2 Argumemt from Transcendental signifiers(You are here)
3 The Cosmological argumemt
4 The Fine tuning argumemt
5 Hartshorne's Modal argument
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. It is the nature of thought to organize explanatory principles under a simgle over arching principle such as logic, reason, math (This over arching principle is the TS)
3. Mind organizes sense data and thiught ito rational stirctires managed by TS.
4. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5.Mind organizes thought into structures dominated by the TS
6.Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful.
In deed in Derridian thought God is the ultimate Transcendental signfier.In fact Derrida was the inspiration for this argument, Not because he would agree with it, it takes his assumptions about the TS then proves him wrong in his conclusions
OP 's make sense of the universe and explain hierarchies of conceptualization: effects need causes, conclusions are mandated by premises, meaning in language is organized by rules of grammar. (RCM (rational, coherent, and meaningful) = Hierarchical order).This premise is rooted directly in observation, a coherent view of the universe requires OPs, and observation. That a rational and coherent view requires a principle that organizes reality according to some aspect of logic or math should be obvious. That's really no different than saying to really understand things we need a logical coherent view. At this point the skeptic might assume that the argument is a design argument or that it is saying that “laws imply a law giver.” Jerome E. Bickenbach and Jackqueline M. Davis tell us that the argument “laws require a law giver” is the fallacy of equivocation.[1] Right they are, since scientists don't mean the term “laws” in the sense that early modern scientists such as Newton and Boyle meant it. They really meant a divine command that the universe must behave in a certain way. The term “law” is a hold-over from a former age. “The laws of physics, and other scientifically discovered laws of nature are principles formulated by scientists (not prescribed by lawmakers) in order to describe regularities and patterns observed in the natural world...while there may be a God this is not shown by taking the existence of laws of nature as evidence.”[2]
Whether or not physical laws are evidence of God remains to be seen, but this argument is neither design nor laws imply a law-giver. First, it's not a design argument to the extent that the inference is not drawn from design per se. Design works through either fitness, function, or the resemblance to things we know are designed. Since it does turn upon order there is overlap with design, especially the latter kind (resemblance to known design). Yet the point of inference is not taken from resemblance to known design but to the all pervasive nature of necessary to contingent order.
Secondly, the argument is not based upon the assumption laws imply a law giver. That idea assumes that physical laws are a simple list of rules mandated by a God. That concept of God is based upon the Suzerain model. The argument does not assume a set of rules but a more organic relation. The point of inference does not turn upon a set but upon one central, simple, and elegant idea that frames and grounds the metaphysical hierarchy in a single all-encumpasing first principle. Since I don't assume that scientists speak of “laws of physics” in the same way we speak of “laws of traffic” or The U.S, Code Annotated, or Black's Law Dictionary, then there is no fallacy of equivocation. How I connect physical “law” to a prescriptive sense without reducing description to prescription will be dealt with in chapter four. Above I point to grammar as an example of a TS. The skeptic might argue that grammar is just cultural, that would be wrong. First of all it doesn't have to be innate to be an example. If language is just cultural constructs ideas might still be formed in their function from logical necessity (not the actual signifiers themselves but the concepts to which they point). An example would be the logical rule A cannot be non A. That is not arbitrary, but self evident. A thing cannot be other than itself. Thus the logical law marks the fact as a road map marks geography, but like a map the two might not always line up. In that case, if grammar is a purely cultural construct, its still an example of hierarchical conceptualization. Secondly, there is a lot of good evidence that generative grammar is genetic. Children of one month old can distinguish between different phonemes in a language, such as “b” and “p.” Researchers know this by reaction of the infant to the sound. A phoneme is a unit of sound in a word. Two such studies are one by Kuhl and one by Scott, et al.[3] More on this in a subsequent chapter.
Western thought has always assumed Organizing principles that are summed up in a single first principle (an ἀρχή) which grounds any sort of meaning: the logos or the transcendental signified (TS). When I have made this argument skeptics have argued that there is nothing in science called an “organizing principle.” One opponent in particular who was a physicist was particularly exercised about my use of this term. While there is no formal term such that scientists speak of the “organizing principles” along side laws of physics or Newtonian laws, they speak of organizing principles all the time. A google search resulted in 320,000,000 results.[4] On every page of this search we see articles by cell biologists, cancer researchers, environmental biologists. Mathematicians, physicists, and so on. Yes there are also articles by crack pots, new age mystics, people with all kinds of ideas. There is even a book by a physicist who argues that the scientific thinking of the poet and dramatist Johann Wolfgang Goethe is valid in modern terms of quantum theory. He talked about organizing principles.[5] An Article in Nature entitled “Organizing principles” discusses a famous experiment in developmental biology: in 1924 carried out by Hilde Mangold, a Ph.D. student in the laboratory of Hans Spemann in Freiburg. “It provided the first unambiguous evidence that cell and tissue fate can be determined by signals received from other cells…This experiment therefore demonstrated the existence of an organizer that instructs both neuralization and dorsalization, and showed that cells can adopt their developmental fate according to their position when instructed by other cells.”[6]
M.J. Bissell et. al. Discuss malignancy in breast cancer. “A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.”[7] All objects in nature are connected to other objects. This can be demonstrated easily enough, as William Graham makes clear in discussing “Natures Organizing Principles.”[8] He turns to ecosystems as an example. Fish in a school work by individually possessed set of common principles such that they act in unison without a leader. These are not evidences of God they are not a design argument. They merely serve to bring home the point there are organizing principles about. I know this general informal use of the term does not mean that the Ops I want to talk about exist. But it is clear there are plenty of structures that organize and guide the way things turn out we do not have an understanding of what organizes the OP. Yet modern science still seeks a logos or a TS that would bind them all together and unite them in one over arching principle. A skeptic could argue that there are self organizing structures in nature. The self organizing structure supposedly doesn't require an outside source to exist, that would defeat the principle of the necessity of organizing principles. Self organizing systems do exist, although they may not be truly self organizing. A self organizing system is one in which the organization is decentralized or distributed throughout the system. Examples include crystallization (snow flakes), swarms of bees or birds, or neural networks. There are two problems with trying to use self organizing against OP's. First, there are contradictions within the concept. self organizing is part of dynamic structures, but dynamic laws operate locally. They can't produce large structures (like a universe).[9] Moreover,
