Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:31-59|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Negotiations with Athiests

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:42:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM, joneszj wrote:

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an answer that makes me uncomfortable and so therefore cannot be true.

FTFY
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:43:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an infinite regressive that never actually begins. Or you have effects without prior cause. Now, I am just repeating myself.

You raised a complained about how some atheists reject the law of causality. But what you don't seem to understand is that in their view they aren't rejecting the law of causality, they are rejecting the special pleading that goes on.

1) All effects have a cause
2) God is not an effect

This clearly established things into two separate groups, things that are an effect things that are not (and thus don't need a cause, according to your rule on causality)

I think we would all like to know how exactly you identify which things are an effect and which are not, cause we just ain't going to buy some one who is arguing for the existence of God then exempts God with some kind of mystical language hand waiving.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:44:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm finding more and more that its the westerners who have the ridiculously oversimplified view of reality compared to the "incoherent" east. For instance, as you indicate, the idea that language is damn near omninopotent and if you can't fit a word around it, I'll be gosh-durned if we should acknowledge its existence.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:45:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:44:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm finding more and more that its the westerners who have the ridiculously oversimplified view of reality compared to the "incoherent" east. For instance, as you indicate, the idea that language is damn near omninopotent and if you can't fit a word around it, I'll be gosh-durned if we should acknowledge its existence.

Although Kant appreciably closed the gap b/w eastern and western epistemology.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:50:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is merely a tautology. An effect is, by definition, something that has a cause. To say that God does not have a cause because he is not an effect would be no different than saying God does not have a cause because he is not something that has a cause.
philochristos
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:51:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:38:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
Your complaint only makes sense from a Western viewpoint.

Logic is not eastern or western. It's just reality. If the west puts more value in logic than the east does, then so much the worse for eastern philosophy.

To say "this is not chalk" is to point to the fact that whenever we use words, we are imperfectly carving out reality by introducing DUALITIES. The transcendent is above all dualities, so the moment you have invoked a duality, you have failed to identify the transcendent.

You seem to make a clear distinction between a western way of thinking and an eastern way of thinking. One embraces the law of excluded middle, and one doesn't, but you don't seem to think it's both. If it were both, then we'd have to reject eastern philosophy since we'd be embracing the law of excluded middle.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:58:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:43:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an infinite regressive that never actually begins. Or you have effects without prior cause. Now, I am just repeating myself.

You raised a complained about how some atheists reject the law of causality. But what you don't seem to understand is that in their view they aren't rejecting the law of causality, they are rejecting the special pleading that goes on.

1) All effects have a cause
2) God is not an effect

This clearly established things into two separate groups, things that are an effect things that are not (and thus don't need a cause, according to your rule on causality)

I think we would all like to know how exactly you identify which things are an effect and which are not, cause we just ain't going to buy some one who is arguing for the existence of God then exempts God with some kind of mystical language hand waiving.

The necessity of a pure being is not a plea for God. It is a logical necessity. I just believe that necessity is God. Sc2.... or repeat myself.... SC2.... or repeat myself....... Hmmmmmm
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:00:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To introduce something nonsensical as if it were some profound observation is the disposition of madness.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:01:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:51:08 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:38:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
Your complaint only makes sense from a Western viewpoint.

Logic is not eastern or western. It's just reality. If the west puts more value in logic than the east does, then so much the worse for eastern philosophy.

To say "this is not chalk" is to point to the fact that whenever we use words, we are imperfectly carving out reality by introducing DUALITIES. The transcendent is above all dualities, so the moment you have invoked a duality, you have failed to identify the transcendent.

You seem to make a clear distinction between a western way of thinking and an eastern way of thinking. One embraces the law of excluded middle, and one doesn't, but you don't seem to think it's both. If it were both, then we'd have to reject eastern philosophy since we'd be embracing the law of excluded middle.

The law of excluded middle applies to that which is within maya i.e. within the illusion.

In Hinduism, that covers absolutely all empirical and intellectual phenomena. The only way to go beyond maya is to relinquish the very apparatus of knowledge which alloys you to make such distinctions.

Again, I give the simple example of Krishna's mother looking into her sons mouth and seeing the entire universe. You can apply common logical notions to this image, but they will inevitably fail at some point.

A westerner such as yourself might simply say "well, screw this, there can't be any meaning to anything that doesn't conform to set theory! This hindu stuff can't teach us anything its just incoherent incoherency!"

