Answering atheists on Divine Command Theory

Skeptics often attack Christian morality by arguing the old Euthaphore dilemma from Plato: is morality good becasue the gods like it, or do the gods like it because it's good? If the former than it is an arbitrary whim, and if the latter than here is something that is higher than God.

The point for the atheist is to put God in a Bind and to show that God can't be the greatest concieveable being. If God has to keep to morality because it is a higher independent standard than God is not the greatest, but if morality is good just becasue God likes it than it is merely a whim or a matter of taste. Let's ignore the fact that if God is real his tatste and whims might just be more important than ours.


Critique of "Can the Bible (or Any) God Support an Absolute Morality?"


by Tim Gorski, M. D.

The world is in moral decay, say the theists, because of "moral relativism." Only a divine power makes possible an absolute standard of right and wrong, they say. And yet, entirely aside from the evil that men (and women) do, there is much that is terrible and unjust in the world, so that if there be a God, we realize, He can not be both all-good and all-powerful. Because if He were, He would put an end to such things.

Gorski tries to sneak in the Theodicy bit but it doens't wash because he fails to account for the necessity of free will in maintaining a moral universe. Moral universe has to be predicated upon free will, which means moral choices must allow for possibility of wrong choices. This is because a "moral universe" doesn't merely mean a universe in which everyone is moral, but one in which there is possiblity of being moral. Since morality invovles chioces, this necessitates free will, otherwise there is no true moral choice. Morlaity is about diliberating over and choosing the Good.

Gorski goes on:

But I'm afraid the situation is much, much worse even than that. Four hundred years before Jesus Christ is supposed to have been born, Socrates asked "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." Socrates also observed that the gods--plural-- argued and disagreed about right and wrong as much as human beings. He got around this by supposing that that which all the gods approved was the good, and that which they all objected to was the evil, and that all else was neither good nor evil. He might just as well have considered the problem of a single god-- like that of the Christian Bible--who's inconsistent about what is beloved. But, as we know only too well, there simply is no honest way out of contradictions like that.


So let's just consider a strictly theoretical situation. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose there's a God, and that He, She, or It is the absolute standard of morality. Is right and wrong then simply no more than this God's say-so? Or is what is right loved by this God and what is wrong hated by this God because of what right and wrong are in themselves?

God himself Is the standard of the Good. He is synonimous with the good which exists in the mind of God. So it's not a matter of this false dilemma, is God idependent of the standards or does he have to follow the standards himself. He is the standards himself!

Gorski drives home his point:

In the first instance, if good and evil are no more than the product of the will of a divine power, and if that will is truly free, then such a God could, with a thought, cause what we consider to be the most repugnant and heinous criminal act to become the highest virtue. Now the further question would arise, of course, as to whether if this happened we would know it. Why? Because of "the moral law within us," as the philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, or "the work of the law written in our hearts," as "Saint Paul" acknowledged ( Romans 2: 15). If morality is the say-so of a God, then presumably, like the gravitational effects of a massive body, any change in His (or Her or Its) will would cause our own consciences to be instantaneously altered.

But here we have a real problem, because Kant thought that the moral standards have a logical force all there own, and Paul would probably agree with me that God is synonimous with them. So that's just atheistic "cut and paste" logic that doesn't apply. And in fact the whole question is based upon misconstruing the nature of God vis a vi moral standards. God = the good!

Gorski demonstreates the limited view point mandated by his assumptions:

I've never heard of this happening, though.
At any rate, if there is a God, and if this God's will determines what is right and wrong, then this supposed God's being all-good is no more than His (or Her or Its) being all-powerful. Is that an absolute morality? I don't think so. Rather, it's a morality that's completely relative to His (or Her or Its) desire. In a word--well, three actually--it's *might makes right*. It's another version of the law of the jungle. How's that for an admirable system of morality?

But notice the slippery slope argument whereby he slides from a question about God's relation to morality to one of a mere case of "Might makes right." This is accomplished by making the will the the basic fulcrum upon which moral leverage is gained and then sliding things away from the notion of standards altogether. But of course if Standards are based upon God's character it is not merely a matter of tastes, God is not merely commanding "do X, don't do Y" just because God likes X and not Y in the same way that one likes potato chips and not pretzles. But divie command is actually based upon the way "God is," and that is the same as saying "upon the way reailty is." This is because God is necessary being, the ground of being, and all that exists flows out of that. Even the potential of being comes out of the mind of God. so "the way God is" is in essence the nature of reality. God is love, and thus love is the background of the moral universe. This is not something God just up and decided one day, it is the result of the nature of God. It could not be otherwise because it is predicated upon more than will but upon the nature of God.

At this point Gorski dilivers the punch line:

The only uncertainty remaining is whether it's more or less pathetic than the alternative situation of a God who is Himself (or Herself or Itself) subject to a logically anterior or prior standard of morality. That would be the case in the second instance of things that are good being beloved by God because they're good, because, of course, that puts God on the same level with human beings. It makes Him (or Her or It) irrelevant.
Well, we know He--or She or It--is irrelevant. That's why we're revolted by such Biblical stories as that of Yahweh asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering--as if an all-good God could be pleased by a criminal act. Did Abraham really think he was flattering Yahweh to agree to do such a thing? It's curious that this same God is also supposed to have issued orders of mass extermination, orders that "The Good Book" tells us were actually carried out with less hesitation than Abraham had in preparing to kill his own son.

This is just the other horn of the bull that supports the two horns of this dilemma. First, if it were true, it wouldn not make God irrelivant because God would still be our best bet for knowing what the standards are. But secondly, the crucial point, There is no standard of ethics idependent of God to which God must be subject. But the Good is based upon the character, not the?will alone, of God.

Gorski quipts:

Well, so much for theistic "absolute morality." It's anything but.

Of course he hasn't said anyhting about absolute morality. He hasn't touched the need for it, nor the notion that without it all meaning of moral motions are reduced to nothing more than matters of taste. But he certainly hasn't indicated why it should be impossible. IF God were subject to it there might still be a situation by which God is subject to a standard, say one predicated upon logical extensions from ultiamte values, and thereby certainly not be irrelivant since we still must know what they are. God having created us would put that standard into us as a natural part of us, but we have many conflucting notions and still need help. But the fact of the matter is the whole dilemma is false and silly, because God is neither subject to an idependent standard, nor guilty of einforcing pure matters of taste. But is synonmous with that standard as the center of consciosuenss which judges ethical axioms. Moral standards imply judgement, since unlike physical laws they can't simpley "be right" without some mind to understand and apply them. God is that mind. Since God is necessary being, and all else is predicated upon God's creative act, the essence of moral standards is predicated upon God's own character and perfection. Now that that point The aurthor has failed to provide any reason for us to think that such standards can't exist, or to explain why God is not crucial in our knowing what they are, and enforcing them!






Divine Command Theory according to Internet Encyclopidia of Philosphyis the view that moral actions are those which conform to God's will. Charity, for example, is morally proper because God endorses it, and murder is wrong because God condemns it. There are both normative and metaethical versions of this theory. The normative version proposes a test for determining whether any action is right or wrong: if it conforms to God's will, it is morally permissible, if it does not, then it is impermissible. As a normative theory, the divine command theory is difficult to maintain given the epistemological problems of accessing the will of God. The metaethical version simply makes the factual claim that God's will is the foundation of morality. Here, the content of God's will does not have to be explored.


