The Reasonableness of God as World-root Being, the IS that grounds OUGHT and Cosmos-Architect

_{kairosfocus
December 4, 2015

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Education, Politics, rhetoric, worldview

9}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Atheism
Education
Politics
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The core challenge being addressed (as we respond to abuse of a critical thinking curriculum) is the notion that belief in the reality of God is a culturally induced, poorly grounded commonplace notion. An easily dismissed cultural myth or prejudice, in short.

Let us remind ourselves of the curriculum content used by teachers in a district in Texas until protest led to removal of the focal question:

Having:

shown that such belief is deeply rooted in key, serious thought (also note vids 1: Kreeft, 2: Zacharias, 3: Craig, also 4: Stroebel on Jesus),
(exposing the flying spaghetti monster parody as strawman fallacy)
and noting (cf here in op and here as a comment) how it underpins the moral fabric of governance for modern liberty and democracy by way of reference to the US DoI 1776 in context
and having reminded one and all that lab coat clad evolutionary materialist scientism is self-referentially incoherent and so self-falsifying [as in, the shoe is on the other foot],

. . . we should now turn to the responsible reasonableness of ethical theism.

No, we are not here claiming certain proof of the reality of God that once dismissed can lead to an assumed atheistical default. Instead, ethical theism starts as a responsible worldview with substantial evidence and reasoning so that proper education will respect it as a serious option and will address the comparative difficulties challenge (cf. tip sheet) — factual adequacy, coherence (logical and dynamical) and explanatory adequacy — faced by all worldviews:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

Just the opposite of the cynically dismissive one liner presented by the critical thinking curriculum, so called.

As a first point, we briefly reflect on modes of being and the significance of such for world-roots given functionally specific complex organisation, cosmological fine tuning and our patent staus as under moral governance as pointers.

First, an in-brief:

>>Our observed cosmos — the only actually, indisputably observed cosmos — is credibly contingent. That points beyond itself to adequate cause of a fine tuned cosmos set to a locally deeply isolated operating point for C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based terrestrial planet life. Life which BTW is based on coded information . . . language! right from the origin of cell based life . . . used in exquisitely intricate cybernetic systems that run the smart gated, encapsulated metabolic automata with integral code using von Neumann kinematic self replicators we find in cells. That in the end through even multiverse speculations, points to necessary, intelligent, awesomely powerful being as source. Design by a creator beyond the cosmos. One intent on life like ours. Mix in moral government and we are at the inherent reasonableness of a creator capable of grounding ought. Just one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. No, we are not talking about poorly supported popular notions here, but of course, when the evolutionary materialist lab coat clad magisterium controls and censors what gets into the curricula they can make it seem that way.>>

Now, we can think of possible vs impossible beings (you, me, a unicorn vs a square circle). The latter cannot be in any possible world as the cluster of core requirements (a) squarishness and (b) circularity stand in mutual contradiction and cannot all be actualised in one and the same thing at once under the same circumstances.

The former, can exist in at least one possible world, whether or not they are actual in this world (the only generally observed actualised world).

Also, try to imagine a world in which the truth asserted in: 2 + 3 = 5 is false or was not so then came into being at some point or can cease to be so. No such world is possible, this proposition is a necessary though abstract being. That is, it is so anchored to the roots and framework for a world to be actualised that it will be so in any possible world:

|| + ||| –> |||||

(Where we can start with the set that collects nothing and compose the natural numbers etc, {} –>0, {0}–> 1, {0, 1} –> 2, etc.)

This allows us to understand that of possible beings some are contingent, some are necessary. Contingent beings will exist in some actualisable worlds but not in all such possible worlds. Necessary beings, by contrast are foundational to any actualisable world existing.

Contingent beings, then, depend on what I have termed external, on/off enabling causal factors (strictly, dynamically necessary causal factors), much like a fire depends for its beginning and sustained existence on heat, fuel, oxidiser and an un-interfered- with combustion chain reaction:

Public domainBy contrast, necessary beings do not have that sort of dynamical, causal dependence.

This has a major consequence, especially when we see that we live in a world that per the big bang and fine tuning considerations, is credibly contingent and in fact credibly finitely old, typically 13.7 or 13.8 BY being a conventional estimate:

The Big Bang timeline -- a world with a beginning — The Big Bang timeline — a world with a beginning

Typically the talk is of a singularity and perhaps a fluctuation. But the point is, finitely remote, changeable, composite, contingent. Caused, requiring a sufficient cluster of underlying dynamical antecedents/ factors that include at minimum all necessary factors.

