| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"A.Christian" |
| Date: |
22 Oct 2004 04:17:50 PM |
| Object: |
Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
Since you asked me to consider these arguments, I have done so and I
am posting them here, in order to reply to them. Because unfornately,
for some reason, your Google links did not have a reply button.
From: Josef Balluch (josef.balluch@sympatico.can)
Subject: The Idealistic Fallacy
Newsgroups: talk.atheism
Date: 2003-10-09 21:09:07 PST
Idealism is found at the core of mainstream Western theism, and there
it
holds that ideas have primacy and that one proceeds from thought to
thing. Plato proposed that ideals, or Forms, exist in some non-natural
realm and are the "blueprints" for existing natural phenomena. This
concept was incorporated by theists, with ideals said to exist in the
mind of the deity.
Idealism, itself an idea or concept, would have to meet the criterion
of
being self evident if it is to be seen as true since it could not draw
support from any fact or any other idea. Any argument intended to show
that idealism is true would have to assume the primacy of at least
some
ideas, and would thus be circular.
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness, but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting. There
is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption
of
a primary consciousness, namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists. Such a claim contains within itself the assumption
that existence is primary, because no primary consciousness can be
invoked to explain the existence of the primary consciousness. The
claim
specifies that there is one thing that exists independent of the whim
of
a primary consciousness.The assertion that a primary consciousness
exists would be a claim of an objective fact, ie: a fact independent
of
the whim of the consciousness. This independence contradicts the
premise
that existence is dependent on the primary consciousness.
It is identity that distinguishes one thing from another, so identity
presupposes that things exist. If complete non-existence were the case
then there would be no need of identity as there would be no need to
distinguish non-existence from anything else. The Law of Identity,
which
is fundamental in logic, thus presupposes the existence of something.
There is nothing in that claim which requires that the something be a
consciousness. It does, however, require that things have an objective
existence with an unchangeable identity if logic is to be considered
valid. If reality were subject to the whim of a consciousness then
existence, identity and logic would likewise be dependent on the whim
of
the consciousness. In such a situation there would be no real basis
for
the validity of logic, and thus no basis for rationality.
The claim for a primary consciousness commits the Fallacy of the
Stolen
Concept since it assumes what it denies, namely that something can
exist
independent of the choice of the consciousness. The primacy of
consciousness over existence is thus an inconsistent hypothesis, so it
can not be considered to be self evident. Furthermore, the concept
calls
the validity of logic into question. And finally, the concept contains
an internal contradiction, as shown, so it must be false.
Regards,
Josef
A true idea has no need of any faith.
-- Ken Harding
From: Josef Balluch (josef.balluch@sympatico.ca)
Subject: The Christian Fallacy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
Date: 2002-09-06 21:50:22 PST
Ideologies are by nature a value statement or judgement; they purport
to
tell how one should live one's life for the better. Christianity makes
a
number of such value judgements. At the core of Christianity is the
idea
that the natural world is a place of evil and suffering, and that good
can only come from a supernatural source. Based on this idea, morality
is said to be of supernatural origin. Theists justify this claim by
invoking the philosophical argument that OUGHT cannot be derived from
IS, or in simpler terms that value cannot be derived from fact.
Attempting to derive value from fact is said to be the Naturalistic
Fallacy, and it is opposed by Christians. However, the claims that the
natural world is a place of evil and suffering and that good must have
a
supernatural origin violate the tenet that value cannot be derived
from
fact, and show that Christianity rests upon contradictory principles.
For Christians, their Bible forms the core of their system of thought.
It is claimed to be divinely inspired and inerrant. Should it be shown
to contain errors, fallacies or contradictions then it's authority
would
be refuted. The tenet that value cannot be derived from fact can be
found in numerous Biblical passages, eg: Rom 8:7-8, 1 Cor 2:14, Gal
5:17, Rom 7:18, James 4:4, 1 John 2:15-16, John 14:17, Rom 7:25, Matt
6:24, Luke 16:13. And yet, there are many examples in the Bible of
value
being derived from fact, eg: Gen 1:31, Rom 1:20, Psalm 19:1, 97:6, 1
Tim
5:24, 1 Cor 11:14, Acts 14:17, Job 12:7-9. Thus Scripture itself, the
foundation of Christianity, clearly supports contradictory claims.
These
contradictory claims are found not only in Scripture but also at
apologetics sites and even at the Vatican's site.
There are also other claims within Christianity which make value
judgments, ie: they infer the existence of a deity and it's values,
from
some feature of the natural world. Some examples of these are
evidential
claims that: scripture is divinely inspired, that salvation is
required,
that a saviour has appeared, that prayer is effective, that moral
values
exist and are received from a deity, that nature attests to the
existence or characteristics of a deity, and that miracles have been
witnessed. Such claims violate the tenet that value cannot be derived
from fact, and thus commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Christianity both opposes and commits the Naturalistic Fallacy, as
shown, which means that it rests upon contradictory premises. These
premises are found in Scripture itself, which shows that Scripture is
not inerrant and not free of fallacy and contradiction, contrary to
the
claims made by Christians. The fact that Christianity is built upon
contradictory premises casts doubt upon it's validity, and the
Christian
world view certainly cannot be correct as it is currently presented.
Regards,
Josef
The masses have little time to think. And how incredible is the
willingness of modern man to believe.
-- Benito Mussolini
From: Josef Balluch (josef.balluch@sympatico.ca)
Subject: The Naturalistic Fallacy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
Date: 2002-06-21 19:12:03 PST
The Naturalistic Fallacy is most commonly invoked by theists when
they argue that morality cannot have a natural explanation, so it must
be supernatural in origin. In philosophical terms, this idea is
expressed by saying that OUGHT cannot be derived from IS. In
simpler terms it says that value cannot be derived from fact. To do
otherwise is to supposedly commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.
The validity of this claim is still a matter of philosophical debate,
but
that hasn't prevented theists from trotting it out whenever the
opportunity presents itself. While considering the implications of the
claim it occurred to me that many theists actually commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy themselves, despite their opposition to it.
The theist's deity represents an ideal such as "good" or "love". Many
of the arguments that theists put forward attempt to infer the
existence of such a deity, ie: the existence of an ideal, from some
feature of the natural world. This is a clear attempt to derive value
from fact, which is the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Some examples:
- The natural world is a place where there is pain and suffering, and
is
therefore said to be the source of evil.
- The deduction is made that scripture must be divinely inspired and
that it represents the will, nature or characteristics of a deity.
- The claim that prayers have been answered, which infers the actions
of a benevolent deity from some event that has been observed.
- The claim that miracles have been witnessed, again inferring the
actions of a benevolent deity from some event that has been
observed.
- Observations regarding the appearance of a saviour or redeemer
commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Furthermore, it cannot be determined
that salvation is necessary or even possible.
- Observations regarding "demonic possession" commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy.
In addition to these examples there are a number of theist
arguments, such as the Transcendental, the Argument from
Martyrdom, and arguments for Meaning and Purpose which also
commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. If theists both oppose and commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy in their arguments then their world view is
supported by contradictory claims, which is a good reason to discount
it.
Another interesting point that emerged from all this cogitation is
that
the theist's Argument from Morality is self refuting. The theist's
argument uses the premise that value cannot be derived from fact
and then proceeds to infer value, ie: the existence of a deity and
it's
moral code, from the supposed fact that nature's laws are not
prescriptive. Theists do not even have a basis for making the claim
that moral values exist in the outside world. Such values could only
be inferred from fact, ie: from observations of their surroundings. To
do so, however, is to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Since theists
have no basis for inferring the existence of moral values in the world
at large, they then have no basis for inferring the presence of a
moral
deity in the world at large.
The theist has yet a further problem because moral judgements
cannot be meaningfully tied to the facts of the world. No observation
can determine if moral prescriptions are in any way correct or
effective. Also, the restrictions of the Naturalistic Fallacy prevent
moral
values from being defined by natural referents. This means that the
proper implementation of moral prescriptions by natural means
cannot be assured, for otherwise moral values could be defined by
the means of implementation. For the theist the moral value of
prescriptions such as the Golden Rule is therefore uncertain.
Regards,
Josef
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
| User: "A.Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
23 Oct 2004 11:16:12 PM |
|
|
From: Josef Balluch (josef.balluch@sympatico.can)
Subject: The Idealistic Fallacy
Newsgroups: talk.atheism
Date: 2003-10-09 21:09:07 PST
Idealism is found at the core of mainstream Western theism, and there
it
holds that ideas have primacy and that one proceeds from thought to
thing. Plato proposed that ideals, or Forms, exist in some non-natural
realm and are the "blueprints" for existing natural phenomena. This
concept was incorporated by theists, with ideals said to exist in the
mind of the deity.