So again, we have the same basic assertions of the false dilemma. Some atheists seems to think that repetition is the key to truth. This notion that Divine command theory lacks any factual knowlege is of course silly. We don't need some Divine fact finding committe to deduce 'facts' for us. It is merely logical; God is necessary all else is contingent upon God, therefore, morality is contingent upon God as well. But in chalcking it all up to God's will the straw man is created. It is not merely a matter of will but of God's nature itself which writes morality into the universe. This is logical given the nature of metaphysical heirarchies. God is the transcendental signified giving meaning to all else.

As a metaethical theory, there are three ways that the divine command theory can be understood. The weakest version claims only that, within certain religious communities, the meaning of the statement, "charity is good," is that God wills us to be charitable. This version has only limited implications. Although it may represent the views of a particular religious group, it has no bearing on what those outside that group mean by the statement "charity is good." A stronger version of the divine command theory concedes that charity is morally good in and of itself, but that God's will provides us with the motivation to be charitable. On this view, only the religious believer has the motivation to be moral. Theoretically, unbelievers could also act morally, but it would only be by accident since unbelievers would lack the motivation for consistent moral behavior. The strongest version of the divine command theory states that morality is a creation of God's will. According to this view, charity is good because God has willed that charity is good. The claim here is not about what particular communities mean by the word "good" or what motivations people have to be good. Instead, the claim is that moral conduct is identical to the conduct which God commands of us. This final version of the divine command theory is the most controversial, and has been criticized from several angles.(Internet Encyclopedia)

Again,this is not coming to terms with he distinction between will and nature.


GENERAL CRITICISMS.

During the Enlightenment, the divine command theory fell under attack from two distinct camps. One group argued that moral standards, like mathematical truths, are eternal and fixed in the nature of universe. Philosophers such as Samuel Clarke argued that moral values can be intuitively perceived and, again, like mathematical truths, can be understood by any rational being. Since God is a rational being, then God, too, endorses these eternal standards of morality. However, God's mere acceptance of moral standards in no way creates them, and in that sense is no different than a human's acceptance of moral standards. A second group argued that moral standards are fundamentally human-based, and are neither fixed in the nature of the universe, nor in the will of God. For example, Thomas Hobbes argued that moral standards are necessary human conventions which keep us out of a perpetual state of war. Others, such as Hume and Mill, argued that they are based on human instinct. In either case, God's will is irrelevant to ethical standards.(Ibid)

And of course he's left out most of the major ethicists of the englightenement and pre-enlightement (England). For example Shaftisburry who thought that the good is natural and part of nature, thus it is in man to be good, if only we can "hook up with nature." And John Locke who agreed to an extent but also argued for Divine command theory as a deontological basis for a social contract (see The Two Treatesies ON Govement). And Joeph Buttler, who argued that God as the author of nature is also the author of moral valaues. And of course all of this side steps the real issue, the Augustinian position of "re-valuing the values" of the empire. The forms are in the Mind of God" thus the moral standards are in the mind of God. They are not independent but proceed from the nature of God's character.

In more recent times, the divine command theory has been attacked on two principle grounds. First, if morality is a dictate of God's will, then it is conceivable that God could choose to reverse the present state of morality and thus make evil actions moral. That is, God could make murder or stealing morally permissible if he chose. The theologian's reply to this possibility is that God would not reverse the moral standards he has created since God himself is infinitely good, and God would not will anything which is contrary to his own good nature. This reply, however, leads to the second problem with the divine command theory. If moral goodness is merely a creation of God's will, then the phrase "God is good" becomes meaningless. For, by definition, "God is good" would simply mean that God's nature is in accord with what he wills. Since there are no pre-existing moral restrictions to what God can will, then even if God was malicious, he would be good. Clearly, this makes nonsense of the notion of goodness.(Ibid)

The argument is putting the cart before the horse. It makes will the prime mover and nature of God the recipient of the move. But if we reverse it, and say that morality is an extension of what God is, God's character, and the standards of morality are merely applications of this, than the problem is solved. It is no longer meaningless to say that God is good, but rather we should say that God is The GOOD. To say "there are no pre-existing moral restrictions to what God can will," is the essence of his argument. But of course there are, since God can't will to violate his own nature! So what could have been a cogent attack just becomes the same old same ol'e because he can't get the drift on the forms being in the mind of God! The very potential for goodness comes out of what God is, since all that comes to be is contingent upon God, including the potential for what comes to be. Thus it cannot be said that the evil could be made good through an act of God's will because the contemplation of such an act is meaningless.


QUINN'S DEFENSE.

There has recently been a revived interest in divine command theory, particularly defending it against criticisms which have accumulated over the decades. In his essay, "The primacy of God's Will in Christian Ethics," Philip Quinn goes on the offensive and presents three arguments for why the divine command theory should be accepted by traditional theistic. Quinn concedes that his arguments will not carry weight for those outside the theistic traditions. Nevertheless, his arguments show the reasons which might incline a theist to adopt the divine command theory. Quinn's first argument is derived from what has been called the "immoralities of the patriarchs." In the Hebrew Bible, several of the Hebrew patriarchs are presented as committing seemingly immoral acts at God's command. Following the lead of medieval theologians, Quinn argues that these stories illustrate that moral standards are indeed creations of God. In these cases, God is temporarily revoking previously established moral standards for special purposes.(Ibid.)

Of course here the argument against Quinn, made by the Encycolpeida article, assumes that Christian ethics is predicated upon the historicity of the Biblical text.

the articel moves on to Quinn's second arguement:

Quinn's second argument is distinctly Christian and draws from Jesus' command that we should love everyone. For Quinn, this is not merely an endorsement of a pre-existing standard of morality, since it is contrary to human nature to love everyone. It is in fact a new standard which was created by God's pronouncement.(Ibid)

AGain, bad "fundie!" BAD "Fundie!" IT's not a "new standard!" God is love. The nature of what love is is syonimous with God's nature. "Not a new command I write to you..." (1 JOhn) Love is the background of the moral universe because God is the background of the moral universe and it can't be any other way! It is a necessary state of affirs, as much as God being the ultiamte final cause (if God exists all necessary caveats) couldn't be any other way!



Quinn's third argument derives from the notion of divine sovereignty.

Traditional theism holds that God is sovereign and in complete control of the universe. If this is so, then it seems that God is in control of moral standards, and, thus, the creator of moral standards. A problem occurs, though, when determining how far God's control extends. Michael Loux, for example, argues that God is absolutely sovereign and that if God happened to believe unconditionally that 2+2=3, then that would make 2+2=3.

You mean it doens't?

the article states:

Quinn argues that this interpretation leads to absurd conclusions, and is therefore unacceptable. Nevertheless, the theist should accept as strong a version of sovereignty as possible (barring absurdity).

Of course it doesnt' say why we should do that. That's a theolgoical diecison which is being rammed in as one person's interpritation, and a Calvinist one, of what Christiantiy is about. This can't be used to set the agenda for all moral defense nor can it be uased as I fear it is here, as a straw man to force debate alone certain lines and ignore "out of the box" directions.

But never fear, the major theologican (nameless) who wrote that artcile will define define soverignty for us:

A more narrow and more acceptable version of sovereignty is one where God is in control over moral standards, but not over math or logic. This bypasses the absurdities of absolute sovereignty. On this more narrow view, if God unconditionally believes specific moral standards, then this makes them so. Given that there is a connection between what God believes and what God wills, then this narrow version of sovereignty entails that moral standards are creations of God's will.