I consider that an unfortunate example of blindsided naivety.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:05:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 5:00:25 PM, Polaris wrote:
To introduce something nonsensical as if it were some profound observation is the disposition of madness.

What I am talking about is no more nonsensical than Kant claiming "nothing may be known about the thing in itself" while simultaneously making claims about space and time.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:07:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:58:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:43:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an infinite regressive that never actually begins. Or you have effects without prior cause. Now, I am just repeating myself.

You raised a complained about how some atheists reject the law of causality. But what you don't seem to understand is that in their view they aren't rejecting the law of causality, they are rejecting the special pleading that goes on.

1) All effects have a cause
2) God is not an effect

This clearly established things into two separate groups, things that are an effect things that are not (and thus don't need a cause, according to your rule on causality)

I think we would all like to know how exactly you identify which things are an effect and which are not, cause we just ain't going to buy some one who is arguing for the existence of God then exempts God with some kind of mystical language hand waiving.

The necessity of a pure being is not a plea for God. It is a logical necessity. I just believe that necessity is God. Sc2.... or repeat myself.... SC2.... or repeat myself....... Hmmmmmm

Atheists may not share that belief of "necessary being".

But lets put the ontological arguments to a side for a moment. My main focus was on the first point (I think made), that being how some atheists reject the law of causality.

At this point I would ask you to consider that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality (even according to your view of it) but rather your view of it then the added exemptions put in for God.

As such I think atheists can be acquitted on this charge at least.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Anonymous
2/9/2013 5:15:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction. Add to that the fact that Krishna isn't even really a "person" he IS the universe but is embodying himself within the universe to interact with people whose egos are simply confused, cut off versions of Kirshna's ultimate consciousness.

As to the law of non-contradiction, the "transcedent truth" by definition cannot be described by words which are imperfect representations. Therefore, any attempt to assign a characteristics or trait to the "transcendent truth" is folly. Both "A" and "not A" are incorrect answers to "what really exists."

Sound confusing?

F*cking right it is.

But Hindus have been practicing these beliefs for LONG before the Greeks were playing with angles and the Jews were whining about monotheism.

The mindf*ckery also justifies postmodern or Eastern interpretations.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:28:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:29:51 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:24:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:07:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:06:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

And that's why the "Uncaused cause" argument is special pleading. "Everything has to have a cause...well, except this thing".

But I am not pleading that God is an effect.

No, but the "uncaused cause" argument asserts that the universe must have had a cause, because everything has a cause, but god doesn't have a cause. Which is special pleading.

That is because the law does not state that everything must have a cause. Just every effect must have a cause.

This is merely a tautology. An effect is, by definition, something that has a cause. To say that God does not have a cause because he is not an effect would be no different than saying God does not have a cause because he is not something that has a cause.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:11:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 5:07:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:58:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:43:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an infinite regressive that never actually begins. Or you have effects without prior cause. Now, I am just repeating myself.

You raised a complained about how some atheists reject the law of causality. But what you don't seem to understand is that in their view they aren't rejecting the law of causality, they are rejecting the special pleading that goes on.

1) All effects have a cause
2) God is not an effect

This clearly established things into two separate groups, things that are an effect things that are not (and thus don't need a cause, according to your rule on causality)

I think we would all like to know how exactly you identify which things are an effect and which are not, cause we just ain't going to buy some one who is arguing for the existence of God then exempts God with some kind of mystical language hand waiving.

The necessity of a pure being is not a plea for God. It is a logical necessity. I just believe that necessity is God. Sc2.... or repeat myself.... SC2.... or repeat myself....... Hmmmmmm

Atheists may not share that belief of "necessary being".

I think you see what I am saying. I don't know if blade or pol do though.

But lets put the ontological arguments to a side for a moment. My main focus was on the first point (I think made), that being how some atheists reject the law of causality.

At this point I would ask you to consider that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality (even according to your view of it) but rather your view of it then the added exemptions put in for God.

I am a little confused here. The way I am reading your statement says that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality even as I understand the law of causality. Then you say that it is my view of causality and the added exemptions put it. To me it seems like that atheist agrees with A and then rejects A at the same time. Are you trying to say the atheist agrees with A but not the exemptions I put in it?

If the latter is the case I would like to be shown logically how the deductions are false. The plea (if it is that) is not for God, but for the necessity of a pure ontological (ppl tend to be thrown off by that word so I didn't use it until I saw you use it) being.

As such I think atheists can be acquitted on this charge at least.