Idealism, itself an idea or concept, would have to meet the criterion
of
being self evident if it is to be seen as true
Why? Can a believer not simply accept revelation?
since it could not draw
support from any fact or any other idea.
Why could idealism not be supported by fact? What do you mean by
"fact?" Do you mean empirical fact?
Any argument intended to show
that idealism is true would have to assume the primacy of at least
some
ideas, and would thus be circular.
How do _you_ derive anything at all without assuming the primacy of at
least some ideas? For example, are we not both assuming that logic has
validity?
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness, but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting. There
is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption
of
a primary consciousness, namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists.
Wow! Talk about circular!
Such a claim contains within itself the assumption
that existence is primary, because no primary consciousness can be
invoked to explain the existence of the primary consciousness. The
claim
specifies that there is one thing that exists independent of the whim
of
a primary consciousness.
Excuse me... "whim?" Let's see. Are we assuming, now, this new
definition of the theist's God, that He is omnipotent, omniscient,
benevloent, and ... subject to whims?
Let us examine, for a brief moment, the actual conception of God as
espoused by the theists in the Catholic Church: God is the Eternal
Spirit. Spirit entails having both awareness and will. So God is the
aware, active Spirit who exists from all eternity. Awareness is not
precedent to existence, nor existence precedent to will, nor will to
awareness. God posesses all the attributes of existence, awareness,
and will, as the simplicity of who He is. Attributed to God are the
characteristics of supreme reality (infinite existence), omnipotence
(infinite power of will), omniscience (infinite awareness), and
omnibenevolence (infinite love). "Whim," is not among the
characterisitcs attributed to God.
The assertion that a primary consciousness
exists would be a claim of an objective fact, ie: a fact independent
of
the whim of the consciousness.
Let me assume that by "whim" you actually mean "will." That is the
closest analogue to something that is actually asserted about God. You
are saying that to assert God exists means we must assert that He
exists independently of His Will. Why? That doesn't even make sense.
As elucidated above, God's Will does not precede His Existence.
This independence contradicts the
premise
that existence is dependent on the primary consciousness.
The "independence" of the fact that God's Will exists from the fact of
His existence - an independence manufactured by you - contradicts the
premise that existence depends on God. Where did you come up with this
premise? By "primary consciousness" I am sure you mean "God." By
"existence," in this context I am certain you mean "Creation."
Creation is dependent on God. God exists, because it is in His Nature
to exist. If He is described as the supreme reality, naturally He must
exist, or else He cannot be the supreme reality. Thus, although God
can be thought without contradiction if he exists, if he does not
exist, then the concept of Him as supreme reality is internally
contradictory. Note that I am not asserting this proves his existence.
I am merely showing that either 1. He exists, or 2. The concept "God"
is internally contradictory.
But you are asserting that the concept is internally contradictory,
and you are using this assertion as leverage to prove He does not
exist. If He did not exist, the concept would be internally
contradictory, but you are attempting to show that it is internally
contradictory on other grounds, since you cannot, of course, assume
your consequent.
But you have assumed a definition of idealism in terms of a false
dichotomy between consciousness (i.e. awareness) and existence. Since,
in the concept of God, these are both attributes of the single entity,
God, one does not precede the other. Idealism is not the idea that
consciousness precedes existence. St Augustine describes what he means
by idealism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07634a.htm
"Ideas are certain original forms of things, their archetypes,
permanent and incommunicable, which are contained in the Divine
intelligence. And though they neither begin to be nor cease, yet upon
them are patterned the manifold things of the world that come into
being and pass away. Upon these ideas only the rational soul can fix
its gaze, endowed as it is with the faculty which is its peculiar
excellence, i.e. mind and reason [mente ac ratione], a power, as it
were, of intellectual vision; and for such intuition that soul only is
qualified which is pure and holy, i.e., whose eye is normal, clear,
and well adjusted to the things which it would fain behold" (De
diversis quaest., Q. xlvi, in P.L., XL, 30).
Thus, idealism is not the absurd notion that something that does not
as yet exist can be aware. Rather, it is the idea that the forms of
the objects in Creation existed in the Divine Consciousness before He
created them, that is, brought them into empirical existence. God is
not created, so, there is no contradiction.
It is identity that distinguishes one thing from another, so identity
presupposes that things exist. If complete non-existence were the case
then there would be no need of identity as there would be no need to
distinguish non-existence from anything else. The Law of Identity,
which
is fundamental in logic, thus presupposes the existence of something.
There is nothing in that claim which requires that the something be a
consciousness.
Nor anything that prevents it.
It does, however, require that things have an objective
existence with an unchangeable identity if logic is to be considered
valid. If reality were subject to the whim of a consciousness
There you go again: "whim." Created reality is in fact subject to the
Will of God.
then
existence, identity and logic would likewise be dependent on the whim
of
the consciousness.
In such a situation there would be no real basis
for
the validity of logic, and thus no basis for rationality.
On what do _you_ base the validity of logic? In any case, if it is God
who sustains logic in existence, that is O.K., because God is
steadfast, and not subject to caprices or "whims."
The claim for a primary consciousness commits the Fallacy of the
Stolen
Concept since it assumes what it denies, namely that something can
exist
independent of the choice of the consciousness.
God - primary consciousness - exists, as eternal, aware, active being.
His Will is part of Who He is. This "independence" is something you
manufactured by subjecting a being who is essentially simple to
rational analysis, and then assigning to the concepts of your
analysis, independent existence. Idealism is the doctrine that God has
ideas about things, and some of these things, he has made real. It
does not follow from that to the assumption you have made, that
somehow _your_ ideas all possess even potential reality. The
independence of the conception of God's existence and of His Power is
really only a product of your mind being able to think about these
things separately. They do not, in fact, exist separately in God.
The primacy of
consciousness over existence is thus an inconsistent hypothesis, so it
can not be considered to be self evident. Furthermore, the concept
calls
the validity of logic into question. And finally, the concept contains
an internal contradiction, as shown, so it must be false.
To begin with, no one asserts the primacy of consciouness over
existence. What is asserted is the sovereignty of God over Creation.
There is nothing inconsistent about that relationship. Logic remains
intact, and the concept of God does not contain the internal
contradiction you have asserted, as shown. So it could be true.
Regards,
Josef
A true idea has no need of any faith.
-- Ken Harding
From: Josef Balluch (josef.balluch@sympatico.ca)
Subject: The Christian Fallacy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
Date: 2002-09-06 21:50:22 PST
Ideologies are by nature a value statement or judgement; they purport
to
tell how one should live one's life for the better. Christianity makes
a
number of such value judgements. At the core of Christianity is the
idea
that the natural world is a place of evil and suffering, and that good
can only come from a supernatural source.
The natural world, according to Christianity, came from the same
supernatural source that all good comes from; therefore, it must be
good. To characterize it as a "place of evil and suffering" is to
express a pessimism that Christianity does not espouse.
Based on this idea, morality
is said to be of supernatural origin.
Morality per se, exists in the mind of an individual and guides his
ethical decisions. God's Law comes from God, and it is intended by Him
to be used by man to inform and to form his conscience. So morality is
a human reaction to God's Law, which is of supernatural origin.
Theists justify this claim by
invoking the philosophical argument that OUGHT cannot be derived from
IS, or in simpler terms that value cannot be derived from fact.
I don't think that's a philosophical argument. It doesn't make sense,
the way you've stated it. If value cannot be derived from fact, then
in what sense can value be said to possess reality?
Then, there is the fact of God's Law, which is whence Christian values
are supposed to be derived. So, I think you are off base here.
Attempting to derive value from fact is said to be the Naturalistic
Fallacy,
No, it's not. The Naturalisitc Fallacy is a bit more involved than
that.
http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/prior.html
"IF there is any contribution to moral philosophy which is more likely
than any other to become permanently associated with the name of
Professor G. E. Moore, it is the identification and refutation, in his
Principia Ethica, of what he calls the 'naturalistic fallacy'. I
propose now to explain what it is to which Professor Moore gives this
name, and what he considers to be involved in its fallaciousness; and
I shall offer reasons for regarding his argument, not as disproving
ethical naturalism itself, but as exposing an inconsistency into which
some naturalists have fallen.