So all he's managed to do is drag out a conservative view that plays into his hands by arguing just what he says they should argue. It's just a straw man that forces us into a narrow corner defending a narrow version of Christianity. All the while everyone in the debate has refussed to think about the true nature of moral standards, as dirived from God's nature, rather than his will.



NIELSEN'S CRITICISMS.

Kai Nielsen arues that morality is not founded upon the commands of God.

Nielsen begins by presenting the classic dilemma of theological morality, as appears in Plato's dialog, The Euthyphro. Plato argues that there are two ways to see the relation between God and morality: (1) God creates the standards of morality, or (2) God himself is subject to standards of morality which are independent of him. Traditionally, each of these options are seen to have unfavorable consequences. If God creates morality, then God could make murder or stealing morally permissible if he chose. If, on the other hand, God is subject to external standards of morality, then he loses some of his greatness. Nielsen presents six arguments which show that the second of these two options is by far the most preferable.(Ibid)

This is just a rehash, and probably the original source or much of the atheist clamour. For an answer to the whole problem of both Euthephro and divine command theory, we turn to Augustine, who re-valued the values of the Roman empire. He re-made them based upon Chrsitian values. The first step was to put the froms in the mind of God. So What was merely pantheon of non-creating gods for Socrates (or at best a "prime mover" for Arosotle) Becomes the God of the Chrsitian faith, necessary being, the ground of being, in whom we live and move and have our being, and in whom the forms are merely a product of mind. This makes all the difference, because it means that there is no dilemma of a seperate standard of morality to which God must be subject or that the good is merely an act of God's wil or a matter of his personal tastes. The standards are in God' mind and they are a product of what God is! Neilsen is merely reitorating the same old tired dilemma which is jundiced anyway becaue it never was based on a being analogous to the Christian God!

Materialism Vanishes

The Argument:Science works by paradigm shifts, paradigm shifts have occurred, and are still occurring, which include into naturalistic understanding idea that only 100 years ago would have been excluded as "magic" or as "supernatural." Thus we can see that scinece cannot be used to rule out the Sueprnatural becuause more and more it incorporates ideas of it into the naturalisitc schemeatta.


Many see a new Dualism emerging which is compatible with either SN or Naturalist assumptions.

Many atheists seem to think that science exclusive domain of atheism, and that it's function is to get rid of religion. But scinece is neutral, scinece is no more a creature of atheism than it is a creature of theism.Ontological judgements, that is ideas about the major sturcure of reality, are beyond the domain of science.
The argument turns on the basic historical fact that atheists have lost the ground uponwhich they dismissed God from science in the first place. In their book God and Nature Lindberg and Numbers demonstrate that the moment at which this happened was when La Place said "I have no need of that hypothesis," meaning the idea that God created the universe. What he meant was that God was not needed as an explaintion because we now have naturlistic cause and effect, which explains everything. But the atheist has cashed in cause and effect to over come the Big Bang. Materialists are now willing to consider ideas like the self caused universe, Hawkings unbounded condition which removes cause completely as a consideration; or based upon quantum theory they are willing to accept the notion that causality is an illusion, that the universe could just pop up out of nothing. With that committment they lose the ground upon which they first removed God from consideration.

Now perhaps they still do not need God as a causal explaintion, but in the Religious a pirori argument, and in the innate religious instrict argument I say that belief was never predicated upon a need for explaination in the first palce. Nevertheless, the fact still remians, the reason for dismissing God was the sufficiency of natural causation as explaination, with that gone there is no longer any grounds for dismissing consideration of God from the universe.

I will argue that more than that is going. There is a paradigm shift underway which demonstrates a total change in sceintific thinking in many areas and over many disciplines. That change demonstrates that the materialist concept is wrong; there is more to reality than just the material world. There are other aspects to the material world wich are non-deterministic, non-mechanistic, and which call into question the whole presupposition of excluding the supernatural from consideration.


1)Materialism is the antithesis of belief in God, it rules out any such belife on the grounds that a deterministic, reductionist, or mechanistic understanding of the natural world is all that is needed to explain the natrual world.


2) Materialism is wrong on all these counts; it is not based upon scientfic objective or "ultimate" proof, but is culturally constructed.


3) Materialism is simply inadequate--from the standpoint of modern physics.


4) Paraigm shifts in many different field have led to the includion of concepts that once would have been anti-materialist.


5) Therefore, materialism is inadequate and Reductionism is misguided (at best).


6) "Bigger" views of the universe have emerged, and are being accepted/developed by the academic community.


7)These "bigger universes" include fundamental mechanisms (non-mystical ones!) for mind to 'exist' and to interact with 'matter'.


8) materialism is wrong, therefore, the door is open to the possibility of God and the supernatural.

Now this argument doesn't prove the Christian God, it could open the possibility to a supernatural without God, or a Buddhistic concept of reality, but the step away form total materialism brins us closer to some sort of belief in God.


B. Paradigm Shifts.

1) Thomas S. Kuhn.


Kuhn's famous theory was that scientific thought works through paradigm acquisition, and that paradigms change when they can no longer absorb anomalies into the model and must account for them in some other way. This theory entails the idea that science is culturally constructed, but Kuhn was not "hard project," that is he did not think that science was totally a construct or that it didn't describe true states of affairs in the world. However, our ideas about science are culturally rooted and our understanding of the world in a scientific fashion is rooted in culture. For this reason he thought that science is not linear cumulative progress.




a. Scientific progress not cumulative.


"scientific revolutions are here taken to be those non-cumulative developmental episodes replaced in whole or in part by a new one..." (Thomas kuhn The Structure of scientific Revolutions," (92)



b. Paradigm Shifts.

"In section X we shall discover how closely the view of science as cumulating is entangled with a dominate epistemology that takes knowledge to be a construction placed directly upon raw sense data by the mind. And in section XI we shall examine the strong support provided to the same historiographic scheme by the techniques of effective science pedagogy. Nevertheless, despite the immense plausibility of that ideal image, there is increasing reason to wonder whether it can possibly be an image of science. After the pre-paradgim period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between cometing schools of scientific thought. Cumulative anticipation of unanticipated novelties proves to be an almost nonexistent exception to the rule of scientific development.The man who takes historic fact seriously must suspect that science does not tend toward the ideal that our image of its cumulativeness has suggested. Perhaps it is another sort of enterprise."(Ibid,94)

c. P shift not based rationally upon data.

"The choice [between paradigms] is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter as they must into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses it's own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense...the status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (96).

Kuhn is not alone in these observations, major scientific thinkers have questioned scientific 'pretense of objectivity' thoughout the century:


This 'bigger' aspect can also be seen in Rosenberg's 'liberal naturalism' [CS:JCS:3.1.77]:

"The question of scientific objectivity becomes more compelling when one considers that doubts about the reductive paradigm are by no means new. William James (1890), Charles Sherrington (1951), Erwin Schrodinger (1944, 1958), Karl Popper and John Eccles (1977)--among others--have insisted that the reductive view is inadequate to describe reality. This is not a fringe group. They are among the most thoughtful and highly honored philosophers and scientists of the past century. How is it that their deeply held and vividly expressed views have been so widely ignored? Is it not that we need to see the world as better organized than the evidence suggests?