Extending the familiar notion of algorithmic complexity into the context of dynamical systems, we obtain a notion of “dynamical complexity”. A simple theorem then shows that only objects of very low dynamical complexity can self organize, so that living organisms must be of low dynamical complexity. On the other hand, symmetry considerations suggest that living organisms are highly complex, relative to the dynamical laws, due to their large size and high degree of irregularity.[10]Secondly, the term itself (“self organizing”) is a misnomer. Systems are not organizing themselves, they are being organized by physical laws and properties. As the Johns article points out self organizing systems are limited by “dynamical laws,” thus the prior conditions under which the system emerged (physical laws) is a limit on the system. An example of physical laws limiting self organizing is entropy.[11] The Gershen and Heylighen article shows that according to the second law of thermodynamics entropy in an isolated system can only decrease, thus, “[self organizing] systems cannot be isolated: they require a constant input of matter or energy with low entropy, getting rid of the internally generated entropy through the output of heat('dissipation')..”[12] John Collier finds that, “Self-organization requires an entropy gradient that is external. But this need contain no further organization...”[13] He goes on to say that new “selves” can emerge within the system but as stated above it does depend upon external forces. The article deals with self organizing systems and questions of identity. He defines self organizing as “a process by which larger scale (macro) order is formed in a system through the promotion of fluctuations at a smaller (micro) scale via processes inherent in the system dynamics, modulated by interactions between the system and its surroundings..”[14] Apparently even his definition of the process defeats the argument that self organizing is indicative of some kind of emergence from true nothingness. Some of the questions he explores include:
1) What is the self that organizes ? 2) Why is it a self ? 3) What is it for a process to be inherent to the system dynamics ? 4) What does it mean for interactions with the surroundings to modulate rather than determine or control ? Maturana holds that there are no satisfactory answers to the first two of these questions, if for no other reason than that the self that supposedly organizes does not exist at the onset of organization. Self-organization appears to require a sort of lifting oneself by the bootstraps without having even boots at the beginning. Self-organization thus appears to be an oxymoron, or at least a misnomer. Autopoiesis is a self-producing process that presupposes an organized self (Maturana and Varela, 1992 : 43ff).[15]Collier finds that Maturana and Varele are wrong, Autopoiesis does not explain the process of self organizing. The “new self” that emerges is changed enough to deserve the name self organizing, but it is not a process whereby a self creates itself apart from external forces.[16] Of course we need not think of God interacting with new entities as each new process comes up. Clearly there is a law-like regularity that must be set up in advance of the effects it produces. We explore that law-like regularity in chapter four (are laws of physics descriptive or prescriptive?). Suffice to say self organizing systems do not negate the necessity of a TS.
A skeptic who is a physicist pointed out to me that science doesn't recognize anything called an “organizing principle.” Yes it does, they just don't call it that. Sometimes they are called “laws of physics,” or “natural laws.” But the concept is not limited to laws. There is an organizing principle grounding and influencing anything organized. Alphabetical listings, political ideas against or for which the group needs to be organized, necessity and contingency, any principle which forms the basis for organizing something, but science recognizes this too. They are also called “causes.”
Op's can be categorized and understood in relation to a few key principles that describe their relation to each other, such as mathematics, language, thought, culminating in one overarching first principle or ἀρχή (are-kay) that makes sense of it all. Just reason might be said to make sense of thought. TS's are first principes and they vie for status each one as the first principle (TSED). I've already discussed the logos of the Greeks and the use made of that concept in various ways. Kant's categories and abstract principles that regulate our understanding of everything, which corresponds to Ops to some extent or perhaps transcendental signifiers. I spoke of Paul Davies and his assertion that laws of physics have replaced God in the works of modern physicists, and in his own ideal along those lines as well. There's another aspects in which modern physics sees a TS. In principle this concept of a single elegant idea that explains everything is what science has been working toward for years. John Horgan says of Steven Weinberg, “In his 1993 book Dreams of a Final Theory, he extolled particle physics as the culmination of 'the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.' He predicted that 'the convergence of explanations down to simpler and simpler principles will eventually come to an end in a final theory.'”[17] A skeptic might question the scientific veracity or the idea of a single principle that reveals explanations built into the logical structure of nature. Yet in Dreams of a Final Theory, Weinberg tells us, “this is what our science is about: the discovery of explanations built into the logical structure of nature.”[18] David Deutsch a quantum physicist at Oxford produced a constructor theory that is a framework that unites all physical theories and eliminates the impossible in hopes of finding the basic principle that explains it all.[19] The concept of uniting theories and the meta law are organizing principles. The meta-law is a transcendental signifier, so where is the TS? That's the reality in the real world that these theories point to. The physicists are talking about things like gravity. The ideas in their minds that point to the TS are impersonal forces of nature; that single structure might well point to God and the physicists would have no way of knowing it or ruling it out. We have a couple of ways. One of them is to follow the logic of the argument. Clearly the premises are not ruled out by physics.
I have used TS and OP in a seemingly interchangeable way and this may lead one to ask “which is it?” TS is a form of OP. I usually use OP in speaking of ideas that are known to be either naturalistic, or if constructed, the notion of something no one disputes. The latter might be bigotry (most people agree it exists), or that of freedom. The former might be a more easily demonstrated idea such as cause and effect. TS is more theoretical and might be metaphysical such as justice, or the absolute soul, God, or the Buddha mind. TS is an organizing principle but I tend to use the term of more theoretical ideas, or ideas not as easily demonstrated to which some may or may not give ascent. If there is an actual TS, it organizes the organizers, the OP's. The TS tends to be the next wrung up in the metaphysical hierarchy; yet since TS organizes it is an OP.
The TS is necessary and cannot be abandoned. Even attempts to abandon it result in the adoption of new Transcendental signifiers that refer to to the perennial concept of the ultimate first principle. One example of this replacement theory is that of Derrida trying to break down ethics, the attempt leads to the establishment of a new TS for ethical paradigm, i.e., “differance.”[20] The goal of difference as the answer to hierarchy and becomes the new principle around which the ethical paradigm is structured. An example of imposing a new OP in science would be the paradigm shift. An example of imposing a new TS is the atheist abolishing God talk from her vocabulary and putting science in its place. Or Marx with the same motivation makes ideology his version of God or the TSED, the top of the metaphysical hierarchy.