"What Professor Moore means by the 'naturalistic fallacy' is the
assumption that because some quality or combination of qualities
invariably and necessarily accompanies the quality of goodness, or is
invariably and necessarily accompanied by it, or both, this quality or
combination of qualities is identical with goodness. If, for example,
it is believed that whatever is pleasant is and must be good, or that
whatever is good is and must be pleasant, or both, it is committing
the naturalistic fallacy to infer from this that goodness and
pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is
the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant'
necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same
quality to them."
" .... 'Everything is what it is and not another thing' ....
"Professor Moore's appeal to this truism, and the little dialectical
device which he bases upon it, are not, however, entirely pointless.
For there are occasions when men implicitly deny logical truisms, and
need to be reminded of them; namely, when they are inconsistent. It is
not against the naturalist as such, but the inconsistent naturalist,
the man who tries to 'have it both ways', that Professor Moore's type
of argument is really effective and important. And such people are not
uncommon. Professor Moore himself mentions them - the people who begin
by laying it down as a truth of primary importance, perhaps even as
something rather revolutionary, that nothing is good but pleasure, or
that nothing is good but what promotes biological survival, and who,
when asked why they are so certain of this, reply that 'that is the
very meaning of the word'. To such people it is certainly legitimate
and necessary to reply that if pleasantness, or the promotion of
survival, is what 'goodness' means, then the fact that only pleasure
is good, or that only what promotes survival is good, is hardly worth
shouting from the house-tops, since nobody in his senses ever denied
that what is pleasant, and only what is pleasant, is pleasant, or that
what promotes survival, and only what promotes survival, promotes
survival. What these people would plainly like to hold is that
goodness is both identical with pleasantness and not identical with
it; and, of course, it cannot be done. They want to regard 'What is
pleasant is good' as a significant assertion; and it can only be so if
the pleasantness of what is pleasant is one thing, and its goodness
another. On the other hand they want to make it logically impossible
to contradict this assertion - they want to treat the opposing
assertion that what is pleasant may not be good as not merely false
but logically absurd - and this can only be done if pleasantness and
goodness are taken to be identical. To represent an opponent's
position in such a way as to make it not only false but
self-contradictory is a dialectical triumph which can never be
obtained without being duly paid for; and the price is the
representation of one's position as not only true but a truism. 'If a
denial is to have any value as a statement of matter of fact', as Dr.
J. N. Keynes says, 8 then what it denies 'must be consistent with the
meaning of the terms employed.... The denial of a contradiction in
terms . . . yields merely what is tautologous and practically
useless.'"
and it is opposed by Christians.
Um, if it is a fallacy, it ought to be opposed by philosophers.
However, the claims that the
natural world is a place of evil and suffering and that good must have
a
supernatural origin violate the tenet that value cannot be derived
from
fact, and show that Christianity rests upon contradictory principles.
The fact that "good" means something different from "pleasant" in no
way implies that "value cannot be derived from fact." Nor has anyone
ever, to my knowlege, argued that "value cannot be derived from fact."
That assertion contradicts the fact that God's Law is fact, and value
is derived from it.
So there is no "tenet" that "value cannot be derived from fact." Like
your previous misapprehension of idealsim, this is something you have
made up in your own head.
For Christians, their Bible forms the core of their system of thought.
It is claimed to be divinely inspired and inerrant. Should it be shown
to contain errors, fallacies or contradictions then it's authority
would
be refuted. The tenet that value cannot be derived from fact can be
found in numerous Biblical passages, eg: Rom 8:7-8, 1 Cor 2:14, Gal
5:17, Rom 7:18, James 4:4, 1 John 2:15-16, John 14:17, Rom 7:25, Matt
6:24, Luke 16:13.
All these passages are about the emnity between God and the flesh, or
between the love of God and the love of money. God, the flesh, and
money, are all assumed as facts. How do these passages even remotely
assert that "value cannot be derived from fact?" These are statements
that all assert the superiority of the value of God in comparison with
the flesh or with money, in _fact_.
And yet, there are many examples in the Bible of
value
being derived from fact, eg: Gen 1:31, Rom 1:20, Psalm 19:1, 97:6, 1
Tim
5:24, 1 Cor 11:14, Acts 14:17, Job 12:7-9. Thus Scripture itself, the
foundation of Christianity, clearly supports contradictory claims.
Only if you make up the idea that value cannot be derived from fact,
and then pretend to find it in the Scriptures.
These
contradictory claims are found not only in Scripture but also at
apologetics sites and even at the Vatican's site.
My guess - since you give no references here - is that these
"contradictory claims" are, just like the passages of Scripture you
have cited, only contradictorty under your peculiar interpretation.
There are also other claims within Christianity which make value
judgments, ie: they infer the existence of a deity and it's values,
from
some feature of the natural world. Some examples of these are
evidential
claims that: scripture is divinely inspired, that salvation is
required,
that a saviour has appeared, that prayer is effective, that moral
values
exist and are received from a deity, that nature attests to the
existence or characteristics of a deity, and that miracles have been
witnessed. Such claims violate the tenet that value cannot be derived
from fact, and thus commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.
So - for starters - that's not the naturalistic fallacy. And then:
this "tenet" of yours isn't even true, nor is it a claim that can be
attributed to any Christian author with whom I am familiar.
Christianity both opposes and commits the Naturalistic Fallacy, as
shown, which means that it rests upon contradictory premises. These
premises are found in Scripture itself, which shows that Scripture is
not inerrant and not free of fallacy and contradiction, contrary to
the
claims made by Christians. The fact that Christianity is built upon
contradictory premises casts doubt upon it's validity, and the
Christian
world view certainly cannot be correct as it is currently presented.
As presented _by you_, you mean. And that, is true enough.
Fortunately, _the Church_ presents no such absurdity.
Regards,
Josef
The masses have little time to think. And how incredible is the
willingness of modern man to believe.
-- Benito Mussolini
From: Josef Balluch (josef.balluch@sympatico.ca)
Subject: The Naturalistic Fallacy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
Date: 2002-06-21 19:12:03 PST
The Naturalistic Fallacy is most commonly invoked by theists when
they argue that morality cannot have a natural explanation, so it must
be supernatural in origin. In philosophical terms, this idea is
expressed by saying that OUGHT cannot be derived from IS. In
simpler terms it says that value cannot be derived from fact. To do
otherwise is to supposedly commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.
More of the same, I guess. So, I will only comment if you enter on
new territory of absurdity.
The validity of this claim is still a matter of philosophical debate,
Do tell! Is it quite settled for you, one way or the other? Or do you
always base arguments on questionable premises?
but
that hasn't prevented theists from trotting it out whenever the
opportunity presents itself. While considering the implications of the
claim it occurred to me that many theists actually commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy themselves, despite their opposition to it.
The theist's deity represents an ideal such as "good" or "love". Many
of the arguments that theists put forward attempt to infer the
existence of such a deity, ie: the existence of an ideal, from some
feature of the natural world. This is a clear attempt to derive value
from fact, which is the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Not. Well, you know by now, right?
Some examples:
- The natural world is a place where there is pain and suffering, and
is
therefore said to be the source of evil.
- The deduction is made that scripture must be divinely inspired and
that it represents the will, nature or characteristics of a deity.
- The claim that prayers have been answered, which infers the actions
of a benevolent deity from some event that has been observed.
- The claim that miracles have been witnessed, again inferring the
actions of a benevolent deity from some event that has been
observed.
- Observations regarding the appearance of a saviour or redeemer
commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Furthermore, it cannot be determined
that salvation is necessary or even possible.
This is an entirely separate claim of yours, which you do not support.
- Observations regarding "demonic possession" commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy.
In addition to these examples there are a number of theist
arguments, such as the Transcendental, the Argument from
Martyrdom, and arguments for Meaning and Purpose which also
commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. If theists both oppose and commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy in their arguments then their world view is
supported by contradictory claims, which is a good reason to discount
it.
So, we have established: 1. You don't really have any sort of a grasp
on what the Naturalistic Fallacy really is, and 2. Your skewed version
of it - namely, that "value cannot be derived from fact" - is nowhere
invoked by theologicans. Maybe some amateur theologian somewhere came
up with this in an argument with you, once upon a time. But I have not
found it anywhere in the theology I have encountered.
