How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Patty23]

Isn’t the problem of good harder to comprehend than the problem of evil?

I mean why do good? What’s the reason if there are no objective and a priori good? One can say to avoid pain, are we saying therefore that pleasure is higher than good? Since we do the good only to obtain pleasure? But not all that are pleasurable are morally good, say prostitution maybe, or what if you’re a psycho killer and killing is pleasurable to you. Then what is THE good and if there’s such a thing why choose it?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Perplexity,

I have really taken that as far as I can. But we can try something else.

To the best of my knowledge, things can be divided into two major categories: order and non-order (or chaos). One of the attributres of order is the ability to identify a pattern. It really does not make any difference what it is you are looking at - does it replicate in a way that further replications can be reasonably predicted.

If things just happen in a universe of chaos, then replication would be truly unique - but, all of our sciences are based on the premise that the universe is ultimately knowable - and we learn what we can from watching any physical item progress from one state to another. For example, given the right temperatures, a cube of ice will melt into a body of water and the will progress to steam as the termperature is raised. Iron will naturally combine with water and form iron oxide or rust. We can say that this is obvious and most have taken it for granted - but, the issue is that these changes are predictable because they follow a pattern.

The existence of predictable behaviors that can be described in an orderly way - shows order and the apparent lack of chaos (remembrer we will probably never have all of the variables that actually do effect any predicted outcome - but, given enogh repititions, a pattern becomes visible. If there is a pattern, there must be a Pattern Maker - for most theists, He is called God.

So, the issue is that since predictable outcomes in all of nature, imply that there are patterns of behavior and that ordered behavior or outcomes just does not consistently happen - how could this be unless there was a God to bring all of this about?

I trust you can address this question.

God bless

Sorry tqualey, the reason I didn’t reply to your post then was because I didn’t really understand what you were saying.

My objection was simply that Aquinas’ first two ways begged the questions. I didn’t really see a response to that objection in what you said. For instance you say:

I never claimed anything was infinite. To say God alone is infinite isn’t just to equivocate the word ‘infinite’ as Aquinas and I would understand it, but would just beg the question again, if it was univocal (or analogous I suppose).

You did allege that my objection was circular but the way you explicated that (e.g., with reference to ‘dating’ etc.) didn’t make sense to me, so I can’t really respond to that.

I mean you bring up things like Big Bang cosmology and entropy etc. I’m not sure what that has to do with whether Aquinas’ arguments beg the question. I don’t understand your use of the word ‘logic’ either, it’s quite foreign to me.

So, rather than take shots in the dark, I suppose I’d just ask you to clarify your response: why doesn’t Aquinas’ first two ways beg the question in the way I claimed?

 

[Bobber90]

You are assuming that rationality exists but in an irrational universe it would be an anomaly. Since rationality is necessarily purposeful purposeless rationality is a self-contradiction. Truth must be a human delusion and total scepticism is the only possibility…

I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense to me. What bearing does it have on truth?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense to me. What bearing does it have on truth?

1. Truth can only be recognised by rational beings.
2. In an irrational universe rational beings are an anomaly.
3. Therefore in an irrational universe truth is irrelevant.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense to me. What bearing does it have on truth?

A universe that is fundamentally irrational shouldn’t make any sense. There should not be any such thing as rational truth.

 

[tonyrey]

A universe that is fundamentally irrational shouldn’t make any sense.

Great minds think alike…

 

[tonyrey]

Isn’t the problem of good harder to comprehend than the problem of evil?

I mean why do good? What’s the reason if there are no objective and a priori good? One can say to avoid pain, are we saying therefore that pleasure is higher than good? Since we do the good only to obtain pleasure? But not all that are pleasurable are morally good, say prostitution maybe, or what if you’re a psycho killer and killing is pleasurable to you. Then what is THE good and if there’s such a thing why choose it?

A very good point.

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobber90,

The idea is NOT ownership in the codified modern west - it is ownership throughout the history of mankind. It is obviously a developed concept - moving from hunter/gatherer to iPhone-Man… But, it is all there for anyone to see if they look. Yes, some groups really do share common items - but, this does not negate that individual members of that same group having personal property. Different cultures express the concept of private property differently - but, this is not the issue. The fact is that they do express this concept - and as we on the outside look at it being expressed by different people at different times - we just can not attribute to coinsidence. There is something really going on here - and it is objective.

To dismiss objective morality (e.g., stealing and murder are always viewed by others as wrong - especially if you are stealing my stuff and are trying to kill me in the process! Laws in all societies were developed initially to deal with this. Now, going out to steal and kill from a competing tribe may be seen as acceptable - but doing this within one’s group is a tabo.

