The burden of proof: Theism as properly basic

[MindOverMatter2]

1. There are things that we reasonably accept without evidence because it appears true; and this is what we would call properly basic knowledge.
2. Apparently the universe exists outside of our minds, and we would consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that it does not.
3. Apparently other minds exist out side of our minds because we perceive physical bodies acting for purposeful ends and producing teleological information which only makes sense if that behaviour originates from an intelligence cause. Thus we would consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that other minds don’t exist.
4. We see a universe which produces objects that act in a very specific and law-like manner. The universe behaves in a particular way and produces the kind of information that would suggest that it exists for a purpose. For example organisms produce traits that only makes sense if life exists for the purpose of survival. Emotions presuppose personal interaction. Things of that nature. Thus it appears immediately apparent that the universe has an intelligent cause.

Conclusion: We consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that the universe does not have an intelligent cause.

Therefore theism is a properly basic belief that does not need to be justified by evidence in order to be a reasonable conclusion.

I don’t know if this works. One could perhaps argue that premise 4 presupposes more than that which is immediately apparent. I am just throwing it out there to see what happens.

 

[mdisse]

theres always gonna probably be someone who finds a way to argue against this,

 

[MindOverMatter2]

theres always gonna probably be someone who finds a way to argue against this,

That’s fine. If this argument is flawed, then so be it. However an argument can be valid and still be unconvincing to some people.

Humans have a way of closing their minds to the validity of arguments that don’t suite their agenda, regardless of which side of the debate they are on.

I my self am not totally sure this argument succeeds, and I can imagine how it will be defeated. If it is valid it will be so even if everybody else thinks that it is false.

The God argument is more than just a syllogism for some of us. There is a lot to lose for some people if they admit that Gods existence can be proven; and there is a lot to lose for the theist if God is shown to be false. It is not surprising that the God question is one area of philosophy where people remain unconvinced either way, especially if the basis of acknowledging something as true is driven by an agenda. Some people will only admit the validity of an argument if it suites them to do so.

I am tied of trying to win arguments that can’t be won. I am Just trying to stimulate discussion, and if somebody comes along and find themselves convinced, then so be it.

 

[Sair]

1. There are things that we reasonably accept without evidence because it appears true; and this is what we would call properly basic knowledge.

I would be more inclined to say that we accept such things on the basis of such evidence as is available, even if this evidence is, strictly speaking, inconclusive. We must have a basis for our assumptions - they don’t spring unformed from a mental void!

1. Apparently the universe exists outside of our minds, and we would consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that it does not.

I would agree with this, on the basis of certain evidence - to wit, the fact that we cannot influence subjectively unfavourable circumstances purely by mental effort; if I break a limb, for example, I cannot simply will it to become unbroken; and we also have multiple branches of sensory experience that appear to confirm or at least support one another, and these are not experiences over which we necessarily have any conscious mental control.

1. Apparently other minds exist out side of our minds because we perceive physical bodies acting for purposeful ends and producing teleological information which only makes sense if that behaviour originates from an intelligence cause. Thus we would consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that other minds don’t exist.

Again, I would agree, on the basis of available evidence - we extrapolate from our own experience that other organisms, especially those specifically like us, have minds as we experience them.

1. We see a universe which produces objects that act in a very specific and law-like manner. The universe behaves in a particular way and produces the kind of information that would suggest that it exists for a purpose. For example organisms produce traits that only makes sense if life exists for the purpose of survival. Emotions presuppose personal interaction. Things of that nature. Thus it appears immediately apparent that the universe has an intelligent cause.

Here I would disagree, simply because action that appears to follow patterns is not necessarily governed by conscious intent. Water always flows downhill; diamonds and other minerals form crystalline patterns; gravity attracts bodies towards each other - we don’t assume these things are planned or intended in the way that purposive activity is intended. And to say that life exists for the purpose of survival is a bit like saying that straight lines exist for the purpose of continuing without deviation - survival is merely the continuation of life, as the lack of deviation is the continuation of a straight line.

Conclusion: We consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that the universe does not have an intelligent cause.

Therefore theism is a properly basic belief that does not need to be justified by evidence in order to be a reasonable conclusion.

Given the existence of apparent order, one may suppose either way. It depends in part upon whether you consider order to be necessarily a product of intelligent design, or simply the result of indifferent, unthinking natural forces. Either way, you are not assuming the existence or otherwise of an intelligent designer without evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

I would be more inclined to say that we accept such things on the basis of such evidence as is available, even if this evidence is, strictly speaking, inconclusive. We must have a basis for our assumptions - they don’t spring unformed from a mental void!

We don’t have to assume we are thinking.