Another interesting point that emerged from all this cogitation is
that
the theist's Argument from Morality is self refuting. The theist's
argument uses the premise that value cannot be derived from fact
Again with this... Could you please show me this in some argument
where it is used as a premise? I would like to see that for myself.
and then proceeds to infer value, ie: the existence of a deity and
it's
moral code, from the supposed fact that nature's laws are not
prescriptive. Theists do not even have a basis for making the claim
that moral values exist in the outside world. Such values could only
be inferred from fact, ie: from observations of their surroundings.
There is also, as I've pointed out, the _fact_ of the Law, the
particular fact, in fact, whence morals are supposed to be derived.
To
do so, however, is to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Since theists
have no basis for inferring the existence of moral values in the world
at large, they then have no basis for inferring the presence of a
moral
deity in the world at large.
But, since, as has been shown, you are talking out of your - um, hat?
- then prehaps there is nothing wrong with those theists' theses after
all.
The theist has yet a further problem because moral judgements
cannot be meaningfully tied to the facts of the world. No observation
can determine if moral prescriptions are in any way correct or
effective. Also, the restrictions of the Naturalistic Fallacy prevent
moral
values from being defined by natural referents. This means that the
proper implementation of moral prescriptions by natural means
cannot be assured, for otherwise moral values could be defined by
the means of implementation. For the theist the moral value of
prescriptions such as the Golden Rule is therefore uncertain.
Time to rethink, sir. The moral code that is supposed to be employed
by Christians stems from the Law of God, which is a known feature of
the human world. The Law contains prescriptions and proscriptions
directly connected with humans' actions in the natural world. Basing a
"refutation" of Christianity on some maxim that you invented ("value
cannot be derived from fact") is absurd enough. Attributing your silly
maxim to the Bible, no less, is just loopy.
Regards,
Josef
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
24 Oct 2004 03:38:26 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
( I will reply separately for each of my essays, to keep the posts at a
reasonable length. )
....
Idealism, itself an idea or concept, would have to meet the criterion
of
being self evident if it is to be seen as true
Why? Can a believer not simply accept revelation?
A believer might, but logic and philosophy are not constructed upon
revelation.
since it could not draw
support from any fact or any other idea.
Why could idealism not be supported by fact?
My next sentence, quoted below, answers your question.
What do you mean by
"fact?" Do you mean empirical fact?
Sure. That too.
Any argument intended to show
that idealism is true would have to assume the primacy of at least
some
ideas, and would thus be circular.
How do _you_ derive anything at all without assuming the primacy of at
least some ideas? For example, are we not both assuming that logic has
validity?
Try reading a bit more carefully, and think about what has been written.
I am saying that one cannot produce an argument for idealism without
circularity. Idealism would therefore have to be self evident if it is
to be seen as true.
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness, but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting. There
is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption
of
a primary consciousness, namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists.
Wow! Talk about circular!
Where?
Such a claim contains within itself the assumption
that existence is primary, because no primary consciousness can be
invoked to explain the existence of the primary consciousness. The
claim
specifies that there is one thing that exists independent of the whim
of
a primary consciousness.
Excuse me... "whim?" Let's see. Are we assuming, now, this new
definition of the theist's God, that He is omnipotent, omniscient,
benevloent, and ... subject to whims?
Figure of speech.
[ snip tirade ]
The assertion that a primary consciousness
exists would be a claim of an objective fact, ie: a fact independent
of
the whim of the consciousness.
Let me assume that by "whim" you actually mean "will." That is the
closest analogue to something that is actually asserted about God. You
are saying that to assert God exists means we must assert that He
exists independently of His Will. Why?
What is the alternative?
That doesn't even make sense.
Your objection doesn't make sense.
As elucidated above, God's Will does not precede His Existence.
Correct. Existence is primary.
This independence contradicts the
premise
that existence is dependent on the primary consciousness.
The "independence" of the fact that God's Will exists from the fact of
His existence - an independence manufactured by you - contradicts the
premise that existence depends on God. Where did you come up with this
premise?
I didn't. It is a theist claim.
[ snip tutorial ]
Thus, idealism is not the absurd notion that something that does not
as yet exist can be aware.
Nor am I suggesting otherwise.
Rather, it is the idea that the forms of
the objects in Creation existed in the Divine Consciousness before He
created them, that is, brought them into empirical existence.
Yes.
God is
not created, so, there is no contradiction.
Nor have I suggested otherwise. Existence is primary, so it needs no
justification (ie: God).
It is identity that distinguishes one thing from another, so identity
presupposes that things exist. If complete non-existence were the case
then there would be no need of identity as there would be no need to
distinguish non-existence from anything else. The Law of Identity,
which
is fundamental in logic, thus presupposes the existence of something.
There is nothing in that claim which requires that the something be a
consciousness.
Nor anything that prevents it.
That isn't particularly relevant to my argument.
It does, however, require that things have an objective
existence with an unchangeable identity if logic is to be considered
valid. If reality were subject to the whim of a consciousness
There you go again: "whim."
Relax, pal.
Created reality is in fact subject to the
Will of God.
Tautology. You can begin by demonstrating the existence of this deity.
then
existence, identity and logic would likewise be dependent on the whim
of
the consciousness.
In such a situation there would be no real basis
for
the validity of logic, and thus no basis for rationality.
On what do _you_ base the validity of logic?
That's a whole 'nuther essay, which is still a work in progress.
In any case, if it is God
who sustains logic in existence, that is O.K., because God is
steadfast, and not subject to caprices or "whims."
Fortunately, this is quite academic.
The claim for a primary consciousness commits the Fallacy of the
Stolen
Concept since it assumes what it denies, namely that something can
exist
independent of the choice of the consciousness.
God ...
You can start by demonstrating the existence of this deity.
[ snip another tirade ]
The primacy of
consciousness over existence is thus an inconsistent hypothesis, so it
can not be considered to be self evident. Furthermore, the concept
calls
the validity of logic into question. And finally, the concept contains
an internal contradiction, as shown, so it must be false.
To begin with, no one asserts the primacy of consciouness over
existence.
http://www.meetingtent.com/Amoroso2.html
http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/P/3consc.html
http://www.flamelcollege.org/prs.htm
http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/html/eurotheosophy.html
What is asserted is the sovereignty of God over Creation.
Asserted by you, without support.
There is nothing inconsistent about that relationship.
And you cannot demonstrate anything factual about it either.
Logic remains
intact, ...
Only by restricting your deity to MAKE logic remain intact.
... and the concept of God does not contain the internal
contradiction you have asserted, as shown.
Straw man. The claim being made is that an internal contradiction is
contained in the concept of primacy of consciousness, and THAT is the
matter that was addressed in my essay. Whether your deity fits this
description is another matter, and you have attempted to define your
deity so as to exclude it from this argument. From what I can make of
it, your argument is that consciousness and existence "co-exist" in your
deity, so one does not precede the other. This does not negate my
argument that primacy of consciousness is internally contradictory. Nor
does it negate my conclusion of the primacy of existence. And with that
I conclude that existence, being primary, needs no justification. Your
deity therefore is irrelevant even if it does exist.
So it could be true.
Or false.
Regards,
Josef
All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the
politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher.
-- Lucretius
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
25 Oct 2004 06:53:13 PM |
|
|
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be5dccccc904cf59898f9@206.172.150.13>...
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
( I will reply separately for each of my essays, to keep the posts at a
reasonable length. )
...
Idealism, itself an idea or concept, would have to meet the criterion
of
being self evident if it is to be seen as true
Why? Can a believer not simply accept revelation?
A believer might, but logic and philosophy are not constructed upon
revelation.
Idealism, in its true sense, follows logically from the concept of God
as the primary existence. If God is the primary existence, then all
other existing things have their source in Him, and were designed by
Him, thus, they existed before they were created as ideas in the
Divine Consciousness.
Philosophy means, literally, the love of Wisdom, and all Wisdom comes
from God. Thus, it is legitimate to construct a philosophy with God as
its foundation. That, in fact, is Christian Philosophy. Just because
many who like to call themselves philosophers think they do not need
God, does not invalidate God. It only shows their folly, and folly is
the opposite of wisdom.
You were attempting to show that Idealism is inherently contradictory.
But you have assumed a false definition of Idealism, and only shown
your false definition to be inconsistent. Idealism, in its true
definition, is internally consistent.
since it could not draw
support from any fact or any other idea.
Why could idealism not be supported by fact?
My next sentence, quoted below, answers your question.
What do you mean by
"fact?" Do you mean empirical fact?
Sure. That too.
Any argument intended to show
that idealism is true would have to assume the primacy of at least
some
ideas, and would thus be circular.
