "mind" or "creator" were brought up. I'm familiar with the premise, but I don't see the link where logical absolutes necessitate a creator. That seems like a leap in logic to me.
...and from post#10:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I don't see the argument as unreasonable, either. Are logical absolutes evidence that there *may* be a "God" or intelligent creator? Could be. It could also simply be the realities of the natural laws of the world in which we live and nothing more significant than that. Not that I mean to imply that is an insignificant thing, mind you.
Which is it? Is the argument a "leap in logic" or, is it reasonable?
My answer: Yes, it still seems like a leap to say "one must have a transcendent source of authority" and positively link that to something like: One must have a transcendent source of authority and is proof that this source of authority is an intelligent creator of all things in our universe.
Didn't you yourself do this in post #10?
I didn't link the transcendent being (law giver) to the creator - you did. Not that I would disagree of course.
What does it tell you? It tells me you don't understand how a discussion forum works. Did you have anything else in mind when you wrote this, or was it a attempt as some sort of implied slur?
No slur intended. I was just trying to get the initiator of the OP to engage me one-on-one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Not talking about the implications - the argument has as its premise that it is impossible for order to exist without the presence of a sentient god to create it. That's a pretty substantial jump. It's especially so since the conclusion of the argument is basically just restating this premise - which means it's a circular argument designed for an audience who already presupposes a particular view of god.
You're misstating my assertion - perhaps unintentionally. I basically stated that moral absolutes necessitate a transcendent being. In other words, a transcendent law would logically require the existence of a transcendent law giver. That's all. How would this equate to a "circular" argument?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