"Appropriately, the most ambitious chapter of this section is the final one by Willis Harman. Is the conceptual framework of science sufficiently broad to encompass the phenomenon of consciousness, he asks, or must it be somehow enlarged to fit the facts of mental reality? Attempting an answer, he considers the degree to which science can claim to be objective and to what extent it is influenced by the culture in which it is immersed. Those who disagree might pause to consider the religious perspective from which modern science has emerged.

"There is reason to suppose that the roots of our bias toward determinism lie deeper in our cultural history than many are accustomed to suppose. Indeed, it is possible that this bias may even predate modern scientific methods. In his analysis of thirteenth-century European philosophy, Henry Adams (1904) archly observed: "Saint Thomas did not allow the Deity the right to contradict himself, which is one of Man's chief pleasures." One wonders to what extent reductive science has merely replaced Thomas's God with the theory of everything."

2) Paradigm Shifts in last 30 years change materialist conceptions.


a. Medicine.


Medical paradigm shift *Medical Schools and Doctors accept Healing more readily.

Christian Science Monitory, Monday, Sept. 15, 1999

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/09/15/us/us.6.html "Research Starts to Bridge GAp Between Prayer and Medicine.


"The growing dialogue between the disciplines of faith and medicine, was probed this past weekend at the Religion Newswriters Association's annual meeting here. Increasingly, medical institutions are exploring the role of prayer in healing. Three years ago, only three US medical schools in offered courses on spirituality and health. Today, there are 30."


This quotation is old, it's now 120 schools or so.

*Most Doctors Have experience with healing and medical opinion changing.

Ibid.

Larry Dossey, author of several books on the subject, says that he, like most doctors, has witnessed "miracle cures." But the quality of research on the subject varies greatly.

US TOO International, Inc.

Prostate Cancer Survivor Support Groups

US TOO Prostate Cancer Communicator Article
Volume No. 1, Issue No. 6 (January ­ June, 1997)
Survivor's Corner - Issue 6

"I am motivated to write about the healing power of prayer because many men I talk with are not only asking questions about prostate cancer statistics but have a feeling of being depressed after being diagnosed. Some are in a quandary as to what to do if PSA rises after treatment."

"A recent article was titled, "Physicians believe in the power of prayer," and stated that 269 doctors were surveyed and 99% said they were convinced that religious belief can heal."We've seen the power of belief," said Dr. Herbert Benson, author of Timeless Healing which offers scientific evidence that faith has helped to cure medical conditions. Prayer helps and the prayers of others can help in your recovery and healing."

* Good Studies Exist, Skeptics Pick On Worst Studies. Ibid. Skeptics, [Larry Dossey] says, tend to point to the weakest studies. Good scientific method, he says however, requires the medical community to look at the best work to "see what it shows us." Dr. Dossey adds that "I'm not trying to hold prayer hostage to science. I don't think prayer needs science to validate it."

b. Cosmology (end of cause and effect).

Physicists are now embroiled in integrating metaphysical notions into science and in atheists assume them as though they were fact. The self causing universe, something from nothing, multiple universes, all beyond the pale of scientific investigation, all assumed as totally proven facts by the materialists.


*No Physics to explian something from nothing.



John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]
That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift.

*Multiverse is unscientific metaphysics.

Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11215.html

"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."


Some physicists, such as Oldenwald, are aware of this, but that doesn't stop the the materalists from continuing the assumption. So if it is religious metaphysics its bad, but if its metaphysics the materialist can use it's "ok."



c.Consciousness--re-entry of dualism.

There is a revolution in thought about consciousness underway that may include several paradigm shifts at once. It includes an interdisciplinary mix of Philosophers, psychologists, cognitive sciences, physicists, and other disciplines. Some of the more radical theories being advanced by physicists include the notion that consciousness is Quantum, that it is located non-spacilly and non-physically. see the consciousness argument for further details. But the most exciting aspect of this controversy is the fact that it has led to a reemergence of dualism. Glenn Miller does an excellent job researching this topic, most of his evidence comes form the Journal of Consciousness Studies. He also does a good job of putting into persecutive the new dualism and its implications: : http://www.webcom.com/ctt/hmosoul.html


"Now, given this turbulence, re-evaluation, and re-definition going on the field, what is the status of DUALISM?

"Well, the first thing that comes to MY mind is that 'dualism' simply changed its public relations firm and won acceptance!

Strangely enough, the way this was accomplished was simply by defining reality 'bigger'. As one allows consciousness or mind INTO 'nature' as a fundamental 'thing' itself (with causal powers), the dual-worlds were simply collapsed into one 'bigger' world that has both elements in it! Dualism (in most, but not all, senses of the term) was simply given a new name, such as "naturalistic dualism" (Chalmers) or "liberal naturalism" (Rosenberg). No one puts this as clearly as Todd Moody, in responding to someone's 'fear of dualism' [JCS:2.4.371]:

"It's true that I am not troubled by this, in part because I don't find such a sharp line of demarcation between dualistic and materialistic metaphysics in the first place. If we cannot escape the conclusion that the physical description of the world is incomplete (as Elitzur states and many others agree), the main thing is to try to find a more complete one and not worry about whether it resembles previous versions of materialism or dualism"

The New York Times,April 16, 1996Arizona Conference Grapples With Mysteries of Human ConsciousnessBy SANDRA BLAKESLEE[T] UCSON, Ariz.
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~tmiles/myster.html

"The next major group of consciousness seekers might be called modern dualists. Agreeing with the hard problem, they feel that something else is needed to explain people's subjective experiences. And they have lots of ideas about what this might be.According to Chalmers, scientists need to come up with new fundamental laws of nature. Physicists postulate that certain properties -- gravity, space-time, electromagnetism -- are basic to any understanding of the universe, he said. 'My approach is to think of conscious experience itself as a fundamental property of the universe,' he said. Thus the world has two kinds of information, one physical, one experiential. The challenge is to make theoretical connections between physical processes and conscious experience, Chalmers said.Another form of dualism involves the mysteries of quantum mechanics. Dr. Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford in England argued that consciousness is the link between the quantum world, in which a single object can exist in two places at the same time, and the so-called classical world of familiar objects where this cannot happen.Moreover, with Hameroff, he has proposed a theory that the switch from quantum to classical states occurs inside certain proteins call microtubules. The brain's microtubules, they argue, are ideally situated to perform this transformation, producing 'occasions of experience' that with the flow of time give rise to stream of consciousness thought.The notion came under vigorous attack."

Glenn Miller.

"It is very difficult to avoid this conclusion of 'emergent dualism' (chortle, chortle)with all the proposals floating around (reviewed above). The mind as 'immaterial'--in the sense of classical matter--is also accepted as a brute fact! Consider some of the statements and concessions (bold, my emphasis; italics, their emphasis):"

The introductory chapter in CS:TSC (p.1) opens with this statement: "This volume begins with a series of philosophical chapters devoted mostly to the explanatory chasm between reductionist mechanisms and the subjective phenomenon of conscious experience. The chasm is do daunting that many support 'dualism', the notion that the mind is distinct from the brain and merely interacts with it."