How do _you_ derive anything at all without assuming the primacy of at
least some ideas? For example, are we not both assuming that logic has
validity?
Try reading a bit more carefully, and think about what has been written.
I am saying that one cannot produce an argument for idealism without
circularity. Idealism would therefore have to be self evident if it is
to be seen as true.
My first paragraph in this reply is an argument for Idealism that is
not circular. You do not, apparently, accept the initial premise, i.e.
that God exists; thus you question the soundness of the argument. But
IF God exists, then the argument is sound, and not circular. We are
not attempting to demonstrate the existence of God, we are
demonstrating the validity of Idealism.
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness, but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting. There
is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption
of
a primary consciousness, namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists.
Wow! Talk about circular!
Where?
You are asserting that the proposition, "God exists" cannot be
reconciled with the idea that He exists. That is just plain silly.
You are artificially separating two facts about God, namely, that He
is, and that He is aware, and you are imposing an artificial
requirement that one precede the other. But existence, consciousness,
and will, are all attributes of the same Original Entity, God. None
precedes the others. God did not ever exist before He became aware.
Awareness (consciousness) is one of the Divine attributes. It is part
of Who He Is.
Such a claim contains within itself the assumption
that existence is primary, because no primary consciousness can be
invoked to explain the existence of the primary consciousness. The
claim
specifies that there is one thing that exists independent of the whim
of
a primary consciousness.
Excuse me... "whim?" Let's see. Are we assuming, now, this new
definition of the theist's God, that He is omnipotent, omniscient,
benevloent, and ... subject to whims?
Figure of speech.
Emotionally laden word. "Whim" implies caprice and unreliability. You
use this meaning below, when you assert that the idea of God
undermines the validity of logic because God has whims.
[ snip tirade ]
The assertion that a primary consciousness
exists would be a claim of an objective fact, ie: a fact independent
of
the whim of the consciousness.
Let me assume that by "whim" you actually mean "will." That is the
closest analogue to something that is actually asserted about God. You
are saying that to assert God exists means we must assert that He
exists independently of His Will. Why?
What is the alternative?
That He does not exist independently of His Will. That His Will is
part of Who He Is.
This is sound theology. God is Father (Existence), Son (Awareness),
and Holy Spirit (Will). There is no internal contradiction in the
concept.
That doesn't even make sense.
Your objection doesn't make sense.
The "whim of the consciousness," that you assert God must exist
independently of, turns out to be no whim at all, but God the Holy
Spirit. The Holy Trinity is undivided. The Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit is One Being.
As elucidated above, God's Will does not precede His Existence.
Correct. Existence is primary.
This independence contradicts the
premise
that existence is dependent on the primary consciousness.
The "independence" of the fact that God's Will exists from the fact of
His existence - an independence manufactured by you - contradicts the
premise that existence depends on God. Where did you come up with this
premise?
I didn't. It is a theist claim.
Sorry, I didn't mean to ask where you came up with the premise. I
meant to ask, where did you come up with this supposed "independence"?
God _is_ His Existence. He is the existence that is primary, and upon
which all _other_ existing things depend. His Awareness and His Will,
likewise, are primary. It is not asserted that there are three primary
entities, only one, for God is One. You will never be able to
penetrate the logic of the Holy Trinity with human intellect. It is
one of the truths of revelation, which are not derived from
philosophy, but revealed by God.
[ snip tutorial ]
Thus, idealism is not the absurd notion that something that does not
as yet exist can be aware.
Nor am I suggesting otherwise.
Rather, it is the idea that the forms of
the objects in Creation existed in the Divine Consciousness before He
created them, that is, brought them into empirical existence.
Yes.
Good. We agree on what Idealism is.
God is
not created, so, there is no contradiction.
Nor have I suggested otherwise. Existence is primary, so it needs no
justification (ie: God).
God is not an additional concept to the primary existence. He _is_
that.
It is identity that distinguishes one thing from another, so identity
presupposes that things exist. If complete non-existence were the case
then there would be no need of identity as there would be no need to
distinguish non-existence from anything else. The Law of Identity,
which
is fundamental in logic, thus presupposes the existence of something.
There is nothing in that claim which requires that the something be a
consciousness.
Nor anything that prevents it.
That isn't particularly relevant to my argument.
It does, however, require that things have an objective
existence with an unchangeable identity if logic is to be considered
valid. If reality were subject to the whim of a consciousness
There you go again: "whim."
Relax, pal.
Created reality is in fact subject to the
Will of God.
Tautology.
No, simple statement of fact. It is not being advanced as proof of
anything, nor am I attempting to support it by force of argument.
You can begin by demonstrating the existence of this deity.
That, I cannot do. God could, certainly. I believe He has done so in
the past, and I believe He will do so in the future. But for the
present, He has deigned to remain outside the reach of empirical
demonstration. I have suggested to someone else in this thread that He
is discernible by experiential induction, but all experience is
subjective. So, I cannot demonstrate, empirically, that there is a
Being who transcends all appearances. I can only recommend that you
read the Saints and that you pray. You can demonstrate the reality of
God to yourself, alone, and that would be enough for anybody.
then
existence, identity and logic would likewise be dependent on the whim
of
the consciousness.
In such a situation there would be no real basis
for
the validity of logic, and thus no basis for rationality.
On what do _you_ base the validity of logic?
That's a whole 'nuther essay, which is still a work in progress.
In any case, if it is God
who sustains logic in existence, that is O.K., because God is
steadfast, and not subject to caprices or "whims."
Fortunately, this is quite academic.
The claim for a primary consciousness commits the Fallacy of the
Stolen
Concept since it assumes what it denies, namely that something can
exist
independent of the choice of the consciousness.
God ...
You can start by demonstrating the existence of this deity.
Nope.
[ snip another tirade ]
The primacy of
consciousness over existence is thus an inconsistent hypothesis, so it
can not be considered to be self evident. Furthermore, the concept
calls
the validity of logic into question. And finally, the concept contains
an internal contradiction, as shown, so it must be false.
To begin with, no one asserts the primacy of consciouness over
existence.
Ah, links! I like links!
http://www.meetingtent.com/Amoroso2.html
A book that is not online. Too bad. Useless to me at present.
http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/P/3consc.html
This one is _lots_ better. It points up the fallacy of misdefinition
that you committed. From the link:
"Vedantic-influenced doctrines [n.b. - and Christianity] are sometimes
called 'idealism' or 'mentalism' asserts the 'primacy of
consciousness', meaning that ultimately - and whatever common sense
may seem to suggest - consciousness does not depend for its existence
on matter. "
See - the primacy of consciousness over inert matter - THAT is
Idealism.
It is not, then, the assertion of the primacy of consciousness over
_existence_. Especially if that existence includes its own existence,
that leads to the contradiction elucidated by you above. But it is,
as I've already pointed out, the primacy of God over that which He
created, including matter. No contradicion there.
http://www.flamelcollege.org/prs.htm
"The major intellectual challenge at this time in the study of
consciousness is to appreciate the paradigm shift that is currently
under way in science to one that is fundamentally grounded within the
primacy of consciousness as the ultimate cause."
Good stuff! Thank you very much for this link. I might even want to go
for that degree!
http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/html/eurotheosophy.html
Not quite as good for my taste. Theosophy, as far as I know, is based
largely on the "Secret Doctrine" of Blavatsky and Bailey, among
others. It is thus a dogmatic tradition that is at odds with the
dogmatic tradition of Catholicism - as far as I know.
What is asserted is the sovereignty of God over Creation.
Asserted by you, without support.
Asserted by Christianity, without contradiction.
There is nothing inconsistent about that relationship.
And you cannot demonstrate anything factual about it either.
It is intuitively satisfying, but not intuitively certain. I believe
it because I choose to exercise my free will and place my faith in
God.
Logic remains
intact, ...
Only by restricting your deity to MAKE logic remain intact.
??? I have placed no artifical restrictions on the concept of God. I
have simply used the standard definition from Catholic theology.
... and the concept of God does not contain the internal
contradiction you have asserted, as shown.
Straw man. The claim being made is that an internal contradiction is
contained in the concept of primacy of consciousness, and THAT is the
matter that was addressed in my essay.
You are right - your argumement is a straw man. To be clear: no one
claims that consciousness has primacy over existence, only that it has
primacy over matter. Or, to be more clear: In Christian terms, God,
the Creator, has primacy over His Creation. Another way of saying it,
in terms more suited to Buddhism, would be: Self has primacy over all
manifestation.