Finally, TS as a term stands for the top of the metaphysical hierarchy. The actual thing at the top itself is the TSED, the object of belief to which all TS's point. In other words as transcendental signifiers point to one reality at the top, the transcendental signified. so any given transcendental signifier might be wrong, but there has to be a Transcendental Signified. The words that describe the reality may very but there is a reality there. That which is all pervasive and mutually exclusive is not necessarily part of the definition but it flows out of the nature of being the top of the metaphysical hierarchy. It is clear that for some examples of the TS it is exclusive, such as “God.” We can understand this tendency of all OP's to be summed up in and explained by the TS as hierarchical ordering, This is what I call “metaphysical hierarchy,” the TS functions as the top of the Metaphysical hierarchy. This forms a major part of the argument because the TS is the best explanation for the hierarchy.
It would be more technically correct to say postmodern thought rejects TS. But modern thought may keep TS's such as reason but doesn't allow them to be connected to mind. I use the term “modern” here to mean contemporary, no reference to the academic schools. I've already described this process. They reject God but leave in place an organizing principle in terms of laws of physics as a mindless principle that can take the place of a creator. It is impossible to do without OPs, all attempts to do so have ended in establishment of a new organizing principles: such as the Derrida and ethics examples I just go through describing (see chapter 2 for greater depth). We cannot organize without a principle of organizing. Chapter two is all about this example of Derrida and ethics. The way the OP's are summed up in TS's is hierarchical and suggests the basic reason for hierarchical ordering. Modern thought either reduces the TS to laws of physics or rejects it out right but in either case fails to unite the grounding function of the TS in such a way as to explain a coherent hierarchical ordering in the universe with an understanding of what it means to be. I don't know who invented the term “transcendental signifier,” but Derrida took it over in a sense and made it famous. It actually refers to any universal concept in human understanding. There are so many TS's because it's not limited to one notion, but also because it refers to or includes the ultimate first principle. That means it's basically about the areas of reality of which we know so little, thus there are many different ideas about it. Yet the hierarchical nature implies a single first principle. There are many different ideas, God, the life force, the over soul, the Buddha mind, being itself, but they all point to a single first principle at the top, The discussion is always about which one: reason, logic, math, God.
Derrididan background of the argument part 1
Derridian Background part 2
Because this is my own original argumemt, I invented iot, Dr. Randal Rauser Interviews me on the TS argumemt. https://randalrauser.com/2019/01/god-in-a-transcendental-signifier-a-conversation-with-joseph-hinman/
My new book God,Science, Ideology (GSI) makes the argument that New atheism is not scientific in its appraisal of God belief, but uses science ideologically. I begin with a discussion of what scientism is, the name I used to tag the atheist ideology of science as the only valid form of knowledge. I Then explore the historical development of this trend,I lay it at the feet of the French Philosophes of the French revolution.
Sources
[1] Jerome E. Bickenbach and Jackqueline M. Davis, Good Reasons for Better Arguments: An Introduction To The Sills and Values of Critical Thinking. Calgary: Broadview Press, 1996, 189.
[2]Ibid.
[3]Patricia Kuhl, “Early Language Acquisition: Cacking the Speech Code.” Nature reviews Neuroscience 5, (Nov.2004) 831-843, doi:10.1038/nrn1533. Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences and the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington,Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. See also: Sophie K Scott et al, “Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Is Categorical perception a fundamental property of speech perception?" Nature Neuroscience,(2010). 13: 1428-1432.
[4]Google search, organizing principles in nature,https://www.google.com/#q=organizing+principles+in+nature accessed 5/3/16
[5]Henri Bortoft, Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature. Herdon VA:Lindisfarne Books originally published by Steiner Books,1971, 1985, re worked version 1992, 69. Henri Bortoft, (1938 – 29 December 2012) received undergraduate degree at university of Hull then did Postgraduate research at Beirbeck college. He studiedQuantum Physics with David Bohm.
[6]Barbara Marte, “Milstone 1: Organizing Principles,” Nature.Org (july 1,2004) doi:10.1038/nrn1449 URL: http://www.nature.com/milestones/development/milestones/full/milestone1.html accessed 6/3/16 Marte is senior editor Nature.
[7]viiM.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki, “The Organizing Principle:Microenvironmental Influences In The Normal amd Malignant Breast.” Pub Med, NCB, Dec;70(9-10): 2002, 537-46. on line resource URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492495 accessed 6:3/16
[8]viiiWilliam Graham, “Natures Organization Principles,” Nature’s Tangled Web: The Art, Soul, and Science of a Connected Nature. Oct. 30, 2012, Online resource.http://www.freshvista.com/2012/natures-organizing-principles/ accessed 6/3/16.
[9]ixRichard Johns, “”Self Organizations in Dynamical Systems,” Synthese, Volume 181, issue 2,( July, 2011) 255-275 Johns is in the Dpartment of Philosophy, University British Columbia.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 258.
[12]Carlos Gershen and Francis Heylighen, “When Can We Call A System Self Organizing?” Advances in Artificial Life, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, Volume 2801 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2003, Gershen is from Mexico, he earned his Ph.D. from University of Burssels in interdisciplinary studies. He studies self organizing systems.
[13]John Collier, “Self Organization, Individuation, and Identity,” Revue Internationale De Philosophie, 2004/2 (n 228) 151-172, 172. John Collier is a philosopher at University of Natal. The University of Natalis in Durbin South Africa, it has now become The University of Kwazulu-Natal. Collier is from Canada, he has taught at MIT and published extensively on self organizing systems.
[14]Ibid., 151.
[15] Huberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varele, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of HumanUnderstanding. Boston: Sambhala,, 43ff.
[16]xviCollier, “Self Organization...” op. cit.
[17] John Horgan, “Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg Still dreams of a final Theory,” Scientific American, (May 1, 2015) Graham isa marine biologist. Online resourse, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/nobel-laureate-steven-weinberg-still-dreams-of-final-theory/ accessed 9/20/15 John Horgan was staff writter, A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science, 1996, re-published with new preface 2015; and The End of War, 2012, paperback published 2014.
[18]Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: Scientists Search For the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Vintage, reprint edition, 1994, 10.
[19]Zeeya Merali, ”A Meta-law to rule them all: Physicists Devise a Theory of Everything.” Scientific American, (May 26, 2014) online rfesource URL http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/ accessed 9/20/15.
[20]Derrida misspells “difference” for special reasons dealing with his theory “deconstruction.” Se chapter three on “the Derridian Background of the Argument.