I would agree with this, on the basis of certain evidence - to wit, the fact that we cannot influence subjectively unfavourable circumstances purely by mental effort; if I break a limb, for example, I cannot simply will it to become unbroken; and we also have multiple branches of sensory experience that appear to confirm or at least support one another, and these are not experiences over which we necessarily have any conscious mental control.

True - and a disproof of solipsism.

Again, I would agree, on the basis of available evidence - we extrapolate from our own experience that other organisms, especially those specifically like us, have minds as we experience them.

True - and significant for the distinction between mind and matter.

Here I would disagree, simply because action that appears to follow patterns is not necessarily governed by conscious intent. Water always flows downhill; diamonds and other minerals form crystalline patterns; gravity attracts bodies towards each other - we don’t assume these things are planned or intended in the way that purposive activity is intended. And to say that life exists for the purpose of survival is a bit like saying that straight lines exist for the purpose of continuing without deviation - survival is merely the continuation of life, as the lack of deviation is the continuation of a straight line.

1. The universe has no purpose of its own but it is the arena within which purposeful activity occurs.
2. Therefore the universe serves the purpose of enabling purposeful activity.
3. Mindless entities are incapable of purposeful activity.
4. Since the universe is a mindless entity it is necessary to explain how purposeful activity is produced by purposeless activity.
5. Otherwise purposeful activity is convincing evidence that purposeful activity is a fundamental element of reality.

Given the existence of apparent order, one may suppose either way. It depends in part upon whether you consider order to be necessarily a product of intelligent design, or simply the result of indifferent, unthinking natural forces. Either way, you are not assuming the existence or otherwise of an intelligent designer without evidence.

Order per se is not evidence for design but order which enables purposeful activity undoubtedly is!

 

[Whadyamean]

1. There are things that we reasonably accept without evidence because it appears true; and this is what we would call properly basic knowledge. Things e might uncritically accept. There is nothing reasonable about that. And it is properly called “belief” or “assumption” or"prejudice."

1. Apparently the universe exists outside of our minds, and we would consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that it does not.

Clearly not. None of what I stated denies Deity, only the mental approach to deriving proofs, all of which are refutable at least on the grounds that they do not lead one to a reproducible experience equatable with some level of perception that would even lead to a transformation that would transcend human perception at the mental level, that level being a notoriously poor guide to the Invisible, save as a negator of what God isn’t. If there is an actual empirical “proof” of what is called God which label is ridiculously limiting as a signpost, that method must be one of exhaustion by negation until no mental identification with or as an object remains. That may be the threshold of an actual spiritual life and might demonstrate the actual reason for morality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I would be more inclined to say that we accept such things on the basis of such evidence as is available, even if this evidence is, strictly speaking, inconclusive. We must have a basis for our assumptions - they don’t spring unformed from a mental void!

There is no necessary basis for thinking that the universe exists outside the mind. The only necessary inference we can have is that we are experiencing “something”; but not that the experience relates to objects as they truly exist outside of that experience. We accept it a-prior because it appears that way; not because of scientific investigation or metaphysical necessity.

the fact that we cannot influence subjectively unfavourable circumstances purely by mental effort; if I break a limb, for example, I cannot simply will it to become unbroken; and we also have multiple branches of sensory experience that appear to confirm or at least support one another, and these are not experiences over which we necessarily have any conscious mental control.

Its not necessarily evident to me that just because physical reality does not exist apart from our immediate experiences, that therefore we ought to have control over those experiences.

Again, I would agree, on the basis of available evidence - we extrapolate from our own experience that other organisms, especially those specifically like us, have minds as we experience them.

There is no rational basis for thinking that they do have minds apart from the fact that we perceive objects behaving in a purposeful manner, acting for teleological ends, producing information that only makes sense if they have a rational cause. We see objects that appear to have an intelligent basis for their behaviour and that’s why we think that they are intelligent; but we do not directly experience their particular intelligence, only the mediums of their intelligent actions. Yet we are reasonable to believe in intelligent causes existing apart from us on the basis that we perceive objects acting for teleological ends. This is not necessary knowledge.

We cannot prove that such is necessarily evident. But because its a part of our immediate experience we can reasonably say that its true. This is properly basic knowledge.

Here I would disagree, simply because action that appears to follow patterns is not necessarily governed by conscious intent.

But the fact that a thing is not necessarily true does not stop us from thinking that other minds exist. We think they exist precisely because of the fact that we perceive objects behaving in a purposeful manner, acting for a teleological ends, producing information that only makes sense if they have a rational cause. Not because there is scientific or metaphysical evidence.