But there is more.

For by contrast with being we can have non-being, a genuine nothing (and no a suggested quantum foam with fluctuations, etc, is not a genuine nothing, regardless of clever talking points).

vNSR — Illustrating a von Neumann, kinematic self replicator with integral universal computer

Non-being can have no causal capabilities, and so if there ever were a genuine nothing, such would forever obtain. That is, if a world now is (and a credibly contingent one) it points to something that always was, a necessary, independent, world-root being dynamically sufficient to account for the world that now is. A world with evident beginning at a finitely remote point, with evident fine tuning that sets its physics to a locally deeply isolated operating point that sets it up for C-chemistry, aqueous medium terrestrial planet, cell based life. Life, that is based on smart gated, encapsulated metabolic automata that enfold an integral code using — language! communication and control systems! — von Neumann kinematic self replication facility. A class of machines we know how to conceptualise and initially analyse, but not at all how to design and implement. Worse, where we are conscious, intelligent, morally governed life forms in this cosmos that require a bridge between IS and OUGHT.

Already, we see that a very reasonable worldview stance would be that the cosmos comes from a necessary, highly intelligent, designing world root being who is a necessary being, and thus would be immaterial and intelligent, so minded. Even, through a multiverse speculation (which is spectacularly in violation of requisites of empirical substantiation and the multiplication of entities without clear necessity).

Moreover, as one scans the debates on worldviews foundations across the centuries, it is clear that there is just one credible place for there to be an IS that also grounds OUGHT in a reasonable way: the roots of reality.

There is just one serious candidate to be such a necessary being — flying spaghetti monsters et al (as we already saw) need not apply, they are patently contingent and are material — namely,

THE GOD OF ETHICAL THEISM: the inherently good and wise Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable and responsible service of doing the good in accordance with our evident nature and circumstances.

That is, ethical theism is a reasonable, and intellectually viable worldview stance. It is also a descriptive term for the underlying worldview of the Judaeo-Christian Faith and theological tradition that is core to our civilisation and the foundation of that tradition, God. Where the God of Scripture says of himself c 1460 BC, I AM THAT I AM, i.e. necessary, eternal being, something not understood as to significance until many centuries later.

And in that context, it is the Christian tradition that this same God has come among us, as Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ who fulfills the prophecies in that scriptural tradition and now sends forth his apostles and disciples into the world who are to be as wise as serpents but harmless as doves:

So, let us ponder Stroebel on Jesus:

[vimeo 17960119]

And, let us ponder Peter as he faced death by sentence of Kangaroo Court on a false accusation of treasonous arson against Rome, c 65 AD:

2 Peter 1:¹³I think it right, as long as I am in this body,^[h] to stir you up by way of reminder, ¹⁴since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. ¹⁵And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

¹⁶For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . .

¹⁹And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, ²⁰knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. ²¹For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

In short, contrary to the false impression created by the authors of the curriculum in Texas, ethical theism in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is a reasonable faith and worldview stance, one to be treated with respect rather than their patent disdain.

And, of course, this post is open for responsible discussion. END

Comments

F/N2: Like unto it, here is Hawthorne on the inherent amorality and thus moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialism:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
Of course, we are inescapably under moral government in a world where Hume long since pointed out the leap from is is to ought. The only level at which is and ought can be unified in our world is its roots. Hence the point argued in the OP and pointed out thereafter in the thread above. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

F/N: Just to set a benchmark, let us put again, Pearcey's summary in Finding Truth on how evolutionary materialistic scientism self-refutes by undermining knowledge:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
Until such is resolved, advocates of that view are flogging a dead horse that stumbled fatally in the starting gates. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

GE, your standard argue to the man while studiously avoiding substance tactic continues. You full well know that if you have something cogent to say in regards to evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers, the threads have long been open. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

GE, consider yourself as under sole, final warning as at 135. KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

KF@136, can I take this that you have no desire to hear why I think that something a man said 2500 years ago might not be correct? That is your perogative. But man would not have advanced to where we are now if everyone had your attitude.George Edwards_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