26 comments:
Joe: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. It is the nature of thought to organize explanatory principles under a simgle over arching principle such as logic, reason, math (This over arching principle is the TS)
3. Mind organizes sense data and thiught ito rational stirctires managed by TS.
4. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5.Mind organizes thought into structures dominated by the TS
6.Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful.
I feel we have done this a million times.
The universe is regular and consistent, so yes, there must be organising principles behind it - the laws of nature. And yes, minds do organise and create laws. But it does not follow that all organising principles must therefore have a mind behind them, and so the argument fails.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. It is the nature of thought to organize explanatory principles under a simgle over arching principle such as logic, reason, math (This over arching principle is the TS)
3. Mind organizes sense data and thiught ito rational stirctires managed by TS.
4. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5.Mind organizes thought into structures dominated by the TS
6.Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful.
I feel we have done this a million times.
The universe is regular and consistent, so yes, there must be organising principles behind it - the laws of nature. And yes, minds do organise and create laws. But it does not follow that all organising principles must therefore have a mind behind them, and so the argument fails.
since you don't have an explanation of your own it's a good reason to think so. Right its not proof that is why I say it's a warrant. If God was beyond question there would be no atheists. That there are atheists is not proof of no God. This is a good reason to think there's a God. Not proof. yo said there is no evidence, this is evidence.
If a universe with mindless organizing principles is what we have, then we don't have a universe that is rational, coherent and meaningful. We have to impose rationality, coherence and meaning upon it ourselves. This idea is the foundation of nihilism. Existentialism then says, "Ok, there's no coherence and no meaning intrinsic to the universe, but we humans can't really deal with meaninglessness and incoherence, so we will create our own meaning and coherence." But neither of these positions really addresses the question of how we ended up with a regular and consistent universe that is yet irrational, incoherent and without meaning. As Joe says, this gives a rational warrant to consider that there is some likeliness to there being some form of Mind behind the organizing principles,.
Joe: since you don't have an explanation of your own it's a good reason to think so.
Creationism at its finest.
Joe: Right its not proof that is why I say it's a warrant. If God was beyond question there would be no atheists. That there are atheists is not proof of no God. This is a good reason to think there's a God. Not proof. yo said there is no evidence, this is evidence.
No it is not. All we can say is that we do not know. To go beyond that is a leap of faith - and that is faith in the sense of believing without good enough evidence.
Pix
Kristen: If a universe with mindless organizing principles is what we have, then we don't have a universe that is rational, coherent and meaningful. We have to impose rationality, coherence and meaning upon it ourselves.
We observe rationality and coherence in the universe. We give it meaning.
Kristen: This idea is the foundation of nihilism. Existentialism then says, "Ok, there's no coherence and no meaning intrinsic to the universe, but we humans can't really deal with meaninglessness and incoherence, so we will create our own meaning and coherence."
My family have meaning to me. Hence, I give meaning to the universe. That is not nihilism.
Kristen: But neither of these positions really addresses the question of how we ended up with a regular and consistent universe that is yet irrational, incoherent and without meaning.
Right. You need to split rationality and coherence away from meaning. We observe rationality and coherence. We give meaning.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: since you don't have an explanation of your own it's a good reason to think so.
Creationism at its finest.
That is actually science, The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true.
Joe: Right its not proof that is why I say it's a warrant. If God was beyond question there would be no atheists. That there are atheists is not proof of no God. This is a good reason to think there's a God. Not proof. yo said there is no evidence, this is evidence.
No it is not. All we can say is that we do not know. To go beyond that is a leap of faith - and that is faith in the sense of believing without good enough evidence.
No we can say more. contingencies require necessities. Logic is hierarchical. Those are reasons to assume a Transcendental signified.
Kristen: If a universe with mindless organizing principles is what we have, then we don't have a universe that is rational, coherent and meaningful. We have to impose rationality, coherence and meaning upon it ourselves.
We observe rationality and coherence in the universe. We give it meaning.
We can't give it real meaning if we don't have it ourselves.
Kristen: This idea is the foundation of nihilism. Existentialism then says, "Ok, there's no coherence and no meaning intrinsic to the universe, but we humans can't really deal with meaninglessness and incoherence, so we will create our own meaning and coherence."
My family have meaning to me. Hence, I give meaning to the universe. That is not nihilism.
It's not really a rational and coherent universe either. It's private meaning,
Kristen: But neither of these positions really addresses the question of how we ended up with a regular and consistent universe that is yet irrational, incoherent and without meaning.
I like your arguments Krsten!
Right. You need to split rationality and coherence away from meaning. We observe rationality and coherence. We give meaning.
that is clearly false. At best you must mean "we" as society. Yet that kind of thinking could rationalize Hitler. If it was just You rather than society it could rationalize murder.
Pix said: "You need to split rationality and coherence away from meaning. We observe rationality and coherence. We give meaning."
The problem is that here's what I'm supposed to believe: That in the beginning there was nothing, which somehow exploded and turned into something. Then the something, without purpose and for no reason, organized itself spontaneously into a state of rationality and coherence. I find that this takes a leap of faith that I am unwilling to make.
Joe: That is actually science, The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true.
Absolutely not! Where did you get you science from? Sherlock Holmes? Again, this is creationist "science", where you claim to refute evolution, then declare your own pet theory the winner. An argument from ignorance.
In real science, the hypothesis that gives the best predictions is the one that gets accepted.
Joe: No we can say more. contingencies require necessities. Logic is hierarchical. Those are reasons to assume a Transcendental signified.
Prove contingencies require necessities.
Prove logic is hierarchical.
Joe: We can't give it real meaning if we don't have it ourselves.
Why?
Joe: It's not really a rational and coherent universe either.
Why? Why is a universe that runs strictly according to laws not rational and coherent if it was not created by God?
Joe: It's private meaning,
Why should I believe there is any meaning beyond that?
Joe: that is clearly false. At best you must mean "we" as society. Yet that kind of thinking could rationalize Hitler. If it was just You rather than society it could rationalize murder.
If it is clearly false, please show why.
Remember that at one time slavery was considered morally acceptable, and now it is not. What has changed? Has God changed? No. Has society changed? Yes.
The fact is that society did rationalise slavery, in Germany it did rationalise Hitler.
Pix
Kristen: The problem is that here's what I'm supposed to believe: That in the beginning there was nothing, which somehow exploded and turned into something. Then the something, without purpose and for no reason, organized itself spontaneously into a state of rationality and coherence. I find that this takes a leap of faith that I am unwilling to make.