Erich Harth, (Univ. of Syracuse, Dept. of Physics) [CS:TSC:611ff] notes that dualism is "not quite as dead as some would have us believe" (p.619), and then goes on to show that the most common objection to old-style dualism just doesn't wash [p.620]:

Miller

"Physicists, predictably [in a quantum wave probability sense, of course..;>)], are very open to this interpenetration of mind/matter: Compare the free-floating quote of noted physicist Feynman:" "Mind must be a sort of dynamical pattern, not so much founded in a neurobiological substrate as floating above it, independent of it" [cited in CS:DP:24]

Hameroff's model [CS:JCS:108] claims to be both reductionist AND dualist:

"As a model of consciousness, quantum coherence in microtubules is reductionist in that a specific molecular structure is featured as a site for consciousness. It is seemingly dualist in that the quantum realm (which is actually intrinsic to all of nature) is seen to act through microtubules."

Atmanspacher gives his view that the dual-world is just this 'bigger' one-world [JCS:1.2.168-9]:

"One of the hot topics in this respect concerns the question of whether material reality and its non-material counterpart can indeed be considered as independent from each other as the concept of Cartesian dualism assumes. The most precise and best formalized indications for a negative answer to this question can be found in quantum theory."

"Two important concepts that present evidence against any ultimate relevance of the corresponding dualism are the concepts of complexity and meaning. In addition to quantum theory, these concepts reflect tendencies to bridge the Cartesian cut from both realms, that of physics as well as that of cognitive science..."

Grush and Churchland [CS:JCS:2.1.10-29] express amazement at how many 'intellectual materials' seem to have 'strong dualist hankerings' (p.27). They talk about these 'residual dualist hankerings' as being a rather widespread phenomenon.

An interesting possible example of this is in Hodgson' book The Mind Matters. In the review of the book [JCS:2.1.93], Squires makes this comment:

"Often I find in this book that the author is almost saying that within a person there is something that is in its essence not physics, but then he realises that this is dualism, which he feels should be avoided, so he tries to escape. These escapes are unsatisfactory."

Chalmers actually refers to his position as 'naturalistic dualism' and says that it does qualify as a type of dualism, but an innocent dualism [e.g. CS:JCS:2.3.210]

McGinn notes that "recent philosophy has become accustomed to the idea of mental causation" [CS:JCS:2.3.223]




d. Psychology of Religion.

See the Religious Instrict argument where I show that a whole discipline arose, transactional analysis, based upon Abraham Maslow's theoires of mystical experince. Documentation on that page demonstates that phychology no longer approaches religion as suspect, but understands it as healthy and normative for human being, and approches unbelief as suspect. There are also studies presented showing the benfits of religion for metal health.,



3) New laws of Physics.



In the NYT Quote from Chalmers above he proposes coming up with a new law of physics to explain the basic property of nature known as "consciousness." He is not the only one to propose this, as one can see from quotations of physicists in the consciousness argument. When theorists start proposing new laws of physics one can be fairly sure that a paradigm shift is underway. This is even more the case when the new law of physics is proposed to explain something that the old paradigm had reduced practically out of existence. The old reductionist/materialist paradigm reduced consciousness to mere epiphenomenal status and located it as brain function. It is the inadequacy of this understanding which has led some scientists to call for a new law!

CARM sux

those guys are such totally diso;noest idiots it's not even worth it to try to make peace with them. I apolgoized to monron Slick for saying he was stuid (he is) and that hes' a liar(he is) I never apologize to those dishonest idiots again. I shoudl have tired to make peace or go back.Jesus said be reconciled to your brother but did he tell us what to do whent he bother is totally false has no honor?

I was banned agian. what grave insult did I utter?I started winning argumetns. that's the only deal. I attacked no one. they are just as dishonest as you can get.

I apologized and that liar sai "O that's ok" but he didnt' say I'm not a false teacher.so It' ok if I run interfearence for them with the atheists, but just dont' take me seriously as a Chrisitain.

they are not Christians. They are flase brothers.


I bad slick from this Blog and all neiophite suck ups.

Method: Science in the hands of Skeptics and Beleivers

I find the following state of affairs to be a good description of the current state of dialectic between atheists and theists on the boards:

(1) Theists have a vast array of knowledge and argumentation built up over 2000 years, which basically amounts to a ton evidence for the existence of God. It's not absolute proof, because true, sure enough, actual absolute proof is just damn hard to come by on anything--even most scientific things; which is why they invented inductive reasoning. Science accepts correlation's as signs of caudal relationships, it doesn't ever actually observe causality at work. But that kind of indicative relationship is not good for atheists when a God argument is involved. Then it must be absolute demonstration and direct observation.

(2) This double standard always works in favor of the atheist and never in favor of the theist. I suspect that's because Theists are trying to persuade atheists that a certain state of affairs is the case, and at the same time we are apt to be less critical of our own reasons for believing that. Atheists make a habit of denial and pride themselves on it.

Why is it a double standard? Because when it works to establish a unified system of naturalistic observation the atheist is only too happy to appeal to "we never see" "we always see" and "there is a strong correlation." We never see a man raised from the dead. We never see a severed limb restored. The correlation's between naturalistic cause and effect are rock solid and always work, so science gives us truth, and religion doesn't. But when those same kinds of correlation's are used to support a God argument, they are just no darn good. to wit: we never see anything pop out of absolute noting, we never even see absolute nothing, even QM particles seem to emerge from prior conditions such as Vacuum flux, so they are not really proof of something form nothing. But O tisg tosh, that doesn't prove anything and certainly QM proves that the universe could just pop up out of nothing!

(3) "laws of physics" are not real laws, they are only descriptions, aggregates of our observations. So they can't be used to argue for God in any way. But, when it comes to miraculous claims, the observations of such must always be discounted because they violate our standard norm for observation, and we must always assume they are wrong no matter how well documented or how inexplicable. We must always assume that only naturalistic events can happen, even though the whole concept of a naturalism can only be nothing more than an aggregate of our observations about the world; and surely they are anything but exhaustive. Thus one wood think that since our observations are not enough to establish immutable laws of the universe, they would not be enough to establish a metaphysics which says that only material realms exist and only materially caused events can happen! But guess again...!

(4) The Theistic panoply of argumentation is a going concern. Quentin Smith, the top atheist philosopher says that 80% of philosophers today are theists. But when one uses philosophy in a God argument, it's just some left over junk from the middle ages; even though my God arguments are based upon S 5 modal logic which didn't exist even before the 1960s and most of the major God arguers are still living.

(5) They pooh pooh philosophy because it doesn't' produce objective concrete results. But they can't produce any scientific evidence to answer the most basic philosophical questions, and the more adept atheists will admit that it isn't the job of science to answer those questions anyway. Scientific evidence cannot give us answers on the most basic philosophical questions, rather than seeing this as a failing in science (or better yet, evidence of differing magister) they rather just chalice it up to the failing of the question! The question is no good because our methods dot' answer it!

(6) What it appears to me is the case is this; some methods are better tailed for philosophy. Those methods are more likely to yield a God argument and even a rational warrant for belief, because God is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. God is a matter of faint, after all, and in matters of faith a rational warrant is the best one should even hope for. But that's not good enough for atheists, they disparage the whole idea of a philosophical question (at least the scientistic ones do--that's not all of them, but some) yet they want an open ended universe with no hard and fast truth and no hard and fast morality!

