Posted on 11/30/2001 7:55:36 AM PST by Aquinasfan
That's his incoherent belief system, as far as I can tell too. I wanted to at least make clear that he and us have different definitions of God. So if we're going to argue over God's existence, we should at least agree on a definition of God.
How to prove the existence of the non-material to a materialist? I prefer a negative proof. If an atheist can understand that materialism is self-contradictory, then he will logically have to accept the existence of the spiritual.
The internal contradictions in materialism lie in epistemology. Peter Kreeft lays out the arguments nicely in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics.
1) If everything is material, then the thoughts in our heads are simply the result of randomly colliding atoms. If this is the case, then my random "thought" that materialism is false and lexcorp's random "thought" that materialism is true are equally valid since they are both the result of the random collision of atoms. But this violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. So the premise must be false. Therefore materialism is false.
2) Stated another way, if we live in a purely material universe then we are machines. If we are truly machines, then we can malfunction. Therefore, there is no logical way for me to know whether my beliefs are true or false with either certainty or probability. Therefore, I cannot logically make any truth claims including the assertion that "materialism is true." Moreover, there would be no logical way for me to know whether the Law of Non-Contradiction is true. But we know that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true. Therefore, the premise must be false, and materialism must be false.
3) Materialism cannot account for the self. What am "I"? Can I be reduced to the material? Am I identical with my body? If so, am I 3/4 of a person if I lose an arm? Do I become a different person each time a cell in my body dies? But this contradicts experience.
What about consciousness? Is it a collection of thoughts (chemical secretions) in my brain? But consciousness is a unitary experience and the opposite of a group of many discrete chemical secretions.
Does a material scanning mechanism in the brain monitor and bring together discrete thoughts (chemical secretions)? But then there would be as many selves as acts of scanning, and the unitary self dissolves once more. My consciousness is a unitary experience and cannot be accounted for by materialism. Therefore materialism must be false.
These arguments disprove materialism with certainty. Unfortunately, materialists rarely follow their own philosophy to its illogical conclusions, and often rest their arguments on unrecognized spiritual assumptions.
Finally, materialists should be made to define "truth." The only coherent definition of truth is the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition. Any materialist definition of truth cannot overcome the knower/thing known gap, logically resulting in universal skepticism (which is internally contradictory) or solipsism (which is contradictory by experience).
I rarely find a materialist willing to follow the arguments this far before bailing out. They seem to see the logical conclusion coming and, in fear, lapse into emotional attacks against the arguments.
OK, I think I see the appeal. But the intellectually honest thing to do is accept "a/the/our" God because He is the true one, not because we like what he says about us. If it is not the true one, what difference does it make what he is said to say or do?
The biggest stumbling block, even for people born into the Christian faith, is assent of the will. Not that they don't believe per se, but that they won't -- or don't want to.
Now, the really amazing thing is (which I expect you won't accept "on faith" at this point . . .) is when you do assent to the Christian God and His commandments, you do end up finding out that "by taking up the cross daily" "the burden is light." Oversimplification but my point: all that resistance of the will is irrelevant to the truth. If something is true, and you discover it is true, then to be true to yourself you have to accept the truth. Even kicking and screaming every step of the way. Even a stoic or Norse would be proud to accept a challenge like that? Acknowledging the truth because it is the truth, doing right because it is the right thing to do, no matter what the consequences (as you pointed out a while back on the thread)? The fact that is in reality not as bad as you feared is really only gravy anyway, because you are doing the right, true thing . . .
A very helpful point. I was sensing a logjam, but your clear thinking identified what the problem is and how to overcome it: a common-ground definition of God. If that is not possible, other arguments will be muddled, at cross purposes, talking past each other, reduced to the trite, some of all of the above . . .
unrecognized spiritual assumptions
"Faith in science" logically falls into this category, since faith in science is still faith and not science.
materialists should be made to define "truth."
The entire ediface of science depends upon truth as a property of the matierial world: existing, being discoverable, and repeatable/verifiable . . . Materialists should be defending truth "in season and out of season", not allowing science to potentially wither by allowing its roots (knowable truth) to be pruned off . . . which is what relativism does . . . I had to respond to an article in a publication which threatened to lead practical people (business managers and Industrial Engineers) to the unjustified (and untrue!) conclusion that quantum mechanics means everything is uncertain. . . we might as well throw up our hands and give up in that case, and stop trying to build buildings and discover the unknowns in particle physics and etc. . . . muddled thinking has consequences . . .
People are in so many different places on their journeys of discovery to truth, and honestly setting out upon that journey in itself engenders respect.
No, we want people to discover THE truth. Since there is one truth, we have confidence they will end up at the same one . . .
When you stop trying to find the truth, and just accept what is at hand. This is how most cults operate: "Just accept our way
What I said earlier is connected to this: IF/When you find the truth, the true God, THEN you intellectually have to accept the truth that you have found. THEN you find the burden lighter than expected . . .
accept god because you say to
Not at all. My point is: IF the god says something appealing to you and IF that god isn't truly god THEN his statements about mankind are irrelevant.
The intelelctually honest thing to do is to evaluate the evidense - for which there is NONE - regardign the existence of *any* god
As Aquinasfan pointed out, this is where the logjam is: we have to agree to the definition of God.