Whether your deity fits this
description is another matter, and you have attempted to define your
deity so as to exclude it from this argument.
That is a flase charge against me by you. I have not deviated one
iota from the God of Catholic theology. It just so happens that there
is nothing about His existence that leads to any contradiction as you
say.
From what I can make of
it, your argument is that consciousness and existence "co-exist" in your
deity, so one does not precede the other.
Your statement is passably consistent with my argument.
This does not negate my
argument that primacy of consciousness is internally contradictory.
_Only_ - this is important - if you assert the absurdity that the
prime consciouness somehow possesses primacy _over its own_ existence.
But no one, except you, has thought that. That is not what Idealism
entails. So, straw man.
Nor
does it negate my conclusion of the primacy of existence.
Sure. The Original Consciousness, exists. Or, the Original Existence,
is aware. Take your pick. It comes out to the same thing.
And with that
I conclude that existence, being primary, needs no justification. Your
deity therefore is irrelevant even if it does exist.
Here, I think, is where you go terribly wrong. Your philosophy does
not create reality. Reality is what it is, independent of your
philosophy. You can use philosophy to attempt to apprehend reality,
but it is a one-way causality. Philosophy cannot - or true philosophy
does not - place artificial limitations on reality. Reality is not
limited to what you think you can justify with your philosophy. God is
found by the one who seeks him, in humility and sincerity of heart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
26 Oct 2004 08:43:11 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be5dccccc904cf59898f9@206.172.150.13>...
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
My first paragraph in this reply is an argument for Idealism that is
not circular. You do not, apparently, accept the initial premise, i.e.
that God exists; thus you question the soundness of the argument. But
IF God exists, then the argument is sound, and not circular. We are
not attempting to demonstrate the existence of God, we are
demonstrating the validity of Idealism.
We?
Or you?
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness, but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting. There
is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption
of
a primary consciousness, namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists.
Wow! Talk about circular!
Where?
You are asserting that the proposition, "God exists" cannot be
reconciled with the idea that He exists. That is just plain silly.
No, it is just your straw man.
You are artificially separating two facts about God, namely, that He
is, and that He is aware, and you are imposing an artificial
requirement that one precede the other.
No, it is YOU who has manufactured this artificial requirement, when you
constructed your straw man. The concept of primacy of consciousness
would demand that "one precede the other", which then runs into a
contradiction.
....
Excuse me... "whim?" Let's see. Are we assuming, now, this new
definition of the theist's God, that He is omnipotent, omniscient,
benevloent, and ... subject to whims?
Figure of speech.
Emotionally laden word. "Whim" implies caprice and unreliability.
Does your deity have "free will"?
....
I didn't. It is a theist claim.
Sorry, I didn't mean to ask where you came up with the premise. I
meant to ask, where did you come up with this supposed "independence"?
I didn't. It is your straw man. What my essay states is that the concept
of a primary consciousness would require that something exists
independent of the whim of the primary consciousness. This produces the
contradiction that invalidates the concept.
....
Nor have I suggested otherwise. Existence is primary, so it needs no
justification (ie: God).
God is not an additional concept to the primary existence. He _is_
that.
And it is an unnecessary assumption which adds nothing useful and
explains nothing, as I indicated.
....
Created reality is in fact subject to the
Will of God.
Tautology.
No, simple statement of fact. It is not being advanced as proof of
anything, nor am I attempting to support it by force of argument.
Technically, it is a tautology. And since you cannot demonstrate the
existence of your deity, then the statement above cannot be said to
convey factual information.
....
See - the primacy of consciousness over inert matter - THAT is
Idealism.
That is YOUR definition of idealism.
It is not, then, the assertion of the primacy of consciousness over
_existence_.
I beg to differ.
....
What is asserted is the sovereignty of God over Creation.
Asserted by you, without support.
Asserted by Christianity, without contradiction.
Asserted and ASSUMED by Christianity.
....
Logic remains
intact, ...
Only by restricting your deity to MAKE logic remain intact.
??? I have placed no artifical restrictions on the concept of God. I
have simply used the standard definition from Catholic theology.
So someone else has placed the restriction.
....
Straw man. The claim being made is that an internal contradiction is
contained in the concept of primacy of consciousness, and THAT is the
matter that was addressed in my essay.
You are right - your argumement is a straw man.
I see that you enjoy word games, as many theists do. Shall I assume that
you find this discussion to be a humourous diversion?
To be clear: no one
claims that consciousness has primacy over existence, only that it has
primacy over matter.
From http://tinyurl.com/3s5sa :
"However, the primacy of consciousness, the commitment to
metaphysical subjectivism - the view that existence finds its source in
a form of consciousness - does amount to a wholesale denial of both
existence and consciousness."
From: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~summa/DGIDEAS.HTM
The proponent of the primacy of consciousness asserts that this
principle names a real relation between consciousness and reality,
namely that the content of the former is somehow constitutive of the
latter. But this relation, he holds, is not subject to our choice, or
else the proponent of the primacy of existence is also correct, which is
a contradiction. But then there is a fact of reality that is not subject
to our consciousness, namely the primacy of consciousness itself. But
the existence of a fact not subject to our consciousness contradicts the
thesis of the primacy of consciousness. Therefore, one cannot
consistently deny the primacy of existence.
....
_Only_ - this is important - if you assert the absurdity that the
prime consciouness somehow possesses primacy _over its own_ existence.
But no one, except you, has thought that.
See the links above.
That is not what Idealism
entails. So, straw man.
Baloney.
....
Regards,
Josef
If the belief in god were natural, there would be no need to teach it.
-- Ernestine L. Rose
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
28 Oct 2004 01:03:05 AM |
|
|
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be8c7125b11df359898ff@206.172.150.13>...
.....
Does your deity have "free will"?
That's not really a valid question. Free will implies the making of
moral decisions. We, who are limited in power, have been given the
awesome gift, along with grave responsibility for its right use, of
free will. That means that, even though we are limited in power, we
continually find ourselves in situations requiring input from us in
the form of a moral decision, that will affect the outcome, and thus
affect the course of events in the world. A decision, if it is an
important one, requires deliberation and the weighing of factors.
God does not need to reason and deliberate. He does not need to make
decisions the way we do. His Will is all-good. To ask whether He has
free will implies that sometimes God enters into moral dilemmae, the
way we do, and that is not the case.
.....
What my essay states is that the concept
of a primary consciousness would require that something exists
independent of the whim of the primary consciousness.
This produces the
contradiction that invalidates the concept.
Let's examine your essay a bit more closely, since apparently you
still think your reasoning is sound:
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness,
Only if by "primary consciousness," you mean the theist's "God."
Otherwise, you are inventing a new term that theists do not use. Given
that you are using the term "primary consciousness" to denote what
theism actually posits as primary, then the term is for practical
purposes, and necessarily for the sake of critiquing your logic,
identical and interchangeable with "God."
The Being who theism - at least, the Christian version of it - posits
as original, primary, prior to all else, is God.
but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting.
Now you are attempting to make statements about the consciousness, not
of yourself, but of God. The "claim that consciousness could be
primary," to which you refer, cannot be taken to mean consciousness in
general, because we have already established that by this particular
"primary consciousness," you mean the theist's "God." So we are still
talking about God. If we have defined God as "primary consciousness,"
we are in effect asserting that he possesses both attributes, i.e.
primacy and consciousness. It's really a synthetic title. God's
consciousness is one attribute that He possesses; His primacy is
another. By referring to a "claim that consciousness could be primary"
you are really referring to a claim that the primary consciousness -
i.e. God - really does possess the attribute of primacy. Otherwise,
you are attempting to assert temporal relations within God, primacy
arising from consciousness, or existence from consciousness, or
consciousness from existence, or existence from primacy. Anything,
really, that you might want to assert in this way would be pure and
fruitless speculation, all the more so because God is simple in
essence. So, assuming you are not attempting to speculate in this
manner, the claim that consciousness could be primary is equivalent to
the claim that God has primacy.
There
is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption
of
a primary consciousness,
Your circularity is coming up - but first let us be clear that you are
talking about one claim of existence that cannot be reconciled with
the assumption of God, and that is... (drum roll)
namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists.
Now that is rich. The assumption of God - i.e. the supposition that
"God exists" - cannot be reconciled with the claim that "God exists."
I think there is something wrong with your logic here. Please don't
tell me you don't see it. I won't believe you. You are obviously too
intelligent to miss it.