And yet at least some of that has good science behind it. And the bits that do not, well then you are right to be sceptical.
My position on the Big Bang is that we do not know what was before it or what triggered it. No leap of faith.
I do believe there was a Big Bang, because that is what the evidence points to. I do believe galaxies and star systems can form out of dust, because that is what the evidence points to. We have pictures from space of them doing just that.
Anonymous said...
Joe: That is actually science, The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true.
Absolutely not! Where did you get you science from? Sherlock Holmes? Again, this is creationist "science", where you claim to refute evolution, then declare your own pet theory the winner. An argument from ignorance.
Yes creationists like Karl Popper. Science is not about proving things it's about testing hypotheses. The one you can't disprove is the one you keep. That is assuming a theory can be falsified.by can't disprove i mean is not disproved. Didn't mean to make it sound so much like wrestling. Also you know nothing about what creationists really say they have not read Popper.
In real science, the hypothesis that gives the best predictions is the one that gets accepted.
right and that would be part of eliminating it if it's not predictive. If you are testing hypotheses you are eliminating some of them, the point is you have no explanation for why we are here and I do. And it is falsifiable and it has been verified. Read GSI
Joe: No we can say more. contingencies require necessities. Logic is hierarchical. Those are reasons to assume a Transcendental signified.
Prove contingencies require necessities.
It's true by definition. Contingencies are contingent upon things are necessary to their existence.
Prove logic is hierarchical.
Conclusions require premises, that is a binary opposition. That is a hierarchy The hierarchical nature of logicism fundamental to Derridian thought,Think about the Phalo locemtrism or the coonceptoflogocentrism itself. that is hierarchy,
Joe: We can't give it real meaning if we don't have it ourselves.
Why?
Meaning in life has to be experienced, we don't know what is if we don't experience it.
Joe: It's not really a rational and coherent universe either.
Why? Why is a universe that runs strictly according to laws not rational and coherent if it was not created by God?
Rationality requires mind, inanimate things are not rational. Meaning is understood by mind, Privet meaning that is limited to one mind is irrational.
Joe: It's private meaning,
Why should I believe there is any meaning beyond that?
The same reason there can't be a private language. Even if you say meaning is only private and relative you don't live that way, you don't deny universal truths to which everyone gives ascent. go play on the freeway if disagree.
Joe: that is clearly false. At best you must mean "we" as society. Yet that kind of thinking could rationalize Hitler. If it was just You rather than society it could rationalize murder.
If it is clearly false, please show why.
I just did. why would you not commit murder Or would you?
Remember that at one time slavery was considered morally acceptable, and now it is not. What has changed? Has God changed? No. Has society changed? Yes.
Only to slave owners. There were always opponents and they were mostly religious people.
The fact is that society did rationalize slavery, in Germany it did rationalize Hitler.
That is because they relativistic truth and abandoned the universal that everyone knew, All that zeig hieling was not following transcendental truths it was the mentality of the mob.
Anonymous said...
Kristen: The problem is that here's what I'm supposed to believe: That in the beginning there was nothing, which somehow exploded and turned into something. Then the something, without purpose and for no reason, organized itself spontaneously into a state of rationality and coherence. I find that this takes a leap of faith that I am unwilling to make.
And yet at least some of that has good science behind it. And the bits that do not, well then you are right to be sceptical.
My position on the Big Bang is that we do not know what was before it or what triggered it. No leap of faith.
I do believe there was a Big Bang, because that is what the evidence points to. I do believe galaxies and star systems can form out of dust, because that is what the evidence points to. We have pictures from space of them doing just that.
There is no proof they formed without god that is a leap of faith,
12:54 AM
ps My comment bout my argument being science was facetious "last man standing" was a joke based upon Popper. I do take Popper seriously. I don't think this TS argumemt is science. I dont think ti has to vel
We all believe in the big band, we all know there is an revolutionary process where by solar systems are formed out of gravity and dust. But that not prove it's happening without God. It happens because it's guided by physical laws There is no way to account for them. They make sense as products of mind,
Joe: Yes creationists like Karl Popper. Science is not about proving things it's about testing hypotheses. The one you can't disprove is the one you keep. That is assuming a theory can be falsified.by can't disprove i mean is not disproved. Didn't mean to make it sound so much like wrestling. Also you know nothing about what creationists really say they have not read Popper.
What Popper advocates is that a hypothesis must make predictions - necessary consequences - and those must be tested and confirmed. As you say "it's about testing hypotheses".
Obviously you discard the ones that fail that. But to say you keep "The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true." is to miss the whole prediction part of it.
Say we have hypothesis A and hypothesis B.
Creationism: I can show hypothesis A is wrong, therefore hypothesis B must be true
Scientist: Hypothesis A makes predictions that are confirmed by experiment, and hypothesis B does not (either it makes no predictions or the predictions are wrong), therefore we tentatively accept hypothesis A.
Joe: right and that would be part of eliminating it if it's not predictive.
If it is not predictive, it is not science.
Joe: If you are testing hypotheses you are eliminating some of them, the point is you have no explanation for why we are here and I do. And it is falsifiable and it has been verified. Read GSI
Is it falsifiable? You just implied it is not preductive, so how is it falsiable? They are literally the same thing in science.
Joe: It's true by definition. Contingencies are contingent upon things are necessary to their existence.
Okay. So what if something occurs spontaneously? Is that necessary? Or contingent? Or something else?
Joe: Conclusions require premises, that is a binary opposition. That is a hierarchy The hierarchical nature of logicism fundamental to Derridian thought,Think about the Phalo locemtrism or the coonceptoflogocentrism itself. that is hierarchy,
So what is at the top of the hierarchy? What is at the bottom?
Why is a conclusion a binary opposite to a premise? In a longer argument, an earlier conclusion will be used as a premise, so a claim can flip from one to the other within an argument.
How does binary opposites imply a hierarchy? I appreciate many binary opposites do for Derrida, but to extend it to all binary opposites is quite a leap.
How does the abstraction of the premise/conclusion hierarchy relate to quantum mechanicsa and relativitity?
Joe: Meaning in life has to be experienced, we don't know what is if we don't experience it.
Okay. Now explain why we cannot give something meaning.
Joe: Rationality requires mind, inanimate things are not rational.
Then I misunderstood the claim. I understood rational to mean the universe can be rationalised - can be understood, as it acts under a system of laws.