I will make an observation here since I have studied Artificial Intelligence and done some programming. Of course there is a "dim reflection of thought and mind" in computer operation, since the programming is the result of human logic and thought. The hardware operates because of the unchanging laws of physics and the natural world and the engineering of its construction (likewise the result of human intellect).
If there were a non-biological computer out there that evolved on its own over billions of years, and its behavior exhibited a "dim reflection of thought and mind" you could then argue by analogy that the human brain may be similar. Instead, it is completely the other way around. I think you have actually come up with an argument for intelligent design, a pretty good one. The computer's limited exhibition of "intelligence" reflects human intelligence, because the human designed and constructed it. By analogy: The human mind exhibits intelligence because it reflects the intelligence of its Creator. After all man is made "in the image and likeness" of his Creator . . .
Define truth.
No I do not agree: the physical computer/system can only manifest what **limited imitation** of human intelligence it is able to BECAUSE the intelligent human DESIGNED and BUILT and PROGRAMMED it to do so. It clearly does not do so otherwise. Computers would not even exist otherwise. Human intelligence is necessary. The argument for design still stands. It is after all called "artificial intelligence" and is only a reflection, not actual independent intelligence.
Behold the chimp
You have created a circular argument. Your argument was the computer. A non-biological system. Since the computer which may evidence a "dim reflection of intelligence" does not exist on its own and did not evolve over billions of years, the operation of the computer can not tell us about the operation of the brain or intelligence of the human which created it, or of any other biological system, such as a chimp brain. You posit intelligence in the chimp. The chimp did not invent the computer, so the computer's "dim reflection" can't tell us anything about the chimp's "intelligence", other than by the analogy of intelligent design. Since the computer is a manufactured thing, its "dim reflection of intellegence" can only reflect the intelligence of its human inventors/engineers/programmers. The "dim reflection of intelligence" you see in a chimp -- whatever it actually is -- is manifestly less powerful (i.e. analytically, etc.) than that of the human-created computer. So the chimp was likely created too, but we know by other means that the chimp was not invented by humans . . . This is your argument, not mine . . . just following it a bit . . .
Let's take it one further step. In that you have basically changed your argument from intelligent design as reflected in the computer, to the existence of the soul in animals. Since, as you point out, your logic leads to that direction, rather than to the human NOT having one. That does not change whether or not God created the Universe.
As to your point about brain damage, etc. Well, human beings are not disembodied spirits. We have to operate with the "hardware" of our bodies. That's the way it is for human beings existing in space and time. We don't have the option of operating as pure spiritual beings. It makes sense that limitations in our physical bodies would affect the ability of our spirits/souls to manifest themselves in space and time.
I thought you accepted the position of the agnostic. Are you now positing this worldview as the true one? Let's face it, this area is huge, and I don't have the time to follow you into arguments about which you yourself are not serious . . .
Love those books. SO hard to find the distinction between the satire and the historical. I'm amazed that most of the book is based on actual beliefs. It's a wild, wacky world out there :-)
I only have a couple minutes before flying out the door. So I will defer most til later. However, It is obvious that the computer is not living. It does not need to possess anything nonmaterial to account for its "dim reflection of intelligence" which was, after all, put there by means of human intelligence. Neural networks etc. are still following the rules put there by human intelligence. Human intelligence accounts for what you see in computers. Computers are not alive. I don't see any reason at all to expect a computer to have a soul.
Re: the chimp brain. I was not talking about a computer complex enough to simulate the function of a biological brain, but the "dim reflection of intelligence" you see in both. I.E. in a Turning test between a computer and chimp, doing math or something, the computer would reflect more of the intelligence you posited . . .
Certainty is a pretty strong term to use. Since science wouldn't say it is "certain", then this must be your belief . . .
E.G. time dilation in gravity has been experimentally validated. The experiments have been repeated. The theory of evolution is not in that same category. If the theory of evolution were scientifically validated in that same way, then scientists would have created the chimp using the methods of evolution, and it would be repeatable. OK scientists don't know in detail how that happened, so they can't experimentally verify it. It is a theory, with **some** supporting evidence. Don't get on a high horse about it, either. The theory of evolution does not destroy my worldview if it is true or if it is not true. It is irrelevant to the issue of God creating the Universe. Just may explain how he used some of the natural laws he created to do so . . .
How do you explain life? I have not read everything on evolution, so let me know. I get the idea: there were billions of years, but time is not an ingredient of life. I think the anthropormorphic principle is interesting: all those years would have been necessary for heavier elements to be formed in stars, to make carbon based life possible, etc. (so that, even IF there is intelligent life only on earth, the entire rest of the Universe is not wasted . . .). However, say you have a bunch of organic molecules which formed by chance and chance alone. Say they managed to come together in a form of the most basic one-celled life form. How did it get to be alive? Compare the one formed by chance to the identical one-celled life form which is dead: they will have the same organic molecules. How would either one of those become alive (the one formed by chance and the one already dead)? They could sit there for billions of years and not become alive.
Scientific evidence demonstrates that life comes from something living, not from something non-living. So, what does the theory of evolution hold about life arising, that would overcome all that evidence that life comes from life and not from something non-living? Some "life force" arose? Or, like the old joke about a long mathematical proof, here a miracle occurs? Without a scientifically sound working hypothesis to explain how that posited first randomly-formed cell became alive, it is belief, not science. Belief in the throry of evolution is still faith and not science . . .
How do you define truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.