Such a claim contains within itself the assumption
that existence is primary,
Sure - the existence of God is primary. Just like we've been saying,
all along.
because no primary consciousness can be
invoked to explain the existence of the primary consciousness.
Essentially - "No God can be invoked to explain the existence of God."
Are you sure? Have you ever actually invoked God to explain His Own
existence? Maybe you should try it. Maybe He might oblige you, if you
ask real nice.
Is this somehow akin to X's argument that "there cannot be a first
cause, because then who caused the first cause?" Kant, actually, asked
the same question about a first cause, an existing being who has an
intellect, and, naturally, asks himself the question, "whence, then,
am I?"
A little understanding of theology might help you to grasp this. God
has already explained to us where He came from, who His Origin is: It
is the Father. God the Father begot God the Son. I don't know: maybe
this is all too abstract for you. But it is theology. Maybe you should
tackle the easier questions of theology first, before you attempt to
understand the Holy Trinity.
It is a mystery, no doubt. But it is not something that does not make
sense. It is something that human logic cannot fathom, but human logic
is limited.
The
claim
specifies that there is one thing that exists independent of the whim
of
a primary consciousness.
No, the claim specifies that the primary consciousness itself, i.e.
God, exists. Then, you introduce this brand new concept, alien to
theology, of the "whim of God," (whim of the primary consciousness).
You say it is just a figure of speech, but obviously, you mean it to
mean _something_. The relevant question is, do you mean by it
something essentially different from God Himself? You appear to want
to make this concept differ in some essential way from God Himself,
but I do not think you can, and still remain consistent. Well, to be
perfectly frank, I think it is impossible for you to finish this
argument and remain consistent. You are introducing a false dichotomy
into the nature of the existent primary consciousness, i.e. God,
positing something "else", namely the "whim of the primary
consciousness"; as if God and "God's whim" were two separate entities.
The assertion that a primary consciousness
exists
i.e. the assertion that God exists
would be a claim of an objective fact,
I suppose it would.
ie: a fact independent
of
the whim of the consciousness.
But - the "whim of the consciousness," is just something you have
already attributed to the consciousness itself, i.e. God. You are
asserting that the factuality of God's existence is independent of one
of His attributes, namely "whim." If this "whim" is an essential
attribute, than God could not be conceived as existing without it. If
it is only an accidental attribute, then He could be conceived as
existing without it. But since you are here equating the "whim of the
consciouness" with the primary existence, then I must insist you are
using the word "whim" to denote an essential property of God. God, as
already stated, is essentially simple. So, anything attributed to Him
as part of His essence is nothing more than Who He is. Thus the "whim
of the primary consciousness" is non-different from the primary
consciousness itself. Thus, the separation of these two descriptions
of one and the same thing is a false dichotomy. Your phrase, "a fact
independent of the whim of the consciousness," then, really only
expresses this false dichotomy. Nothing exists independently of
itself, and what you are really asserting here is "God (a fact)
independent of God (the whim of the consciousness)."
This independence contradicts the
premise
that existence is dependent on the primary consciousness.
The false dichotomy, if true, might contradict anything at all. You
could prove anything, provided you begin from a false premise.
...
Nor have I suggested otherwise. Existence is primary, so it needs no
justification (ie: God).
God is not an additional concept to the primary existence. He _is_
that.
And it is an unnecessary assumption which adds nothing useful and
explains nothing, as I indicated.
I think, once again, I see your trouble here very clearly. You are
attempting to derive God, or else to show that to derive God is
impossible, or at least not necessary. There is a hidden, underlying
assumption you are making, and it is this: that Christianity, or at
the very least Christian Philosophy, posits God as a theoretical
necessity, or as a useful theoretical concept. You are assuming God is
advanced by the Christian philosophers as a solution to a
philosophical dilemma or problem, as if to say, almost (or indeed!),
that they invented the concept in order to complete a philosophy. And,
you say, it is possible to develop a consistent world-view that does
not make use of this concept, and that therefore, the concept is
superfluous.
Thus it would seem, you have another hidden, underlying assumption to
the first one, and it is this: that philosophy determines reality. The
simple fact is, any philosophy worthy of the name seeks to be
determined by, rather than to determine, reality. In fact, the very
idea that philosophy can determine reality in any meaningful sense is
actually material idealism, the school that says mind spins the world,
as it were, out of nothing but its own fancy.
Any world-view, to be complete, cannot discard the content of
revelation. At the very least, the attempt must be made to explain it
away somehow, usually by asserting some psychological need that
religion is supposed to fulfill. But the simple reality is: "seek, and
you shall find." God is found by the one who seeks him. Thus, anyone
who has not sought him, has failed to obtain all that is necessary to
paint a complete world-picture.
.....
Shall I assume that
you find this discussion to be a humourous diversion?
Actually, no. I am finding it to be a thankless task. I have put forth
a good deal of effort into this discussion. It is not easy to
extricate your fallacies within your complex arguments. But I believe
I have done a fair job of it. And unless you are going to thank me for
correcting you, I think I am done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
28 Oct 2004 08:15:01 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be8c7125b11df359898ff@206.172.150.13>...
Does your deity have "free will"?
That's not really a valid question.
Translation: Gotta tread VERY carefully here.
Free will implies the making of
moral decisions.
What sort of "will" are you positing when non-moral decisions are being
made?
....
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness,
Only if by "primary consciousness," you mean the theist's "God."
With a lower case "g".
Otherwise, you are inventing a new term that theists do not use.
It is a term used in philosophy. It is becoming rather clear that this
is new territory for you.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_RealityIsAbsolute.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/AFE_Formalized.htm
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/poe.html
http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Primacy_of_Consciousness
Given
that you are using the term "primary consciousness" to denote what
theism actually posits as primary, then the term is for practical
purposes, and necessarily for the sake of critiquing your logic,
identical and interchangeable with "God."
It could be considered as synonymous with "god", but does not imply any
specific god.
[ snip the skewed analysis ]
Thus it would seem, you have another hidden, underlying assumption to
the first one, and it is this: that philosophy determines reality.
Nope. Philosophy is an enquiry into the nature of reality.
....
Any world-view, to be complete, cannot discard the content of
revelation. At the very least, the attempt must be made to explain it
away somehow, usually by asserting some psychological need that
religion is supposed to fulfill. But the simple reality is: "seek, and
you shall find." God is found by the one who seeks him.
And this is of course quite circular, as you need to assume the
existence of the thing you are seeking.
....
Shall I assume that
you find this discussion to be a humourous diversion?
Actually, no. I am finding it to be a thankless task. I have put forth
a good deal of effort into this discussion. It is not easy to
extricate your fallacies within your complex arguments.
This tells me that you are assuming your conclusion. If the fallacy is
difficult to identify then on what basis do you claim that there
actually is a fallacy?
But I believe
I have done a fair job of it. And unless you are going to thank me for
correcting you, I think I am done.
Let's give it a rest, then. The links I provided should give you some
grounding in the concepts discussed.
Regards,
Josef
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance. It is the illusion
of knowledge.
-- Daniel Boorstin
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
09 Nov 2004 11:14:15 PM |
|
|
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1beb63548d59e146989906@206.172.150.13>...
.....
It is becoming rather clear that this
is new territory for you.
....
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/AFE_Formalized.htm
.....
This is excellent, Josef. This web page spells out in great detail the
Argument from Existence against the Existence of God. I am going to
post in in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, and see if anyone
there can find the flaw in it. Might shake things up a bit! You are
probably already familiar with whay my refutation of this would be,
but I'm going to post it and see if anyone else can come up with the
same thing. So if you want to see what they do come up with, visit
a.r.c.r-c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
11 Nov 2004 02:11:07 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism A.Christian <weaskapputt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1beb63548d59e146989906@206.172.150.13>...
....
It is becoming rather clear that this
is new territory for you.
...
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/AFE_Formalized.htm
....
This is excellent, Josef. This web page spells out in great detail the
Argument from Existence against the Existence of God. I am going to
post in in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, and see if anyone
there can find the flaw in it. Might shake things up a bit! You are
probably already familiar with whay my refutation of this would be,
but I'm going to post it and see if anyone else can come up with the
same thing. So if you want to see what they do come up with, visit
a.r.c.r-c.
How typical. Your argument basically boils down to:
P1) My god exists. (Proof? "We don't need no steenkin' proof." I say he
exists and that's good enough for me.)
P2) You presented a proof that god doesn't exist.
C) Your proof must be flawed since (P1) above is absolutely true.