(7)So it seems that if one accepts certain methods one can prove God within the nature of that language game. now of course one can reject those language games and choose others that are not quite as cozy with the divine and that's OK too. Niether approach is indicative of one's intelligence or one's morality. But, it does mean that since it may be just as rational given the choice of axioms and methodologies, then what that taps out to is belief in God is rationally warrented--it may not be only rational conclusion but it is one ratinal conclusion Now i know all these guys like Barron and HRG will say "hey I'm fine with that." But then when push comes to shove they will be back again insisting that the lack of absolute proof leaves the method that yields God arguments in doubt, rather than the other way around. I don't see why either should be privileged. Why can't we just say that one method is better suited for one kind of question, the other for the other?

and if one of them says 'why should I ask those questions?' I say 'why shouldn't we leave the choice of questions to the questioner?

Sermon for the day: Psalm 104, the Process Psalm

Garden of the gods



I've been off line for weeks due to the move to a more long term apartment. hopefully we will be more settaled for a bit and I can get back to posting. This is just a token in promise of more subtantial article soon.



The reason a lot of people think a God argument should spell out which reilgion is true is because they think God is a big guy in the sky. They think an argument should prove "which God" as well as that there is a God. This is becasue they don't understand the necessity of God as being itself. If one understood thatl God is eteranl necessary being they would see that only one God is possible and any idea or concept of God that includes necessity and transcendence is a sign marker pointing toward the divine. In fact contingent gods in a sense piont to this as well.


The following Psalm, if read literally demonstrates the way they understand God in anthropomorphic terms. The Psalm could also be understood in such a way as to give us a more expansive understanding of God.


Psa 104

104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.


Psa 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:


Psa 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:


Psa 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:


Psa 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.


Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.


Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.


Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.


Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.


Psa 104:10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, [which] run among the hills.


Psa 104:11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.


Psa 104:12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, [which] sing among the branches.


Psa 104:13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.


Psa 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;


Psa 104:15 And wine [that] maketh glad the heart of man, [and] oil to make [his] face to shine, and bread [which] strengtheneth man's heart.


Psa 104:16 The trees of the LORD are full [of sap]; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;


Psa 104:17 Where the birds make their nests: [as for] the stork, the fir trees [are] her house.


Psa 104:18 The high hills [are] a refuge for the wild goats; [and] the rocks for the conies.


Psa 104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.


Psa 104:20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep [forth].


Psa 104:21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.


Psa 104:22 The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.


Psa 104:23 Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.


Psa 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.


Psa 104:25 [So is] this great and wide sea, wherein [are] things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.


Psa 104:26 There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.


Psa 104:27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give [them] their meat in due season.


Psa 104:28 [That] thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.


Psa 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.


Psa 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.


Psa 104:31 The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.


Psa 104:32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.


Psa 104:33 I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.


Psa 104:34 My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.


Psa 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

If you read this litterally you see God looking in on all of the earth and nothing happens until God says "let the grass grow" and it grows. If some day God decides not to make the grass grow, it doesn't. So we get the idea of God wandering about in his "pj's" with a cup of moring coffee saying "I don't feel like growing any grass today." In other words, it's a very human, man-like view of God. But this psalm gives us a much more expansive understanding if we read it for the suggestions brought up by the imagery rather than the literal statements. We see God relating to creation in process.

In other words, an unfolding and evolving universe is a process, God is part of that process, the initator and the sustainer, but not in the shade tree mechanic way that is pictured above. God "causes" the grass to grow, we are told, but God does not have to ride herd daily on the growing of Grass. The grass just grows, its ultimate reison d'etre is God.

This passage is great for process theology because it shows the whole of creation harmoniouisly working according to God's plan, and in harmony with God who experiences its working and while not riding herd on it like a farmer,is at least part of the balance overall.

Psa 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:


Psa 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

The foundations of reality are alid out by God's rule. This is a very anthropomorphic way to picture it, but what it is really telling us is that God is the basis for all that is, and the foudnation of the evolving universe and the laws that govern it. God is the author of the laws of phsyics. But more than that. God, in his concresent pole, is part of the evolution of the universe, he's here pictured riding the winds and clouds as chiots, but clearly its' he's invovled with and in the workings of nature. He's intimately related in a dynamic way with the unfolding of natural law.




Psa 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.


Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.


Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.


Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.


Psa 104:10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, [which] run among the hills.


Psa 104:11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.


Psa 104:12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, [which] sing among the branches.

God has laid out the basis of laws that run the universe, and is seen here as the ulimate cuasal agents in an automatic process that runs by itself. God is the ultimate cause of all things.

Note on God arguments and Religious Tradition

In the previous post I bloged an old thread from my old message board when it was called "have theology, will argue" (now Doxa Forums).

The major issue began as the lack of specificity in putative state of affairs (PSA) as "something vs nothing." I argue that there must be a PSA such that necessary being always existed (in some form) as opposed to total absolute nothingness, but I refuse to ever specify what that "Something" is. That's because (1) it would be foolish to even try (2)I should have to because that's not the point.

The point is not to spell out which God is real or which religous tradition to join. I think that's what a lot of skeptics, and perhaps believers too, expect form a God argument. But they shouldn't, because that's not the point. The religious traditions are dealt with in another way, God's arguments are merely to show the possibility of the logical warrant for belief in some sort of God.

But there is a better reason not to spell out the initial conditions, the PSA; we are dealing with the ultimate abstract realities of being and nothingness. We are dealing with being at a level prior to any formation of understanding that biological organisms might formulate on a dust mote orbiting a star. That is all that need be spelled out for the conditions of the argument.

People want more, they want to have a clear cut reference point for either rejecting or accepting the Bible and Christianity. But part of the point is that they understand God as a big guy on a throne with a beard who sits there and says "let the grass grow" and it grows. So

Religious traditions are chosen because they mediate transformative power. One choosing a tradition becasue it speaks to her with clearity and comfortably aborbs and puts at rest fears about the ultimate concerns. That is the function of a religious community, and a tradition is merely the community in action. This is the basis of deciding which reigion has the best handel on understanding God, not the basis of a God argument itself.

Reity: An Argument for Existence of God.

this was a thread on my old message boards "Have Theology, Will Argue" (from 2004). I was reading through and found it interesting.I thought to re do it into an essay, but I think it's better with the original comments and responses to them left in.

Reity = the ultimate necessary state of affairs, ultimate reality).

Deicision Paradigm:


Modus Ponens

If p than q,
P, therefore, p.


If Riety, then God.
Riety, therefore, God.


There must be some ultimate state of affiars, and since nothingness as a Putative State of Affairs (PSA) is impossilbe, than the there must be a state of reity such that "something" is the ultimate state of affiars.Since the most basic defintion of God is "the ground of understanding" (Flew)whatever is at the top of the metaphycial hierarchy, than whatever is the ultimate state of affiars is by deftion in a position to function as God in that methaphysical ecnonomy in which it exists.

.

Argument:


1) God is Synonimous with the State of Riety.


The Concept of God functions as Riety in any metaphysical system: God is the Transendental Signifer, the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks,the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs, ultimate reality

2) Nothingness as a putative state of affairs is impossible.


a)Marked by its own contradiction (Reity is something so it can't be total nothingness).



b)Nothingness would be a timless state, thus no change, no cause, no becoming.



c) Contradicts everything in our experience and no reason to think it would be.



3) Some Eternal state of Affiars has to have always been.



a) If nothingness as PSA is impossible, than some state eternal state of affairs had to always exist.(law of excluded middle).



b) Being cannot, therefore, be merely possible but must be ontologically necessary.



4) Since The concept of God and the reality of Riety fit the same defitions we should asssume they share the same identity.


5) Therefore, God is the state of Riety, and must therefore exist.