Are you actually saying the universe is rational in the sense that it can think rationally?
Pix
Joe: Meaning is understood by mind, Privet meaning that is limited to one mind is irrational.
Of course meaning is understood by the mind. But why is meaning limited to one mind irrational? How many minds are required until it becomes rational?
Joe: The same reason there can't be a private language.
So then it is impossible for a person to invent a code for his own use?
Joe: Even if you say meaning is only private and relative you don't live that way, you don't deny universal truths to which everyone gives ascent. go play on the freeway if disagree.I just did. why would you not commit murder Or would you?
I would not commit murder because I think people have value as they are people. And not because God gave them value.
Joe: Only to slave owners. There were always opponents and they were mostly religious people.
Show me evidence of religious people from Jesus time or earlier who opposed slavery.
Joe: That is because they relativistic truth and abandoned the universal that everyone knew, All that zeig hieling was not following transcendental truths it was the mentality of the mob.
Because it is not as universal as you would like to think.
Joe: There is no proof they formed without god that is a leap of faith,
We have photos of galaxies forming.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-galaxy-images-reveal-universe.html
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/galaxies.html
No leap of faith required.
Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: Yes creationists like Karl Popper. Science is not about proving things it's about testing hypotheses. The one you can't disprove is the one you keep. That is assuming a theory can be falsified.by can't disprove i mean is not disproved. Didn't mean to make it sound so much like wrestling. Also you know nothing about what creationists really say they have not read Popper.
Pix: What Popper advocates is that a hypothesis must make predictions - necessary consequences - and those must be tested and confirmed. As you say "it's about testing hypotheses".
There is a lot more to Popper than that, He does just talk about predictions. I would not say that is the bottom line for him. Here is a blog piece I wrote on Popper:
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/04/debuncking-athist-fortress-of-facts.html
Obviously you discard the ones that fail that. But to say you keep "The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true." is to miss the whole prediction part of it.
That is a misnomer because Popper doesn't assume scheme gives us troth but Verisimilitude. The hypo that you fail to falsify is assume to offer verisimilitude.
Pix Say we have hypothesis A and hypothesis B.
Creationism: I can show hypothesis A is wrong, therefore hypothesis B must be true
Scientist: Hypothesis A makes predictions that are confirmed by experiment, and hypothesis B does not (either it makes no predictions or the predictions are wrong), therefore we tentatively accept hypothesis A.
God arguments are not scientific hypotheses. Science is not the only form of knowledge. I have many good reasons to bleieve in God some scientific and some not.
Joe: right and that would be part of eliminating it if it's not predictive.
If it is not predictive, it is not science.
Thus it's eliminated. That if you are dealing with science. Not theology mot philosphy,
Joe: If you are testing hypotheses you are eliminating some of them, the point is you have no explanation for why we are here and I do. And it is falsifiable and it has been verified. Read GSI
Is it falsifiable? You just implied it is not preductive, so how is it falsiable? They are literally the same thing in science.
Belief in God through other arguments not this argumemt
Joe: It's true by definition. Contingencies are contingent upon things are necessary to their existence.
Okay. So what if something occurs spontaneously? Is that necessary? Or contingent? Or something else?
If by "spontaneously" you mean no cause no reason something from
nothing? There are none Give me an example
Joe: Conclusions require premises, that is a binary opposition. That is a hierarchy The hierarchical nature of logicism fundamental to Derridian thought,Think about the Phalo locemtrism or the coonceptoflogocentrism itself. that is hierarchy,
So what is at the top of the hierarchy? What is at the bottom?
Logic is not the top, It's close bit still something over logic, God. It is a primed so lots of things are on the bottom,
Why is a conclusion a binary opposite to a premise? In a longer argument, an earlier conclusion will be used as a premise, so a claim can flip from one to the other within an argument.
They go together. The premise is necessary opt the conclusion, Binary ops are couplets in which one term is more important n usually put on top. Good/evil up/down, master/slave. Rich/poor
How does binary opposites imply a hierarchy? I appreciate many binary opposites do for Derrida, but to extend it to all binary opposites is quite a leap.
It get's pretty involved. Given the logocentric nature of thought Binary ops tend to be so, but they can change, we an construct new one.s.It's hierarchical because one term is over the other and is in command so to speak.In traditional society male/female for example.
How does the abstraction of the premise/conclusion hierarchy relate to quantum mechanicsa and relativitity?
I am nit claiming that logics make nature work a certain way, But we can the same ideas at work in nature, OPs which are organized under a simple idea. For example the laws of physics--taken as a whole. Now they seek GUT,
Joe: Meaning in life has to be experienced, we don't know what is if we don't experience it.
Okay. Now explain why we cannot give something meaning.
We do but we have some Transemdemtal meanings. It it's all private then it's relative and discord able and it doesn't mean much,
Joe: Rationality requires mind, inanimate things are not rational.
Then I misunderstood the claim. I understood rational to mean the universe can be rationalized - can be understood, as it acts under a system of laws.
That too, understanding the universe is from of mind detection, Like discovering linguistic patters in what were thought to be random radio waves. That is evidence of mind,
Are you actually saying the universe is rational in the sense that it can think rationally?
Ni it is the product of thought or of mind,
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: Meaning is understood by mind, Privet meaning that is limited to one mind is irrational.
Of course meaning is understood by the mind. But why is meaning limited to one mind irrational? How many minds are required until it becomes rational?
why do we think delusional people need care? Living in a private world has it's limits. Take it to far and you are insane,
Joe: The same reason there can't be a private language.
So then it is impossible for a person to invent a code for his own use?
That is not a language, Read Chomsky. Chomsky says no private langauge.
Joe: Even if you say meaning is only private and relative you don't live that way, you don't deny universal truths to which everyone gives ascent. go play on the freeway if disagree. I just did. why would you not commit murder Or would you?
I would not commit murder because I think people have value as they are people. And not because God gave them value.
You could change it or the guy next to you might be fine with Murder who are you to tell him his private meaning is wrong? But more importantly the universe can be understood through private meanng.
Joe: Only to slave owners. There were always opponents and they were mostly religious people.
Show me evidence of religious people from Jesus time or earlier who opposed slavery.
{aul said slave traders are the worst of sinners you are get timg off the point,
Joe: That is because they relativistic truth and abandoned the universal that everyone knew, All that zeig hieling was not following transcendental truths it was the mentality of the mob.