Now spot the flaw in THAT argument of yours. Hint: it's in the first
"premise."
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that M$ could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
31 Oct 2004 03:22:39 AM |
|
|
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1beb63548d59e146989906@206.172.150.13>...
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be8c7125b11df359898ff@206.172.150.13>...
Does your deity have "free will"?
That's not really a valid question.
Translation: Gotta tread VERY carefully here.
Better translation: MU!
Free will implies the making of
moral decisions.
What sort of "will" are you positing when non-moral decisions are being
made?
One ready example is artistic will. An artist - assuming he is making
art and not progangda, another subject entirely - makes decisions
based on aesthetic considerations. He chooses regularly between myriad
alternatives. Unless he makes decisions, he does nothing at all. But
these are not moral decisions. Nonetheless, he makes them with his
will. Is this free will? I don't know. That question is beyond me.
St Thomas Aquinas gave an answer to the question of whether God has
free will:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101910.htm
I think I like his answer better than any I could give.
...
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness,
Only if by "primary consciousness," you mean the theist's "God."
With a lower case "g".
No, then you would be talking about gods, like you or me. I am not
talking about gods, I am talking about God. Any case you might want to
make that "Christianity rests on contradictory principles," has to use
the definitions of Christianity, or else you can prove nothing of the
sort.
So if by primary consciousness you mean to make reference to God with
a capital "G," then you are correct regarding the "Idealist scheme of
the theist." Otherwise, we are not talking about the same things, and
it doesn't matter to me what else you are trying to prove; I am only
interested in exposing the fallacies in your argument that
"Christianity rests on contradictory principles."
Otherwise, you are inventing a new term that theists do not use.
It is a term used in philosophy. It is becoming rather clear that this
is new territory for you.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_RealityIsAbsolute.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/AFE_Formalized.htm
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/poe.html
http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Primacy_of_Consciousness
God, is the primary existence, and He has both consciousness and will.
There is nothing contradictory about that, thus, nothing contradictory
about Christianity.
Given
that you are using the term "primary consciousness" to denote what
theism actually posits as primary, then the term is for practical
purposes, and necessarily for the sake of critiquing your logic,
identical and interchangeable with "God."
It could be considered as synonymous with "god", but does not imply any
specific god.
Either it implies the specific God of Christianity, or it cannot be
advanced in support of your thesis that "Christianity rests on
contradictory principles." Keep your eye on the ball.
[ snip the skewed analysis ]
Thus it would seem, you have another hidden, underlying assumption to
the first one, and it is this: that philosophy determines reality.
Nope. Philosophy is an enquiry into the nature of reality.
Good. That is what it should be.
...
Any world-view, to be complete, cannot discard the content of
revelation. At the very least, the attempt must be made to explain it
away somehow, usually by asserting some psychological need that
religion is supposed to fulfill. But the simple reality is: "seek, and
you shall find." God is found by the one who seeks him.
And this is of course quite circular, as you need to assume the
existence of the thing you are seeking.
Not at all. Revelation, purportedly from the God of Israel,
unquestionably exists. What you make of it, is up to you. You can wish
it never happened, you can pretend it is irrelevant to any question
you might ask, but you cannot make it go away, and you can never live
in a world where there is no Catholic Church.
...
Shall I assume that
you find this discussion to be a humourous diversion?
Actually, no. I am finding it to be a thankless task. I have put forth
a good deal of effort into this discussion. It is not easy to
extricate your fallacies within your complex arguments.
This tells me that you are assuming your conclusion. If the fallacy is
difficult to identify then on what basis do you claim that there
actually is a fallacy?
God is. Thus, any argument purported to disprove God will necessarily
contain at least one fallacy. Finding it, is problematic, with the
difficulty of finding the fallacy proportional to the complexity of
the argument. But as long as the argument ostensibly makes sense, the
fallacy will make itself apparent at the departure of the argument
from reality.
This has proven to be the case, in every argument I have encountered
here.
But I believe
I have done a fair job of it. And unless you are going to thank me for
correcting you, I think I am done.
Let's give it a rest, then. The links I provided should give you some
grounding in the concepts discussed.
That is fine, I agree. I thank you for the discussion and for the
links. I have learned a new thing or two!
Regards,
Josef
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance. It is the illusion
of knowledge.
-- Daniel Boorstin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
31 Oct 2004 08:18:30 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1beb63548d59e146989906@206.172.150.13>...
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be8c7125b11df359898ff@206.172.150.13>...
Does your deity have "free will"?
That's not really a valid question.
Translation: Gotta tread VERY carefully here.
Better translation: MU!
?????
Free will implies the making of
moral decisions.
What sort of "will" are you positing when non-moral decisions are being
made?
One ready example is artistic will. An artist - assuming he is making
art and not progangda, another subject entirely - makes decisions
based on aesthetic considerations. He chooses regularly between myriad
alternatives. Unless he makes decisions, he does nothing at all. But
these are not moral decisions. Nonetheless, he makes them with his
will. Is this free will? I don't know. That question is beyond me.
Since you cannot define it then clearly you are simply making it up in
order to be able to wriggle out of your dilemma.
St Thomas Aquinas gave an answer to the question of whether God has
free will:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101910.htm
I think I like his answer better than any I could give.
From the site:
"Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but other things not
necessarily, as shown above (3), He has free will with respect to what
He does not necessarily will."
So, in what way did I pose an "invalid" question? The explanation given
seems quite straightforward.
And, with respect to your objection to my use of "whim":
Excuse me... "whim?" Let's see. Are we assuming, now, this new
definition of the theist's God, that He is omnipotent, omniscient,
benevloent, and ... subject to whims?
Figure of speech.
Emotionally laden word. "Whim" implies caprice and unreliability.
A "free" will is understood by the philosopher as being independent of
any influence. Such a will could certainly be seen as "capricious" and
even unreliable, in the sense of being unpredictable.
The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness,
Only if by "primary consciousness," you mean the theist's "God."
With a lower case "g".
No, then you would be talking about gods, like you or me.
Not sure what you are saying. From my POV, and from that of the
philosopher as well, gods could certainly be seen as a primary
consciousness.
I am not
talking about gods, I am talking about God. Any case you might want to
make that "Christianity rests on contradictory principles," has to use
the definitions of Christianity, or else you can prove nothing of the
sort.
Nonsense.
....
Given
that you are using the term "primary consciousness" to denote what
theism actually posits as primary, then the term is for practical
purposes, and necessarily for the sake of critiquing your logic,
identical and interchangeable with "God."
It could be considered as synonymous with "god", but does not imply any
specific god.
Either it implies the specific God of Christianity, or it cannot be
advanced in support of your thesis that "Christianity rests on
contradictory principles." Keep your eye on the ball.
Nonsense. Christianity is just one system that posits a god (lower case
"g"). My argument certainly applies to such a system, and many others
besides.
....
Any world-view, to be complete, cannot discard the content of
revelation. At the very least, the attempt must be made to explain it
away somehow, usually by asserting some psychological need that
religion is supposed to fulfill. But the simple reality is: "seek, and
you shall find." God is found by the one who seeks him.
And this is of course quite circular, as you need to assume the
existence of the thing you are seeking.
Not at all. Revelation, purportedly from the God of Israel,
unquestionably exists. What you make of it, is up to you.
Are you familiar with Descarte's Demon?
You can wish
it never happened, you can pretend it is irrelevant to any question
you might ask, but you cannot make it go away, and you can never live
in a world where there is no Catholic Church.
<chuckle!> Another open minded theist, I see!!!
Actually, no. I am finding it to be a thankless task. I have put forth
a good deal of effort into this discussion. It is not easy to
extricate your fallacies within your complex arguments.
This tells me that you are assuming your conclusion. If the fallacy is
difficult to identify then on what basis do you claim that there
actually is a fallacy?
God is. Thus, any argument purported to disprove God will necessarily
contain at least one fallacy. Finding it, is problematic, with the
difficulty of finding the fallacy proportional to the complexity of
the argument. But as long as the argument ostensibly makes sense, the
fallacy will make itself apparent at the departure of the argument
from reality.
This has proven to be the case, in every argument I have encountered
here.
When you have determined the fallacy, then let me know. Until then you
have no case.
Regards,
Josef
We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Josef Balluch: since you asked... |
01 Nov 2004 10:30:17 AM |
|
|
Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bef66fe466c436498990a@206.172.150.13>...
In a message sent 'round the world, A.Christian poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch <josef.bal | | | | | | | | | |