Asiety:


(Latin: a, from; se, self)

The property by which a being exists of and from self, a property belonging to God alone, who exists without other cause than Himself, who is independent and self-sufficient; regarded by many Fathers and theologians as the best way of expressing the very essence of God.






New Catholic Dictionary - Catholic Encyclopedia; Pohle.Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, Saint Louis, 1921 (ed.)


www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetic...OfGod.html

from

From the Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (ISBN 0-8010-2151-0)


Aseity (Self-Existence). Most classical theists see God's Aseity or Pure Existence as a key attribute. The early church fathers, as well as Augustine (354-430), Anselm (1033-1109), and Aquinas, continually cite the Bible in support of this position. In defending God's self-existence (aseity) classical theists such as Aquinas are fond of citing Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." This they understand to refer to God as Pure Being or Existence.




Now of course one might ask:What do you mean "ultimate state of affairs", and where have you established it "must be"?

The skeptic might charge that God is a loaded term: If the definition of "God" is "whatever is the ultimate state of affairs", then perhaps we are not even arguing for that which we believe "God" to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the argument doesn't depend upon any particular PSA (putative state of affiars), other than the fact that it can't be nothingness. It works just as well if a singularity or no bounded condition. The problem, therefore, works itself out to be that we haven't really said anything. God is just "whatever there is." That would just produce a fairly tautologial statment. Whatever is the case is the case. Why say that? You can't disagree with it, but that's what I'm saying. The first state of the uinverse whatever that is. But let's be clear about one thing. I am not saying that the state of affairs would be God. I am saying only that such a state of something rather than nothing is indicative of God.

Nevertheless, the fact reamains that we can only discuss whether this is a valid argument if there is some intelligible conclusion that we are arguing for. To have an argument, one needs to have sentences which express propositions. If there is just a meaningless jumble of words, then there is no argument to address and no conclusion who truth can actually be debated. But there is a difference in providing a meaningful conclusion and having to spell out matters which are beyond the basic scope of the arugment. Many sketpics have compalined about not understanding my rguments without really having a valid objection to them other than their own lack of knolwedge. such is the case with the transcendental signifier argument.

The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me. How about others here? Do you have any notion of what any of those terms might possibly mean?

These terms mean something to Derrida, and Rorty, and Heidegger, and Husseral and half the academic world, so you are just going to have to come up to speed.
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.




I know what it means. I studied Derrida tought for four years at Doctoral level.

see my TS argument.
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

SRB7
Registered User
Posts: 149
(4/8/04 8:58 am)
62.252.192.4
Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?

Meta
I know what it means. I studied Derrida tought for four years at Doctoral level.

see my TS argument.
[/quote]
Can you give a definition of any of those terms here?

SRB

Metacrock
Posts: 135
(4/10/04 3:11 am)
64.12.116.132
Edit Del
ezSupporter

Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which terms?

But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right? So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier? What is hard about that? The Uber Mench,the world soul, the zeit geuist, God, the dialectic, the Atmon, those are all exampels. What's hard about that?

MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

Edited by: Metacrock at: 4/10/04 3:14 am

SRB7
Registered User
Posts: 152
(4/10/04 5:26 pm)
62.252.192.4
Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?

Meta
which terms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes and yes.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a heirarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the heirarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

SRB

Edited by: SRB7 at: 4/11/04 3:05 am

Metacrock
Posts: 140
(4/11/04 1:06 pm)
205.188.116.199
Edit Del
ezSupporter

Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRB
The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?

Meta
which terms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.


Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.

like God.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes and yes.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a heirarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the heirarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

SRB7
Registered User
Posts: 154
(4/11/04 2:52 pm)
62.252.192.4
Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SRB
The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.

Meta
Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I strongly lean towards the view that those four terms are all meaningless gibberish. According to you, are they supposed to each mean the same thing, or are they supposed to mean different things?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta
So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?

SRB
I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a hierarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the hierarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

Meta
then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How does one level on the unspecified hierarchy that you keep talking about relate to the level above it? Does everything that exists appear somewhere in your hierarchy? If so, roughly where do hedgehogs appear, where do chickens appear and where does the number three appear? In what order do hedgehogs, chickens and the number three get ranked on your hierarchy?

What do you mean when you say, above, "makes it all right"?

As for the term "necessary being," I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole. I am a noncognitivist with regard talk of "necessary being."

SRB

Edited by: SRB7 at: 4/11/04 2:54 pm

Metacrock
Posts: 141
(4/13/04 4:12 pm)
64.12.116.73
Edit Del
ezSupporter

Re: God Argument: Reity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SRB

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.

Meta
Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SRB: I strongly lean towards the view that those four terms are all meaningless gibberish. According to you, are they supposed to each mean the same thing, or are they supposed to mean different things?[/quote]



[fon color=lightskyblue]you are alone in that opinon. Those are all excepted terms. The whole Derrridan project of the 80s and 90s was based upon using the term Tanscendental sgnifier. I think that is a sig of ingorance, not to know the major terms and not to be able to accept them as valid terms.[/font]







Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta
So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?

SRB
I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a hierarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the hierarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

Meta
then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one level on the unspecified hierarchy that you keep talking about relate to the level above it? Does everything that exists appear somewhere in your hierarchy? If so, roughly where do hedgehogs appear, where do chickens appear and where does the number three appear? In what order do hedgehogs, chickens and the number three get ranked on your hierarchy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




EzCode Parsing Error: color=lightskyblue]would you waste your time discussing auto mechanics with some one said thigs like "well I dont' accept 'exhuast pipe' as a valid term. I accept that an inatek manifold might be a car part, but where does an inatek manifold go? Does it go in the trunck so you can take things into the trunk? That's about the level on which you are dealing here.

anyone's metaphyscal hieararchy as to have a frst principle watever that may be.An any suh 1st princpel is a Transcendental signifier. I can tell you where put your hedge hogs. and in[/font]

What do you mean when you say, above, "makes it all right"?

As for the term "necessary being," I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole. I am a noncognitivist with regard talk of "necessary being."

SRB


[fon color=lightskyblue]if that' what you want to call it. I have another term for it.[
MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

Bible is literature

I'm really sick of the way skeptics take themselves so seriously to express anger toward God when it's clearly obvious that God isn't the way the straw men have set him up to be. Most of this tendency goes back to taking the Bible literally. The flip side of this is the way some Christians learn to justify teh literal image as though it's really he point of the Bible an never stop to ask themselves, "what is this text really saying to me?"

The fact that most of the OT is narrative is a que for us. We should think "read between lines." It's not magic, it's literature you read it the way you would any other literature. You can understand the author probably has a point to make that is not obvious and the literal surface of the story is not the point, because in a narrative other than a children's story it seldom is. Even in children's stories we can sometimes sense that more is going on than just the gingerbread house where the witch eats children. I mean, come on. The step mother tries to kill the kids and you don't think more is going on than the surface of the story?

So take the flood for example. What kind of text is it? We should always ask this first. Its' mythology. How do we know? Because it's just like other texts of the same myth that are much older. So obvioulsy the Hebrew redactors, in using a popular universal story that had been a mainstay of thier world for thousands of years (the origianal Suemrian epic is copied by the Babylonians and datesa bout 2000 years older than Genesis--in the Sumerian myth of Eden the Sumerian Adam is named Adam, but Eve is Adapa. In Sumerian flood story--Gilgamesh--Noah is Upnapishtim).