GE, again, you are arguing to the man and failing to address substance. Nor do we tell truth by the clock (which is made to tell . . . time) -- sound reformation generally works by calling us back to core, often self-evident principles and lessons of history that have been on record for a long time; likely first identified by the key circle of thinkers who pioneered the field of study and in phil matters refined across centuries. In such fields, if it is good it is likely to be old and successively refined, and if it is utterly novel it is highly likely to be error. Thus the importance of classic voices and works. Of course, again, it is fact-logic that grounds, No expert, witness or authority is better than his facts and logic and our emotions are no better than the underlying perceptions, expectations, treasures of the heart and evaluations that drive them. (Think, the differences between lust, infatuation, first love and its fulfillment in stable covenantal love.) Indeed, even the concept, radicalism speaks to going back to the radix, the root. However the tendency to imagine that on core issues we are progressing and can dismiss the past, is again a characteristic mark of the manipulative radical secularism and marches of folly of our day which exaggerate the fashionable or novel at the expense of the tried, tested, found sound. Here is a thought: the sound lessons of history were paid for in blood and tears; those who ignore, neglect or distort them doom themselves to pay the same price over and over again. There is a summary from Plato already in play, for convenience, I cite again. See if you can actually cogently answer to this warning in light of the career and impact of Alcibiades. Note also the force of his parable of the cave and of the self-referentially incoherent nature of evolutionary materialism as linked. Where too evolutionary materialism turns out to have been ancient and known to be morally bankrupt and prone to destructive factions in Plato's day:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
KFkairosfocus_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

SNIP -- this is not going off the rails on Evil Bible, village atheist snip-snipe out of context rants. I suggest those so tempted will find the refutation here helpful, and the discussion here helpful. Further to this, no discussion of slavery and social ills that fails to reckon with the force of Philemon and its impact down to literally being the source of the motto of the antislavery society, and the hardness of heart principle of amelioration and reform across time will have any sound balance to it. If you want to go off on such debates there is a whole free Internet out there. No further warnings will be given. EDGeorge Edwards_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

MN, a FYI. Pursuit of happiness in a reformation, dual covenant of nationhood and government under God speaks to fulfillment of individual calling/ purpose and nature under the inherently good Creator-Sustainer. Thus the import is that we have a duty to neighbour to facilitate or nurture, not frustrate, and that as individuals we must heed our evident nature in seeking to grow into stewardship of our potential, talents etc. This is not a licence to pervert ourselves or addict ourselves to evils etc. KF PS: To give a measure of context, here are two successive Congressionally issued national calls to prayer, 1776 and 1777:
May 1776 [over the name of John Hancock, first signer of the US Declaration of Indpependence] : In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day. December 1777: FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”[i.e. Cites Rom 14:9] [Source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287 & II, pp. 309 - 310.]
Most of us never heard of these in school and were never guided to see what significance they have for how we should understand the US DoI and Constitution (e.g. "secure the blessings of liberty . . . ") and apply to national life and government.kairosfocus_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

KF: "GE, get a clue that when you try to flip off Plato with a one liner you are going up against one of the ten all time top minds in our civilisation, blah blah blah" Unlike you, I am willing to accept the possibility that civilization has learned a thing or two in almost 2500 years. An intelligent and curious man would have asked me why I think Plato was wrong in this respect rather than blowing it off in a pompous dismissive manner. But you didn't. Very telling.George Edwards_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

And you can see in neopolitan's blog. I provide a conceptual scheme fitting fact and opinion. The response is: You do not write proper English, and oh yeah, you are duplicit because you present yourself as dutch while you are Indonesian, oh sorry I am wrong maybe you are dutch. I mean that is the total garbage I deal with. People checking up on my nationality and whatever other nonsense. They NEVER provide a conceptual scheme to lay side by side the creationist conceptual scheme, to see which one works best. That is because there is no error in creationism, it simply works.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

The rules in the conceptual scheme are more simple than the rules of tic tac toe. That it is so simple leaves no room for not understanding it. That you say not to understand while scoffing and trying to do some character assassination, simply means that you reject subjectivity. Meaning that you reject the procedure of reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the conclusion, resulting in an opinion.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Mohammad I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about and life is too short, you will need to find somebody else to try and make out what the hell you are going on about. see ya.Jack Jones_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

