T
tonyrey
Guest
There is no evidence that accidents have ever provided such a basis nor does any reasonable person rely on accidents to make important decisions.
- An accidental universe is not a credible basis for order, value, purpose, meaning or a rational existence.
Why would we necessarily expect this? It may be less likely for order to result from accidental occurrences, but it is hardly impossible. And not all natural, unintended events are, strictly speaking, accidental - there’s a difference between cause-and-effect and pure chance.3. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…
All natural, unintended events occur within a fundamentally orderly system. An accidental universe has no such framework.
Why does perception of fact presuppose reason? Surely it only presupposes some degree of sensory accuracy and ability to cross-reference between experiences.4. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.
The perception of physical objects is different from the “perception” of abstract, intangible facts. Cross-references by animals are not the result of abstract insight but conditioned responses.
This assumes that the only possibility is a foundational construction of knowledge. In reality, most people do not work as Descartes assumed, and build knowledge in a bottom-up fashion from one or two unassailable axioms - rather, it is constructed as a broad-ranging web of mutually-supportive scaffolding. And maybe there is no ‘ultimate’ explanation for the ‘power’ of reason - maybe it’s just an ongoing process of construction.5. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.
Intellectual constructions cannot be achieved without insight or understanding.
Facts are direct representations of existing circumstances; logic is based upon the observable operations of reality. Neither would exist without mind-external bases.6. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.
Facts refer not only to existing circumstances but also to past, present and future events, situations and relations, logical truths and mathematical values . Logic is based on the abstract principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle.
Without the mind there would be no knowledge of facts or logical truths - and the mind itself is the source of all interpreted information.
Yet ironically, it is science that has done the most to refute the possibility of supernatural design.7. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.
Science has done nothing to refute Design because it is restricted to physical entities, events and situations.
Again, an unproblematic statement in itself, but there is no evidence that reason is fundamental to the universe - at least, not the definition of reason you have previously elucidated.8. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.
Order, value, purpose, meaning, logical truths and mathematical values all presuppose a rational foundation.
Yes. And?9. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.
It is a clearly inadequate explanation which has led many people - including the atheist Professor Thomas Nagel - to doubt the truth of materialism.
As Daniel Dennett said, if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise anything.10. The materialist is determined to externalise all internal experience.
If you externalise everything you are not only undermining your own conclusion but annihilating yourself! Where do you stop on the slippery slope to nihilism?