Idk, one can't speak for all atheists but I have had plenty of encounters where atheists do reject the law all together. Or, they reject a logical conclusion because I used the word God, or even 'being' because they think being equals God or personal thing (I think that is happening in this very post). And then they don't recognize the results of their fury. I even think Hume offered an alternative to the law of causality.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:35:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 5:15:23 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:13:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 1:33:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
Thanks J, can you give me an example of one of your discussions where the law of non-contradiction was negotiated or rejected? I can't seem to think of one in my own experience.

I used to run into that a lot in my philosophy classes in college. I had a professor who was a Mahayana Buddhist, and he openly rejected the universal validity of the laws of logic. He had a few of the students confused, too, and I used to argue with them and with the professor. One day, I got frustrated and wrote this parody:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

It's understandable that you find eastern though confusing, but you making some rather grave mistakes in trying to apply first order logic, law of non-contradiction, and such to eastern religions and then evaluating the the religion based on those standards.

For instance, one of the key religious symbols of the Vaishnyavs (followers of the Hindu Vedas) is of Krishna in his mothers arms. Krishna opens his mouth, and the mother can see the entire universe inside it.

Now, in western terminology, this is nonsensical. It breaks basic set theory, not to mention causality and non-contradiction. Add to that the fact that Krishna isn't even really a "person" he IS the universe but is embodying himself within the universe to interact with people whose egos are simply confused, cut off versions of Kirshna's ultimate consciousness.

As to the law of non-contradiction, the "transcedent truth" by definition cannot be described by words which are imperfect representations. Therefore, any attempt to assign a characteristics or trait to the "transcendent truth" is folly. Both "A" and "not A" are incorrect answers to "what really exists."

Sound confusing?

F*cking right it is.

But Hindus have been practicing these beliefs for LONG before the Greeks were playing with angles and the Jews were whining about monotheism.

The mindf*ckery also justifies postmodern or Eastern interpretations.

What you call mindf*ckery is as obvious to Hindus as the Holy Trinity is to Christians.

Post-modernism is for the most part nothing but the acknowledgement of the universality of deconstructionism followed by a snarky attitude towards any statement, no matter how trivially true, based on a contrary worldview (i.e. anyone who wants to claim anything of substance). Postmodernists would deny the Hindus have the ability to coherently describe "maya" or something along those lines.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:41:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:11:15 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:07:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:58:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:43:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:27:15 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:23:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:02:09 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:54:35 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:30:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

No

Perhaps for you. What about Relativists? I am sure there are atheists that are also relativists.

2 the Law of Causality

Obviously, there are more than one laws of causality, e.g. Aristotelean, liebnizian, etc. So we have to reject one "law". Only an ignorant scholar or layman would 'accept'the law of causality in a philosophical discussion. It's like accepting the existence of God: be specific. You might accept a Christian one, but this is likely different to what others are taking about.

Ok, then tell me which law of causality am I describing: every effect must have a cause.


Then the question can be asked, is God an effect ? cause if so, according to your own law it has a cause.

Yeah yeah, we all know what is coming next.........but God doesn't have a cause. In order to maintain your law of causality you have to assume that God is not an "effect".

We do not consider God an effect. We consider Him to be pure being.

Then the question is, how are you determining what is and is not an effect ? in your law of cause and effect.

An effect is something that is caused to happen. I suppose this is circular and axiomatic.

Not good enough. Lets look look over your points....

1) All effects must have a cause
2) God is not an effect

Question: How are you determining what is and is not an effect ?

Answer: Well I said something about pure being so that gets me out of the dillema right ?

Nope.

I hope this isn't your apologetic course answer, cause if so, I'd suggest your look else where.

This is a gripe with many atheists, once a theist lays down many rules to get to God, then God its self is exempted from those rules that got you there in the first place....special pleading.

"Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Source [1] http://rationalwiki.org...

You are just repeating yourself. There is a logical necessity for a pure being. Else, you have an infinite regressive that never actually begins. Or you have effects without prior cause. Now, I am just repeating myself.

You raised a complained about how some atheists reject the law of causality. But what you don't seem to understand is that in their view they aren't rejecting the law of causality, they are rejecting the special pleading that goes on.

1) All effects have a cause
2) God is not an effect

This clearly established things into two separate groups, things that are an effect things that are not (and thus don't need a cause, according to your rule on causality)

I think we would all like to know how exactly you identify which things are an effect and which are not, cause we just ain't going to buy some one who is arguing for the existence of God then exempts God with some kind of mystical language hand waiving.

The necessity of a pure being is not a plea for God. It is a logical necessity. I just believe that necessity is God. Sc2.... or repeat myself.... SC2.... or repeat myself....... Hmmmmmm

Atheists may not share that belief of "necessary being".

I think you see what I am saying. I don't know if blade or pol do though.

But lets put the ontological arguments to a side for a moment. My main focus was on the first point (I think made), that being how some atheists reject the law of causality.

At this point I would ask you to consider that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality (even according to your view of it) but rather your view of it then the added exemptions put in for God.

I am a little confused here. The way I am reading your statement says that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality even as I understand the law of causality. Then you say that it is my view of causality and the added exemptions put it. To me it seems like that atheist agrees with A and then rejects A at the same time. Are you trying to say the atheist agrees with A but not the exemptions I put in it?

The special pleading comes in, in how various things are just said to exist with cause or without cause, in this case God gets a pass, nothing else seems to. That in its self shows the special pleading nature of this kind of argument.

You may think that some form of argument based on necessary existence justifies that exemption, but until shown how an atheist isn't committed to allowing the special pleading in the case of God just because you accept such an argument.

So in short without assuming the soundness of some form of ontological argument for the existence of God, you can't use an argument from causality to get to God since you need the truth of the ontological argument to exempt God from your causality argument.

Didn't David Hume say something about he found various cosmological arguments to really be ontological arguments in disguise ?


If the latter is the case I would like to be shown logically how the deductions are false. The plea (if it is that) is not for God, but for the necessity of a pure ontological (ppl tend to be thrown off by that word so I didn't use it until I saw you use it) being.


As such I think atheists can be acquitted on this charge at least.

Idk, one can't speak for all atheists but I have had plenty of encounters where atheists do reject the law all together. Or, they reject a logical conclusion because I used the word God, or even 'being' because they think being equals God or personal thing (I think that is happening in this very post). And then they don't recognize the results of their fury. I even think Hume offered an alternative to the law of causality.

When "being" is mentioned yes, it comes out sounding like "personal", to avoid confusion probably better to just say "stuff" or
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:51:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 5:05:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:00:25 PM, Polaris wrote:
To introduce something nonsensical as if it were some profound observation is the disposition of madness.

What I am talking about is no more nonsensical than Kant claiming "nothing may be known about the thing in itself" while simultaneously making claims about space and time.

To suppose that if Kant were to defy logic is not to say that Hinduism isn't (or doesn't).
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:55:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:40:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:29:51 PM, joneszj wrote:

That is because the law does not state that everything must have a cause. Just every effect must have a cause.

The "Uncaused cause" argument for god asserts things are effects without ever establishing why other than an induction that we know breaks down at a specific point. Then it asserts that God isn't an effect, without ever establishing why that is. It's the quintessential version of special pleading.

"Why can't the universe have caused itself?"
"Because that which doesn't exist yet cannot participate in it's own creation."
"Then what caused God?"
"That which is eternal requires no cause."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:26:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 8:55:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:

"Why can't the universe have caused itself?"
"Because that which doesn't exist yet cannot participate in it's own creation."
Why can't the universe be eternal? We know that this form of the universe is finite, but that is exactly the limit of our knowledge.

"Then what caused God?"
"That which is eternal requires no cause."

Upon what do you base that? Before the universe, time has no meaning.

And "that which is eternal requires no cause" is no different than an infinite regression, and as I recall someone thought an infinite regression was no answer.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:29:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:51:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:05:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:00:25 PM, Polaris wrote:
To introduce something nonsensical as if it were some profound observation is the disposition of madness.

What I am talking about is no more nonsensical than Kant claiming "nothing may be known about the thing in itself" while simultaneously making claims about space and time.

To suppose that if Kant were to defy logic is not to say that Hinduism isn't (or doesn't).

If you think Kant's mere postulation of a thing in itself alongside a means of describing phenomena defies logic, then your problem is quite a bit deeper than Hinduism.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:45:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:41:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I am a little confused here. The way I am reading your statement says that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality even as I understand the law of causality. Then you say that it is my view of causality and the added exemptions put it. To me it seems like that atheist agrees with A and then rejects A at the same time. Are you trying to say the atheist agrees with A but not the exemptions I put in it?

The special pleading comes in, in how various things are just said to exist with cause or without cause, in this case God gets a pass, nothing else seems to. That in its self shows the special pleading nature of this kind of argument.

You may think that some form of argument based on necessary existence justifies that exemption, but until shown how an atheist isn't committed to allowing the special pleading in the case of God just because you accept such an argument.

How can the atheist say that he is actually discussing God if he is merely ascribing human-like attributes to Him?? Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes him God. If the atheist insists that this is special pleading, then no discussion is possible unless the theist capitulates and makes God human-like. The fact that changing a deity to a mortal is the consequence of not allowing it, it would seem to me to justify the exception.

So in short without assuming the soundness of some form of ontological argument for the existence of God, you can't use an argument from causality to get to God since you need the truth of the ontological argument to exempt God from your causality argument.

Didn't David Hume say something about he found various cosmological arguments to really be ontological arguments in disguise ?


If the latter is the case I would like to be shown logically how the deductions are false. The plea (if it is that) is not for God, but for the necessity of a pure ontological (ppl tend to be thrown off by that word so I didn't use it until I saw you use it) being.



As such I think atheists can be acquitted on this charge at least.

Idk, one can't speak for all atheists but I have had plenty of encounters where atheists do reject the law all together. Or, they reject a logical conclusion because I used the word God, or even 'being' because they think being equals God or personal thing (I think that is happening in this very post). And then they don't recognize the results of their fury. I even think Hume offered an alternative to the l
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:53:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:45:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:

How can the atheist say that he is actually discussing God if he is merely ascribing human-like attributes to Him?? Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes him God. If the atheist insists that this is special pleading, then no discussion is possible unless the theist capitulates and makes God human-like. The fact that changing a deity to a mortal is the consequence of not allowing it, it would seem to me to justify the exception.


So what you're saying is that it's not special pleading, it's begging the question.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:00:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:26:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 8:55:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:

"Why can't the universe have caused itself?"
"Because that which doesn't exist yet cannot participate in it's own creation."
Why can't the universe be eternal? We know that this form of the universe is finite, but that is exactly the limit of our knowledge.

It can't be eternal since you just said it's finite. There is no other "form" of the universe unless you propose something else and that would be considered supernatural.

"Then what caused God?"
"That which is eternal requires no cause."

Upon what do you base that?

The Bible.

Before the universe, time has no meaning.

Time is not applicable to God.

And "that which is eternal requires no cause" is no different than an infinite regression, and as I recall someone thought an infinite regression was no answer.

There is a huge difference between a single eternal uncaused cause, and an infinite regression of uncaused causes. Besides, if something is eternal then it has no beginning. If it has no beginning then asking what caused it is an incoherent question.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:14:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:53:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:45:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:

How can the atheist say that he is actually discussing God if he is merely ascribing human-like attributes to Him?? Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes him God. If the atheist insists that this is special pleading, then no discussion is possible unless the theist capitulates and makes God human-like. The fact that changing a deity to a mortal is the consequence of not allowing it, it would seem to me to justify the exception.



So what you're saying is that it's not special pleading, it's begging the question.

No, it's calling a foul where none exists.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:32:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:45:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 6:41:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I am a little confused here. The way I am reading your statement says that the atheist is not rejecting the law of causality even as I understand the law of causality. Then you say that it is my view of causality and the added exemptions put it. To me it seems like that atheist agrees with A and then rejects A at the same time. Are you trying to say the atheist agrees with A but not the exemptions I put in it?

The special pleading comes in, in how various things are just said to exist with cause or without cause, in this case God gets a pass, nothing else seems to. That in its self shows the special pleading nature of this kind of argument.

You may think that some form of argument based on necessary existence justifies that exemption, but until shown how an atheist isn't committed to allowing the special pleading in the case of God just because you accept such an argument.

How can the atheist say that he is actually discussing God if he is merely ascribing human-like attributes to Him?? Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes him God. If the atheist insists that this is special pleading, then no discussion is possible unless the theist capitulates and makes God human-like. The fact that changing a deity to a mortal is the consequence of not allowing it, it would seem to me to justify the exception.

So in short without assuming the soundness of some form of ontological argument for the existence of God, you can't use an argument from causality to get to God since you need the truth of the ontological argument to exempt God from your causality argument.

Didn't David Hume say something about he found various cosmological arguments to really be ontological arguments in disguise ?

Might help to pay attention Medic, what I have being going over with the original poster is there various claims on cause and effects. There have being all sorts of claims like....

1) All effects have causes
2) God is not effect

When pressed on such issues as to what is and isn't an effect, you know something more substantial than just a mere assertion about God and how God doesn't need a cause because because God isn't an effect, something as pertains as to what exactly the rules are for cause and effect, well we get God is a pure being, necessary existence exists and that's God.

So no its not the case its just about atheists not allowing the possibility of God and making him into a mortal, it's examining among other things the consistency of the rules of casuality when its used to argue for God. What does one mean by cause ? what does mean by effect ? how do we determine if something is or is not an effect ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 11:40:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 11:00:03 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:26:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 8:55:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:

"Why can't the universe have caused itself?"
"Because that which doesn't exist yet cannot participate in it's own creation."
Why can't the universe be eternal? We know that this form of the universe is finite, but that is exactly the limit of our knowledge.

It can't be eternal since you just said it's finite. There is no other "form" of the universe unless you propose something else and that would be considered supernatural.

No. Reread the sentence. We know events from .00000000001 (approx.) after the big bang; we have no grounds on which to rest any claim before that. Thus, while this form of the universe is not eternal, for all we know there has been an infinite number of big bounces, or perhaps when the universe has expanded to a certain point a new universe forms necessarily. The point is not that it can't be god, but rather, that you assert it must be god, and you base that assertion on no rational reasoning.


"Then what caused God?"
"That which is eternal requires no cause."

Upon what do you base that?

The Bible.

So no rational reasoning then, but rather faith alone. Check.


Before the universe, time has no meaning.

Time is not applicable to God.

And "that which is eternal requires no cause" is no different than an infinite regression, and as I recall someone thought an infinite regression was no answer.

There is a huge difference between a single eternal uncaused cause, and an infinite regression of uncaused causes. Besides, if something is eternal then it has no beginning. If it has no beginning then asking what caused it is an incoherent question.

Not really; you're proposing an infinite and eternal being, I propose that it's possible there's simply an infinite and eternal universe. If that's true, asking what started the universe is an incoherent question until we've established that the universe, as a whole, did indeed start, and all we know based on the evidence is that at one point the universe was so small and dense that all of our laws of physics broke down.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 12:53:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

I accept that law.

2 the Law of Causality

There is no way to prove this law is true, but since there is no example of this law being false, I accept it as most likely true.

3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception

I accept that sense perception is mostly accurate for most individuals. However some senses are weaker than others and there are situations when they do fail us and there are some individuals who don't have reliable senses.

4 and the Analogical use of Language

language can be used analogically, however most of the time it is used literally, so it is the duty of the reader to properly interpret which of these two forms the language is taking on.

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!

Why are you asking theists about atheist viewpoints? Why don't you just ask atheists about atheist viewpoints? This indicates that you are living in a bubble.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 8:21:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:29:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 6:51:13 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:05:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:00:25 PM, Polaris wrote:
To introduce something nonsensical as if it were some profound observation is the disposition of madness.

What I am talking about is no more nonsensical than Kant claiming "nothing may be known about the thing in itself" while simultaneously making claims about space and time.

To suppose that if Kant were to defy logic is not to say that Hinduism isn't (or doesn't).

If you think Kant's mere postulation of a thing in itself alongside a means of describing phenomena defies logic, then your problem is quite a bit deeper than Hinduism.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Kant's postulation whether logical or illogical has no bearing on the logical coherence of Hinduism.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 8:50:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:52:03 AM, joneszj wrote:
So, I am taking the apologetic's track with Logonier ministries and Sproul mentions that he noticed a pattern in debating Atheists and historic Atheistiic thought. He says that throughout history Atheists have negotiated or rejected one or more of the following:

1 the law of Non-Contradiction

I"ve come across this from time to time, it sometimes comes up in mathematics or physics discussions from people who just like to be contrarian, but whether or not the people who challenge it are atheists or not didn"t seem relevant. I wouldn't characterize it as an atheist thing.

2 the Law of Causality

In philosophical discussions sure, again, not necessarily atheists.

3 the principle of the basic reliability of sense perception

All the time, from Atheists and Believers alike, I"m a believer and I don"t see sense perception as all that reliable myself.

4 and the Analogical use of Language

All the time, I think there"s probably more literalist Atheists than there are literalist believers, literally.

My question is aimed towards theists. Have you encountered in your discussions any of the above being negotiated of rejected in your discussion with non-theists? If so, how? Non-theists, if you want to make mention things theists reject I ask that you make a new thread please. Thanks so much!!!

I can"t really characterize any discussions I have with atheists as a "negotiation", just not something I do.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.