Because it is not as universal as you would like to think.
they did nit need the universals they had been given
Joe: There is no proof they formed without god that is a leap of faith,
We have photos of galaxies forming.
your telescope can't see God. God's hand is there the picture don't show it. Those pictures don't show gravity either shall we conclude there's no gravity?
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-galaxy-images-reveal-universe.html
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/galaxies.html
No leap of faith required.
your assertion o o God is a leap of faith
your assertion of NO God is a leap of faith
The fact that galaxies form doesn't change my mind, any more than anything else that self-forms or emerges. I have seen the argument that because there are computer programs that simulate emergence, this somehow proves that no mind is required for emergence -- when the very fact that there was a computer programmer carefully setting things up so that the program would work, indicates that a mind was in fact involved. Joe's opening post addresses this issue anyway. Why are things arranged in such a way that emergence can occur and galaxies can form? Why are the laws of physics what they are? To insist that a universe that can be understood rationally would come into being completely irrationally, is a leap of faith.
Joe: That is a misnomer because Popper doesn't assume scheme gives us troth but Verisimilitude. The hypo that you fail to falsify is assume to offer verisimilitude.
But the vital point here is that the hypothesis has to be tested. It is only science if you fail to falsify because it gives good, and bold, predictions that have been properly tested. If you cannot falsify it because it gives no predictions then it is not even considered.
Joe: God arguments are not scientific hypotheses. Science is not the only form of knowledge. I have many good reasons to bleieve in God some scientific and some not.
I was pointing out that your claim "That is actually science, The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true." is also. That is NOT how science is done. It is, however, how creationism is done.
Joe: If by "spontaneously" you mean no cause no reason something from nothing? There are none Give me an example
Radioactive decay, virtual particles, the Big Bang, other phenomena we have yet to discover, etc.
Joe: Logic is not the top, It's close bit still something over logic, God. It is a primed so lots of things are on the bottom,
So your argument that there is an hierarchy assumes God exists, and then you use that to argue that God exists.
Joe: They go together. The premise is necessary opt the conclusion, Binary ops are couplets in which one term is more important n usually put on top. Good/evil up/down, master/slave. Rich/poor
So you think "up" is more important than "down"? How so?
Is the premise more important than the conclusion or is it the other way around? Why?
Joe: It get's pretty involved. Given the logocentric nature of thought Binary ops tend to be so, but they can change, we an construct new one.s.It's hierarchical because one term is over the other and is in command so to speak.In traditional society male/female for example.
The "so to speak" gives the game away. Binary opposites are about society, where people are divided into two groups, one of which exerts control over the other. Male over female, white over black, rich over poor. There is no "so to speak".
You have taken an idea from sociology and transferring it to something else altogether, and thus need to add your "so to speak". Up is not more important than down, it does not hold authority over down. It is just an opposite. Just like left/right, rise/fall, large/small, awake/asleep.
Joe: I am nit claiming that logics make nature work a certain way, But we can the same ideas at work in nature, OPs which are organized under a simple idea. For example the laws of physics--taken as a whole. Now they seek GUT,
But that is just how we model the universe!
The actual laws of nature (probably) come down to a single equation. Relativity is an approximation of that, as is QM. Okay, you could call that a hierarchy, with the actual laws of nature at the top, and more general equations higher up, more specific - and hence more useful - equations at the bottom. But it is a human construct, not intrinsic to the universe other than that top entry.
Pix
Joe: We do but we have some Transemdemtal meanings. It it's all private then it's relative and discord able and it doesn't mean much,
It means enough for me.
Joe: Ni it is the product of thought or of mind,
Then what exactly do you mean by saying the universe is rational?
Pix: ...But why is meaning limited to one mind irrational? How many minds are required until it becomes rational?
Joe: why do we think delusional people need care? Living in a private world has it's limits. Take it to far and you are insane,
Why did you not answer the question? I think it is because you know your position makes no sense and so you cannot answer it.
Joe: why do we think delusional people need care? Living in a private world has it's limits. Take it to far and you are insane,
You are conflating 'living in a private world' with 'my family giving me meaning'. They are very different.
Joe: You could change it or the guy next to you might be fine with Murder who are you to tell him his private meaning is wrong? But more importantly the universe can be understood through private meanng.
This is the world we live in Joe. People commit murder. Not so long ago they kept slaves. Putin invaded the Ukraine causing the deaths of thousands of people.
Joe: {aul said slave traders are the worst of sinners you are get timg off the point,
The author says:
1 Tim 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
This is problematic for at least three reasons. (1) It states gay man are as bad as slave traders; given my point is about how morality has changed, this further highlights my point. (2) It is railing against slave traders, not slave owners, likely because of how they obtained slaves by kidnapping innocent people. (3) It was likely not written by Paul, but someone else, possibly as late as the second century; even if it was Paul, this was still written after Jesus was dead - after Jesus' time.
Joe: {aul said slave traders are the worst of sinners you are get timg off the point,
The point here is that morality changes. You just said "You could change it or the guy next to you might be fine with Murder who are you to tell him his private meaning is wrong?" The simple fact is that morality does change over time, which refutes your claim. Morality comes from society, not from God.
Joe: your telescope can't see God. God's hand is there the picture don't show it. Those pictures don't show gravity either shall we conclude there's no gravity?
The telescope shows the effect of gravity. Most dramatically here:
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/james-webb-space-telescope-captures-image-of-near-perfect-einstein-ring-8134542/
We can infer gravity from the images. Where is God? Why should we suppose he is involved at all?
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: That is a misnomer because Popper doesn't assume science gives us truth but Verisimilitude. The hypo that you fail to falsify is assume to offer verisimilitude.
But the vital point here is that the hypothesis has to be tested. It is only science if you fail to falsify because it gives good, and bold, predictions that have been properly tested. If you cannot falsify it because it gives no predictions then it is not even considered.
True but some questions are not scientific questions. Does my mother love me? is not a scientific question. Should I obey the draft and fight in Vietnam is not a scientific question. Do i like popcorn is not a scientific question, Is there a God is not a scientific question; because God is not given in sense data thus it is not an empirical question.
Joe: God arguments are not scientific hypotheses. Science is not the only form of knowledge. I have many good reasons to bleieve in God some scientific and some not.
I was pointing out that your claim "That is actually science, The hypothesis that is left standing is assumed true." is also. That is NOT how science is done. It is, however, how creationism is done.