We see that the universe behaves in a purposeful manner in so far as it produces objects that act for purposeful ends and produces information that only makes sense in terms of a purpose. For example, the fact that biological organisms produce traits which only makes sense in terms of objectifying survival; it appears we live in a universe created precisely for the possibility of self moving and self producing life.

Therefore the belief that the universe has an intelligent cause is properly basic knowledge, simply because it immediately appears as if it has been designed to some degree or extent by an intelligence . Therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist. Simply saying that its not necessarily the case is not a valid rebuttal, because the argument is not built on the premise of necessity, but rather it is built on the premise that it is reasonable to accept a thing as true if it is immediately and consistently present in our immediate knowledge, without the need for scientific or metaphysical evidence. This is properly basic knowledge.

So long as you accept properly basic knowledge as an epistemological premise. The only way you can defeat this argument is by either proving metaphysical naturalism to be true, or by denying that things do not appear to act for a purpose.

1. You can’t prove metaphysical naturalism
2. You would be denying our immediate experience if you deny that things appear to act for a purpose.

Theism is properly basic and thus the burden of proof is with the atheist.

 

[shoe]

Conclusion: We consider the burden of proof to be with those who would argue that the universe does not have an intelligent cause.

Therefore theism is a properly basic belief that does not need to be justified by evidence in order to be a reasonable conclusion.

I think you’re right. I think the people who do not believe that an intelligent cause made the universe, but rather assert that an unintelligent material cause did it, are making a statement about what they believe to be the true nature of the universe; therefore, they hold a position that needs defending. I believe that they hold the burden of proof not only to give some a kind of defense of their criticism for an intelligent cause of the universe but also to give the reasons that they believe in an unintelligent one.

 

[Whadyamean]

I think you’re right. I think the people who do not believe that an intelligent cause made the universe, but rather assert that an unintelligent material cause did it, are making a statement about what they believe to be the true nature of the universe; therefore, they hold a position that needs defending. I believe that they hold the burden of proof not only to give some a kind of defense of their criticism for an intelligent cause of the universe but also to give the reasons that they believe in an unintelligent one.

What do you have to offer that limits the consideration to these tow narrow and incomplete alternatives?

 

[Langdell]

This seems to be a narrower version of Alvin Plantinga’s “Reformed epistemology.” Am I right? Just wondering.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This seems to be a narrower version of Alvin Plantinga’s “Reformed epistemology.” Am I right? Just wondering.

…but i am presenting my own version of-course; although it is based on the same premise.

Plantinga’s theory of knowledge…the idea that some beliefs are properly basic and need no argument to substantiate them.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

1. We see a universe which produces objects that act in a very specific and law-like manner. The universe behaves in a particular way and produces the kind of information that would suggest that it exists for a purpose. For example organisms produce traits that only makes sense if life exists for the purpose of survival. Emotions presuppose personal interaction. Things of that nature. Thus it appears immediately apparent that the universe has an intelligent cause.

The subjective appearance of purpose projected onto nature does not justify one in concluding that there is in intelligent creator. The reason why you presumably don’t subscribe to the idea of “intelligent falling” (a parody of intelligent design) is that gravity may not appear to be operating for a particular intentional purpose.

Humans have a proven tendency to see purpose everywhere and to overly personify things.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The subjective appearance of purpose projected onto nature does not justify one in concluding that there is in intelligent creator. The reason why you presumably don’t subscribe to the idea of “intelligent falling” (a parody of intelligent design) is that gravity may not appear to be operating for a particular intentional purpose.

Humans have a proven tendency to see purpose everywhere and to overly personify things.

So i cannot tell that other intellects exist because according to you we are predisposed to see purpose everywhere? I’m sorry, but you are going to have to think harder than that.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

So i cannot tell that other intellects exist because according to you we are predisposed to see purpose everywhere?.

That is not what I said. Reread what I wrote.

In the case of other people who appear in the world, we know that the beings exist before we extrapolate that the beings have the property one may call a “mind”. We later observe things these being do and compare them to what occurs naturally, which gives us the ability to contrast things, such as paintings, that were the result of such beings, as opposed to things that occur without entities that have what we would call “minds”. You, on the other hand, have no such contrast and assume a mind without first knowing the the being exists! If you think everything is designed, then you have no way of determining what is designed.

 

[Whadyamean]

That is not what I said. Reread what I wrote.

In the case of other people who appear in the world, we know that the beings exist before we extrapolate that the beings have the property one may call a “mind”. You, on the other hand, assume a mind without first knowing the the being exists! I would generally avoid using the word “mind” anyways because it is a word that is abused.

Wow…Thank goodness other words are not abused! What mind might MoM be speaking of?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Wow…Thank goodness other words are not abused! What mind might MoM be speaking of?

The “mind” that he assumes exists when he says in 4 in the OP that the universe behaving a particular way suggests that it exists for a purpose.

 

[Whadyamean]

The “mind” that he assumes exists when he says in 4 in the OP that the universe behaving a particular way suggests that it exists for a purpose.

For what i’s worth, in Christian Science at least, “Mind” is a synonym for God. It’s “purpose” is to BE.

 

[Langdell]

…but i am presenting my own version of-course; although it is based on the same premise.

Plantinga’s theory of knowledge…the idea that some beliefs are properly basic and need no argument to substantiate them.

Thanks! It’s just nice to know I’m not totally out of it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That is not what I said. Reread what I wrote.

You may not have said it, but that is exactly what your argument implies. If i cannot say that the objective universe has an intelligent cause based upon the immediate appearance of teleology in nature, then neither can i say that there are other intellects based upon the appearance of teleological behavior and information.

In the case of other people who appear in the world, we know that the beings exist

We know that something exists. We do not know its immediate nature.

before we extrapolate that the beings have the property one may call a “mind”.

Irrelevant

We later observe things these being do and compare them to what occurs naturally,

We see objects producing meaningful information and teleological behavior (acting for purposeful ends.) And thus we conclude that such behavior has an intellectual basis for its existence.

which gives us the ability to contrast things, such as paintings, that were the result of such beings, as opposed to things that occur without entities that have what we would call “minds”. You, on the other hand, have no such contrast and assume a mind without first knowing the the being exists!

I don’t know that other minds exist accept for the fact that i am aware of objects which appear to act for purposeful ends and produces teleological information. Its on that basis alone that i conclude that the behavior of a particular object is produced or caused by an intellect. Otherwise without the appearance of teleology, i have no basis to conclude that any intellect exists outside my mind or that any object has intellect.

I infer the existence of an intelligent cause to the universe in exactly the same respect. I see a universe that produces teleological information and acts for ends which strongly appear to serve a purpose in so far as the meaning is concerned. Thus, just like the existence of other intellects, i rightly conclude that there is an intelligent cause of the universe.

If you think everything is designed, then you have no way of determining what is designed.

You’re committing contextual fallacies. Science speaks of natural events, firstly in the respect that an intellect is not directly acting upon it (in the physical sense of how a man will make a watch), and secondly, science by virtue of its epistemological method cannot possibly measure the existence of intelligent causes if they exist. You cannot know that intelligent minds exist outside of your own through the scientific method. You only know of them because you perceive their teleology. The concept and existence of minds is a pre-scientific idea and is accepted on philosophical grounds, not science. Science has no relevance to this discussion. This is philosophy. Its a question of epistemology. An intelligent cause to the universe does not necessarily exclude natural events (unless you assume that natural means uncreated; which is something you have made up and is not scientific or epistemologically tenable); and being a natural event does not exclude the possibility of being an artifice, since being natural is only spoken of as being against the idea of a direct physical design where all the pieces are put in to place by a master craftsmen, and by doing so, making natural events impossible. It is for example possible that an intelligence could have created the initial seed of physical reality and allowed it to evolve according to teleological principles and information infused within the first event.

Neither does any difficulty in understanding how an intelligence can cause the universe with out having to be the direct mechanistic cause of every event make my argument any less valid. Since it is up to you to prove that it is impossible. So long as i can conclude the existence of an intellect according to the direct appearance of teleological behavior, i have the epistemological right to make the same inference to an intellectual cause of the universe

While your straw-man may make it appear so, i have not argued for design in an absolute deterministic sense. I have said nothing about the properties of that intellect and neither do i have to. I have merely said that just like we conclude that there is intellects outside of our own mind, i also have the same epistemological justification for concluding that an intellect created the universe given the strong and immediate experience of what appears to be teleology. Any difficulties in understanding the hows, the who, and the whens, is beside the point and is irrelevant. Its properly basic knowledge.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

If i cannot say that the objective universe has an intelligent cause based upon the immediate appearance of teleology in nature, then neither can i say that there are other intellects based upon the appearance of teleological behavior and information.

That’s wrong, because in the case of observing humans, one first observes that the entity (humans) exist, observe its behavior, then conclude that the entity is acting intelligently. In the case of the universe, you are assuming that the universe is indicative of behavior of something outside the universe. You cannot attribute behavior to an entity that you do not already know exists.

For example, I know that humans exist. I also know that these humans make things such as paintings, watches, and airplanes, which is why I would attribute one of those things that I found on a beach to a human. Knowledge that the being exists is a prerequisite to attributing behavior, including intentional behavior, to it, thus rendering such an argument from design for the existence of god to be circular.