While the skeptic looks at the flood and says "O gee, God is cruel and evil to kill all those people, he must have afraid to let people have fun" or whatever they might say, we know that'snot the point. We have to look past the sruface plot. It's not about God being angry and killing everyone,that's just a plot device because they used a pagan myth that was already around. That's just part of the story that's a given for them. So let's ask ourselves why would they uset his story rather than make up their own? Because they have a point to make about what the pagan story says. What is says basically is that the gods were capcrecious. They destroyed the world because people were making too much noise.It also says Upnapistem survived the flood so Gilgamesh seeks him out to learn the secret of eternal life. The Hebrews are saying God is not caprious but if he did destroy the world he would do so for moral reasons and for good reasons not because they are making too much noise.

Our modern skeptics who know so little of the ancient world can only compare the story with our value system and since they expect everything to hold their values (modern skeptics are so ethnocentric) they conclude that gods not good because he doesn't hold their values. They just don't see that actually Genesis is closer to expressing the value with which they agree than are the original myths from which barrows. Then the point about eternal life, the point in Genesis is that God will keep us safe throuig the danger and give us new life if we hold fast in faith. Eternal life comes from faith in God, not form fate or luck.

These are the kinds of ponits being made by the story, not "you better shape up or God will kill you." The cruelty of God in tho flood story is just handed down from a previous version and has nothing to do with thei real encounter of th divine that Christians expernce. Of course God would never really kill all the people of the world in that way.

But here's antoher point, we might be killing ourselves and since we aren't willing ot lsiten to God he can't warn us.

Visit my other Blog: Fundy Watch

I have put up a blog to deal exclusively with fundamentalism, so I can use this one for pure theology. Right now it has the same post as here, Dick Army Lashes out at Dobson. But it will soon contain more; I will put new material and fundy material from this blog as well.


Fundy Watch

Dick Army takes down Dobson

These are not my words, this is the actual article





September 28, 2006


Armey Lashes Out Against Dobson, Values Voters Conservative Christians take it on the chin from an unexpected source. Former Texas Congressman Dick Armey, once a stalwart ally in the culture wars, appears to be turning his back on Christian conservatives and their leaders. The former majority leader of the House of Representatives reportedly told Ryan Sager, author of a new book on the Republican Party, that values voters and their leaders — especially Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson — are "nasty bullies." In the interview, Armey responded pointedly when Sager asked why he thought Christian conservatives seemed more powerful now than in the 1990s. "To a large extent, because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies," Armey said. "I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb . . . These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic."



Focus on the Family Action President Jim Daly said it's shocking the former congressman would attack millions of values voters who helped Armey and other social conservatives gain control of Congress.

"Values voters expect to hear such cruel insults from the Left," he said, "but not from a champion of family values, as Mr. Armey once claimed to be."


read more




Senate Makes Last-Ditch Effort to Pass Line-Item Veto
Legislation would allow the president to strike parts of a bill. Letter Outlines What's Legal for Churches in an Election Year
The law allows non-profit groups

to do a lot.

Encourage Your Senators to Pass

the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act Parental-Notification Laws Reduce Premarital Sex Among Minors Judge Rejects Ohio Law Limiting Abortion Pill
more news more briefs




Dr. Dobson to Appear on Your World w/ Neil Cavuto

Dr. James Dobson's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor was postponed by the network. A new date has not been determined. He's still scheduled to appear Friday on Fox News Channel's Your World w/ Neil Cavuto. Listen online to the day's top radio news stories, hosted by Bob Ditmer.

Citizen

Issues that matter. Information that empowers. Stories that inspire. Get them all in "Citizen" magazine.


Suggested Donation: $24.00
details



"Upon this government more than any other has, in the providence of God, been cast the special guardianship of the great principle of adherence to written constitutions. If it fail here, all hope in regard to it will be extinguished."
-- President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 8, 1829



citizenlink.org | about us | contact us | focusaction.org | family.org




__._,_.___

Something is Not Nothing, but Nothing is Something, or Something Like That.

This is a comment from anonymous (that most prolific of all posters) on a blogpiece concerning my God Argument, "Argument From Cosmological Necessity.".The original argument turns on the idea that something must always have existed.

anon: While I will grant nothingness as a PSA seems to me to be an impossibility, since we would not be able to get out of the state of entropy that nothingness implies.

That's exacctly the point of the argument! That means that nothing as a "Putative state of affairs" (PSA) is impossible, thus we did not start with nothing, we had to start with some eternally existing "something."

However, to say that the spark, or counterpoint, or whatever it is that keeps the universe "real" and happening is "God" is a stretch. But what if it is God, as in a creator. To think that anything as massive as a counterbalance to the entirety of our known universal reality would even consider us important is ridiculous.

That's because you are identifying God with the big guy in the sky sort of thinking. You see the divine as an old man up in the clouds with the particular personality of some religious document. You need to learn to understand those images as metaphors.

Would something with that much force and power then create something as infintesimal as a human son to teach us a lesson? I hardly think so. Would that force even bother to notice Man in the great expanse of the universe that God created?

What do we have to base that judgement upon? Even that thought is anthropomorphic, and anthropocentric. you have nothing to base it on. You have no concept of what it would mean for God to do that much less how it seems to God or if God doesn't do such things all the time. After all, how can we measure economies of scale with infinity. The big guy in the sky is big, and everything he does is big, but if we are talking about infinity there is "big" or "small." the micro can be just as infinite as the macro.

There is so much of man in the Judeo-Christian manifestation of God that just has to be wrong. Kingdom's. God the Father. Lord.

Christianity is about us. The fundies are upset because they think God would hand down a "perfect" revelation from on high. But he's handing it to a flawed humanity. He hands it down through humans because it is for humans. So it has to be encoded and filtered through our cultural constructs because we have to understand it. The best the we can do is to understand it analogically. We can only know that our connections are metaphors but we can have the direct connection in mystical experience which is beyond words.

These are all human concepts. If God is the Father, then who is our Mother? Men can fertilize, but he cannot create.

"father" is obviously metaphor. Who is the revleation for? If it is for us shouldn't we understand it? Why would God communicate with us in ways totally incomprohensible?

I am not saying there isn't something, but I highly doubt it's anything like the men who wrote the Old Testament envision.

I think the Christian understanding has warped our persective about how the Jews actually saw God. They knew God was more than just a big guy on a throne. See the visions of Iasiaha about the throne Cheriot, these are metahors not litteral statements about how God looks! They are like the sumbols in the Book of Revelation. They are like images in modern art, they only suggest things.

Man has been wrong about the nature of his God through every epoch. We "know" that there is no Zeus on Olympus. No Odin in Valhalla. No Jupiter. No Osis. Yet it's ok to believe in a J-C God, Allah or Vishnu? We call theirs a "mythology" and ours are "beliefs"? "Ancient" man beleived just as ferverantly in the Gods as those of the faith do now.

You are literalizing the metahors. you are hung up on the litteral.

You can't have it both ways

O I already do!

Matt slick is a faith destoryer

It serves me right for going back. and I expected it. it still makes me angry taht taht childish petty minded little hick you can't has no brains and can't think can't defend himself intellectually so he has to ban everyone who disagrees with him.

I was being very good.I did not attack anyone I attack no one no one non one. I complitmented. I complemented their side. they banned me and said it wa for attacking people. that's because they are fools and they cant' ratinoally deal with an opponent.

I cliam them anathema. they are false teachers of a false gospel and I declair them anathema.