It's a homerooms way of putting it but is based upon Popper's falsification idea.
Joe: If by "spontaneously" you mean no cause no reason something from nothing? There are none Give me an example
Radioactive decay, virtual particles, the Big Bang, other phenomena we have yet to discover, etc.
why wont you read either of the two essays I linked to where my research shows that Virtual particles are not from nothing, they come from other particles. that is not nothing.
Joe: Logic is not the top, It's close bit still something over logic, God. It is a primed so lots of things are on the bottom,
So your argument that there is an hierarchy assumes God exists, and then you use that to argue that God exists.
where did I say that? you read that in, where do I say logical is hierarchical is based upon the existence of God
Joe: They go together. The premise is necessary opt the conclusion, Binary ops are couplets in which one term is more important n usually put on top. Good/evil up/down, master/slave. Rich/poor
So you think "up" is more important than "down"? How so?
sociologically it is. WE use it as a metaphor. WE don't use being down as a metaphor for good times we use being up as such,
Is the premise more important than the conclusion or is it the other way around? Why?
I said it was necessary to the conclusion. Conclusions are based upon premises. If you do it the other way It's begging the question,
Joe: It get's pretty involved. Given the logocentric nature of thought Binary ops tend to be so, but they can change, we an construct new one.s.It's hierarchical because one term is over the other and is in command so to speak. In traditional society male/female for example.
The "so to speak" gives the game away. Binary opposites are about society, where people are divided into two groups, one of which exerts control over the other. Male over female, white over black, rich over poor. There is no "so to speak".
No it's not. That is not what a binary opposition is, read Derrida. I learned it in doctoral work.
You have taken an idea from sociology and transferring it to something else altogether, and thus need to add your "so to speak". Up is not more important than down, it does not hold authority over down. It is just an opposite. Just like left/right, rise/fall, large/small, awake/asleep.
This is coming right out of Alex Argyros's lectures on Derrida and he studied with Derrida. They may use it differently in sociology although I don't remember the term fro, my days as a soc major
Joe: I am not claiming that logics make nature work a certain way, But we can the same ideas at work in nature, OPs which are organized under a simple idea. For example the laws of physics--taken as a whole. Now they seek GUT,
But that is just how we model the universe!
The actual laws of nature (probably) come down to a single equation. Relativity is an approximation of that, as is QM. Okay, you could call that a hierarchy, with the actual laws of nature at the top, and more general equations higher up, more specific - and hence more useful - equations at the bottom. But it is a human construct, not intrinsic to the universe other than that top entry.
so is all of science. The phenomena of the universe does mot come with labels as to what things are we have to attach our constructs. We need not assume our constructs are always wrong.
11:32 PM
Anonymous said...
Joe: We do but we have some Transemdemtal meanings. It it's all private then it's relative and discord able and it doesn't mean much,
Pix: It means enough for me.
A frivolous answer: you essentially accept my argumemt that your views are totally relativistic.
Joe: Np it is the product of thought or of mind,
Pix: Then what exactly do you mean by saying the universe is rational?
that we can understand it to a large extent.
Pix: ...But why is meaning limited to one mind irrational? How many minds are required until it becomes rational?
If meaning is intrinsic it should be discernable to all rational minds. Otherwise it's just a fantasy of one mind, Except God who is all knowing mind.
Joe: why do we think delusional people need care? Living in a private world has it's limits. Take it to far and you are insane,
Pix: Why did you not answer the question? I think it is because you know your position makes no sense and so you cannot answer it.
I just answered it.
Joe: why do we think delusional people need care? Living in a private world has it's limits. Take it to far and you are insane,
Pix:You are conflating 'living in a private world' with 'my family giving me meaning'. They are very different.
No I am not. If meaning is not discernable to all then it's not meaningful.
Joe: You could change it or the guy next to you might be fine with Murder who are you to tell him his private meaning is wrong? But more importantly the universe can be understood through private meanng.
This is the world we live in Joe. People commit murder. Not so long ago they kept slaves. Putin invaded the Ukraine causing the deaths of thousands of people.
so Godless thinking leads to acceptance of murder and slavery.
Joe: Paul said slave traders are the worst of sinners you are get timg off the point,
The author says:
1 Tim 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
This is problematic for at least three reasons. (1) It states gay man are as bad as slave traders; given my point is about how morality has changed, this further highlights my point.
It does not say that all sins are equal. You have already dismissed immorality as "that's the world we live in."
Apparently you are willing to give up morality i am not,
(2) It is railing against slave traders, not slave owners,
Childish criticism. Why would slave traders be sinners and slave owners are not? Obviously implied..
likely because of how they obtained slaves by kidnapping innocent people.
the owners are benefiting form the crimes of the traders
(3) It was likely not written by Paul, but someone else, possibly as late as the second century; even if it was Paul, this was still written after Jesus was dead - after Jesus' time.
Irrelivant, it's canonical
Joe: {aul said slave traders are the worst of sinners you are get timg off the point,
The point here is that morality changes. You just said "You could change it or the guy next to you might be fine with Murder who are you to tell him his private meaning is wrong?"
obviously I was shaming you
The simple fact is that morality does change over time, which refutes your claim. Morality comes from society, not from God.
Murder has always been considered evil. in fact hurting people has always been considered wrong. I've made a study of moral relativism I don't have time now I'll post on it soon, Give me some credit it's a lot more sophisticated than fumandies will give you.
Joe: your telescope can't see God. God's hand is there the picture don't show it. Those pictures don't show gravity either shall we conclude there's no gravity?
The telescope shows the effect of gravity. Most dramatically here:
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/james-webb-space-telescope-captures-image-of-near-perfect-einstein-ring-8134542/
God makes gravity go. science doesn't know
We can infer gravity from the images. Where is God? Why should we suppose he is involved at all?
You do nit have a picture of gravity, you only see the effects of gravity, ditto on all laws of physics. no pictures only effects. No pic of God because like gravity he is too big and to basic to see. qw see his effects in the lives of believers.
Joe:
5.Mind organizes thought into structures dominated by the TS
The human mind organizes thought this way. How does the fact that humans use classifications and organising principles to apprehend the universe tell us anything about the universe other than it is amenable to this approach.
6.Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful.
It offers best explanation or it offers the explanation that you like the best?
How is it the best explanation?
Do you have an article laying out your argument for a universal mind?
Post a Comment