The act of ‘subjectivizing’ morality puts all of morality on the path to destruction. Because everything now becomes relative - with me in the center, and this just spins out of control into chaos. Here is a very contemporary example - with the short-term ending yet to be decided. Look at the so-called ‘Occupy’ phenomenon - beginning in NY, then London, Rome and , last I heard…Oakland. here you have unemployed (?) people who claim a grievance against capitalism in general and some individuals in particular. Puble space is being taken over - occupied - and the rights of other innocent individuals working /living in the area have been totally disprespected. Now, we have a societal conflict that is not going away because this ‘Occupy’ group is leaderless, devoid of specific goals and is facing increasing hostility from authority figures who have been confounded with how to go back to the status quo. While I am personally surprised this has lasted as long as it has - it really can not last much longer. Eventually, the parks will be given back to the community - but, then the question will come up, was there some objective moral law that was being violated.

I submit that the community’s sense are requirement for their community property has been taken over, trashed (literally and figuratively) and innocent people have been intimidated. The vandalizing of Roman churches, Oakland buildings and privately owned autos is another example of objective morality being trampled by some and observed by all who care to witness.

There may be some who wonder about the agrieved ‘Occupy’ protestors - but, therir grievance does not give them the objective right to steal (time, space, private property, etc.) from others. While this has never happened before (and local mayors were unprepared for it) I do not think it will continue into a cold winter - and when they leave, there will be restrictions on such action happening again. This is the nature of an organized society… of objective morality put within the context of daily reality.

God bless

Firstly, I agree that stealing is bad, but how is it necessarily objectively bad? How can one argue from consensus to objectivity? Also, given that we cannot say that it is objectively grounded, but we can see the subjective bases to this sentiment, how can we distinguish between objective/subjective morality on a daily basis? It is plainly wrong to say that subjective morality is destructive, because that it the only thing which makes moral rules definitely moral.

Secondly, the Occupy Wall Street movement is indeed about theft, but it is about more than the alleged theft of public spaces by members of the public. They describe themselves as:

‘the "99 per cent’ of the population whose livelihoods are threatened by the financial crisis, as opposed to the 1% of wealthy Americans still raking in profit. “We are the 99 percent,” says the group on its Tumblr site. “We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we are working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.”’

(pennyred.blogspot.com/)

If there was ever a great synergy between the economics of capitalism and the politics of democratic citizenship, it is peeling apart here. The neoliberal modes have not sustained a beneficial trickle-down, and what seems like the direction of the entire world economy has been put in the hands of the relatively few, much less than the 1%. Given that it has gone belly up and highlighted these bad aspects of current capitalism, I think something like the OWS movement is an appropriate response.

 

[Bobber90]

A universe that is fundamentally irrational shouldn’t make any sense. There should not be any such thing as rational truth.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves; I meant the post made no sense to me. Can you explain what meaning that addition ‘rational’ adds to the concept of truth? I do not think it is related at all. Where does logic come into the true statement that I can see 2 apples in front of me?

 

[Bobber90]

1. Truth can only be recognised by rational beings.
2. In an irrational universe rational beings are an anomaly.
3. Therefore in an irrational universe truth is irrelevant.

1. Truth does not need to be recognised to exist, you are heading towards a discussion on knowledge. Knowledge requires truth to be recognised.
2. You seem to be confusing the concept of rational. The universe cannot be rational in the way a human can: it cannot reason. The universe can be highly patterned and yet impersonal, which is also a point related to epistemology (eg how do we know the sun will rise tomorrow questions) and not simply the concept of truth. If the entirety of the universe could not reason, then we could not reason, but we could still utter meaningless truths. Negating a living divinity does not negate both meanings of rational.
3. Truth doesn’t even need rationality to be relevant. If we cluelessly and irrationally held that eating pink custard on a friday in the company of unicorns would be lethal, we could still save our own lives if that ‘fact’ turned out to be true.

 

[Perplexity]

tqualey:

I’ve translated your argument (or my understanding of it) into first-order logic. This isn’t meant to be insulting in any sense at all, I just like to stand an argument on its strongest legs before evaluating it, and this seemed like a good means to that end. I apologize in advance if it turns out this argument misrepresents your thoughts:

1. Given any (x), if (x) has order then (x) is a pattern. [Premise]
2. Given any (x), if (x) is a pattern then (x) has a pattern maker. [Premise]
3. The predictable behavior of nature has order. [Premise]
4. Therefore, the predictable behavior of nature is a pattern. (1), (3), UI, M.P.]
5. Therefore, the predictable behavior of nature has a pattern maker. (2), (4), UI, M.P.]

As you may notice this isn’t an argument for God: it’s for a pattern maker, which could be inanimate etc. I can grant the argument (although I wouldn’t) and not feel the least compelled to thereby believe in God. If ‘pattern maker’ simply refers to the cause of the pattern, I really see nothing theistic here. However, you do make the further claim:

1. He is called God.

Now of course, (6) can’t be derived from anything you’ve said thus far. (i.e., there is no rule of inference by which you could deduce (6) from any premise of your argument).

So, without (6) I’d say the argument isn’t for God, and with (6) I’d say it’s logically invalid. Perhaps more importantly, none of the premises lend evidential support to (6). [The premises of a logically invalid argument can still carry considerable evidential force for the conclusion, these are known as ampliative arguments]

That said, I do think (2) will end up being false once you clarify what ‘pattern maker’ really means. but, for now I feel my response suffices.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves; I meant the post made no sense to me. Can you explain what meaning that addition ‘rational’ adds to the concept of truth? I do not think it is related at all. Where does logic come into the true statement that I can see 2 apples in front of me?

To say that you see two apples is to be aware of a rational distinction concerning the nature or quantity of the perceived objects; that one is not the other, and that there is in fact two instead of one.

 

[Bobber90]

To say that you see two apples is to be aware of a rational distinction concerning objects; that one is not the other, and that there is in fact two instead of one.

Logic comes into the formulation (grammar) and the comprehension of the sentence, but not its truth.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Logic comes into the formulation (grammar) and the comprehension of the sentence, but not its truth.

A thing is true because of its logical distinctions. Its not just grammar. In-order for you to recognize that there is in fact two apples, such requires to be aware of the objectively rational/logical distinction between the two, which may involve qualitative or quantitative distinctions. You are aware of that objectively rational/logical distinction, and thats why you recognize it as two apples and not one.

 

[Bobber90]

Actually, I see your point. Truth is a human thing and not just a correspondence between two things which happen to be the same. The correspondence is between the meaning of the sentence and reality, so it cannot be said that something affects only the meaning of the sentence but not its truth. I can drop that criticism of tonyrey’s point, and it blurs the distinction between truth and knowledge I think. However, only if everything is unreasoning or impossible to reason about can the existence of truth be impossible. Truth needs a thinker in order to occur, but it is unaffected by a lack of order or divinely granted meaning in the universe. We could claim, truly, that the universe is nothing but a bunch of random agglomerations of matter and forces.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…Truth needs a thinker in order to occur…

Sounds like you may be having a thought similar to my own. In another thread I’m trying to get an understanding for value without a valuer since my understanding a “value” is that it is a relationship between something that can assign value and something to be valued.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So “supposing” I concede this, that and the other thing . . . . Just come out and agree or disagree that an infinite series of causes (movers) is impossible. This isn’t that difficult.

All right. I don’t believe that an infinite series of causes is possible.

Hi, Shredderbeam,

Nice try …

I admit, taking on St. Thomas Aquinas is no substitute for an after diner brandy … but, let’s take a look at what you have here …

Basically, you conceeded to St. Thomas’ arguments but want to base your argument on a quibble… I really did expect better, Shredderbeam. Since you agree to the argument about an infinite chain of movers being inconceivable - you do not like the word ‘God’. OK. Honest, I can deal with that. You may call the Unmoved Mover, the Ultimate Pattern Maker or anything you like, because you have acknowledged its existence.

Well, I wouldn’t call it a “quibble”. This argument proves the existence of a first cause, yes, but nothing more. It does not prove that the first cause is loving, has a plan for us, had a son, or even that it is sentient. It could be called “God”, certainly, but to do so risks conflation.
"tqualey:

Now, when it comes to Qualities of the Unmoved Mover - I would be interested in knowing what you would ascribe to this Being that the rest of us call ‘God’.

I don’t know what qualities it has.

tqualey:

The question about a design for the universe has come up from many different people at many different times in the history of mankind. But, my view is really quite simple. Let me give you an example. A Speaker once said, “Look at the lilies as they grow …” (Luke 12:27) - so, let’s do that… The first thing a lot of people notice is that there are many flowers gowing together and they look very similar as they share about the same height, leaf pattern, petal arrangement, color and many other characteristics. This is evident by even a small child being able to distinguish between a lilly and another type of flower growing close by. Upon closer examination we find that no two lillies are exactly alike - there are subtle differences.

My view is that the Ultimate Pattern Maker really did make a pattern for lilies. It is not so random that chaos is the only product. To repeat anything means that there is a pattern in place - our job is to just acknowledge it. There is no recorded evidence of a group of flowers negotiating on the next season’s design - year after year they appear. Let’s move up a notch to a more complex life form: insects.

We have recorded evidence from ancient Egypt of honey bees and that there were beekeepers who really did gather honey. And the drawing made of the bees, the honeycomb and the hives are remarkable for the established patterns we see today.

Look at this with an objective eye and I think you will see that God really does exist.

God bless

Why do you think that the patterns are produced by a designer?

Depending on what you mean by “debate” - you may have demonstrated my point. It usually implies winning a argument.

Well, I’d imagine that very few people would enter a debate expecting/hoping to lose.

In general, though, if I am proved wrong on a point, I will reconsider my position.

Shredderbeam:

May I inquire as to just which attributes that God is said to possess that are not demonstrated by these two arguments? (Relative to the arguments, of course.) From my POV, I would say that God should possess maximal causal capability. This would include, among other determinants, timelessness and omnipotence.

The attributes of sentience, creativity, intelligence, and so on.

The argument doesn’t demonstrate maximal causal capacity. It only demonstrated that there was an original cause.

JDaniel:

Next, since, in order to bring potential infinity to a halt, an unmoved and uncaused thing is necessary otherwise we have failed in our purpose. If we fail in that purpose then Reality is unachievable.

I do agree as to the existence of an unmoved/uncaused being.

JDaniel:

Uncompelling, to say the most.

What I mean is that this argument proves the existence of a non-contingent being, but doesn’t prove that the being is intelligent, loving, etc.

JDaniel:

Why, Being, of course. But, this would no doubt be trivial to the non-theist as the thinking sapien (to borrow someone’s handle) has the relative specialness of a tree, and maybe less.

I don’t think gradients of being have been observed. Things either exist or don’t exist.

JDaniel:

How many elements are on the Chart of Elements? Which of them, by themselves, or in combination, is sufficient reason for the existence of living being(s)? Of course you will point out that life formed spontaneously. But, in order for that to be a sufficient reply to Tonyrey’s incessant question, you will have to admit that the process was started by unadulterated chance, with no asymmetrical directedness whatsoever, by inert chemicals. That it occurred in this way is highly, highly, highly improbable. (And we haven’t yet mentioned the creation of what, about 20, give or take, exquisitely fine, fine, fine-tuned anthropic necessities.)

I don’t know: maybe you’re right.

jd

Assuming life started spontaneously, yes, it would have been a random event.

I don’t think we really know enough about the chemistry of early Earth to calculate any sort of probabilities.

Surely out of the trillions upon trillions of potential planets, a fair few are life-friendly?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Sounds like you may be having a thought similar to my own. In another thread I’m trying to get an understanding for value without a valuer since my understanding a “value” is that it is a relationship between something that can assign value and something to be valued.

I wouldn’t say this argument ultimately makes sense. The understanding of the 2 apples existing being a) 2 and/or b) apples doesn’t make it any more or less true that the 2 apples exist. It just makes it more or less true whether there is or isn’t valuing of the 2 apples as bring truly a) 2 and/or b) apples. Are you going to start talk about boxed cats sometime soon? Perhaps lights shining through holes?

 

[tonyrey]

*1. Truth can only be recognised by rational beings.

If something doesn’t exist it cannot be recognised! Therefore my statement implies I take it granted that truth exists.

1. You seem to be confusing the concept of rational. The universe cannot be rational in the way a human can: it cannot reason

“rational” means “consistent with or based on reason” as well as “having the power of reason”.

The universe can be highly patterned and yet impersonal, which is also a point related to epistemology (eg how do we know the sun will rise tomorrow questions) and not simply the concept of truth. If the entirety of the universe could not reason, then we could not reason, but we could still utter meaningless truths. Negating a living divinity does not negate both meanings of rational.

“meaningless truths” is an oxymoron.

1. Truth doesn’t even need rationality to be relevant. If we cluelessly and irrationally held that eating pink custard on a friday in the company of unicorns would be lethal, we could still save our own lives if that ‘fact’ turned out to be true.

I shall leave others to decide whether that idea makes sense!

 

[tqualey]

Hi Bobber90,

Seriously, what part of the exerpt don’t you understand? The mental picture I had in reading your post was something like Dualistic struggle - but, this time between Rationality and Irrationality. The forces of rationality just keeping its counter-part in balance … or something like that.

Of course, Dualism has its problems … but denying God isn’t one of them!

God bless

God bless

I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense to me. What bearing does it have on truth?