You can see how neopolitan's output crashes after I engaged him. First it is 60, 60, per year, then it is a measly 18. I make problems for atheists. And that you bring up this nonsense, I mean that I find contemptible. Either you present a different conceptual scheme for how subjectivity works, or you shut up. The topic under discussion is the difference between fact and opinion.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Still no idea about what mohammad is going on about. This is interesting about him though. http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-apology-to-mohammad-nur-syamsu.htmlJack Jones_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

@jack jones Argumentation by scoffing. You are just no good. That is expression of my emotion with my free will about who you are making the decisions that you do. The agency of your decisions is evil. That is my judgement.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Ciao. :DVy_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

It is not self refuting. It is a coherent conceptual scheme as laid out in post 108 Objectivity is there defined by making a corresponding model. It is also defined that it applies only to creation. You want to screw with that conceptual scheme, then it's not going to work out. Then you will end up with several definitions for fact, several definitions for opinion, and a general conceptual mess. I provide a working coherent conceptual scheme where it all fits. And this scheme is in line with scripture as well as common discourse. When people talk in terms of fact they mean a corresponding model. As in "there are 5 sheep in the meadow", the statement is a 1 to 1 reflection of the 5 sheep in the meadow. And I already explained how the opinion "the painting is beautiful is arrived at." I do the work of providing a coherent conceptual scheme and demonstrating it in practise. You do the work of scoffing.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

LOL.Vy_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

@120 Vy There is more chance of nailing jello to the wall than people understanding post 118. You know what they say "Bullshit baffles brains"Jack Jones_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

"I see no effort on the part of any religious person to try to develop the tools to measure God. It is all just a ridiculous notion which has no place in religion." I see no effort on the part of Mohammad to develop the tools to measure the claim that things do not exist objectively unless they are empirically measured and that we cannot use other criteria like logical reasoning and inference from what we do see for existence, it is just a ridiculous self refuting claim that has no place in debate.Jack Jones_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

In the essence of morality cut to subjectivity in its primal form obliterates knowledge of reason knowing less, specific agency checking procedures only leaves the option that subjective morality cannot be right as conceptual schemes of targets not known cannot generate right moral answers. If that is not intelligible, then don't worry, neither is most of what Mohammad is posting.Jack Jones_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Okaaaaaay. JJ, do you get that? Perhaps you can explain it because mohammad isn't quite ready to do so.Vy_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

@jack jones I see no effort on the part of any religious person to try to develop the tools to measure God. It is all just a ridiculous notion which has no place in religion.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

@vy My argumentation is basically mathematically specific. To then talk about "what it sounds like" is to miss the point of specific procedures which are laid out. Specific procedures are highly open to criticism. If I talked vaguely about personality, consciousness and such, then you would have no clear target to criticize. But you do have this target. Simply if there is just 1 valid answer to a question about what the agency of a decision is, and not 2 or more, then what I say would be wrong. Because then the answer could not be chosen, because you need at least 2 options for choosing. So you can criticize very easily, except that the conceptual scheme of creationism is simply right.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

You only provide garbage and no conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works.
You are projecting.Vy_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

"To say God is objective, but we cannot measure him is to say that God is hidden. God does not hide." No, it just means that we do not have the tools to directly measure his existence. Though in Christianity then it is taught that he has been revealed through Jesus Christ. You are however, committing a category error by comparing God when in an immaterial form with beings with a physical body.Jack Jones_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

@vy You only provide garbage and no conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

To call it gibberish is just another way that you reject subjectivity.
I call it gibberish because I don't understand what you're saying and you've failed to make it understandable. In #103 it sounds like you're confusing freewill with subjectivity but in #108 it sounds like you reject human freewill and propose some sort of God-only freewill. I agree with what JJ says in #110.Vy_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

@jack jones To say God is objective, but we cannot measure him is to say that God is hidden. God does not hide. That is a ridiculous notion. The common and scientific understanding of fact is to have a 1 to 1 corresponding model. We cannot model God. Neither can we model love, jealousy, happiness. All conclusions about agency of a decision can only be chosen.mohammadnursyamsu_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

subjectivity: what is in this domain can only be found out by choosing if or not it is, by expression of emotion with free will, resulting in an opinion
Arrrgh, that's one way to use English to make someone's head hurt. And now it sounds like you're rejecting freewill. Hmmm.Vy_{December 12, 2015
December
12
Dec
12
12
2015
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply