All Comments (303)

Thanks, Meg. :)

Pam.

While I'm here I'd like to tell you how much I enjoy your posts.A breath of fresh air amongst all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Thanks,and long may you
continue commenting.
Meg.

EFavourite
Hey old buddy...like your posts...
I would think its a matter of opinion that Allah
and the white-man's no-name good are one and the
non-existing same.
Muzzies call you an infidel if you don't dig their Allah fella...
and we know what they do to infidels.
Of course you're right if you wannabe.It's that simple.
We're talking invisible imaginary gods here,
hundreds of which can dance on a pinhead no problem.
Why get all technical on me?
I was expressing some confusion with what's politically correct...thanks anyway pal.
Keep smiling.
meg

Shelley, quoting Pam: “The more education prospers, the more superstition retreats.”

Agreed – I think a difference between the US and Europe might be that clergy in the US are more respected and thus have more influence than their counterparts in Europe. I think, though, that even this is changing, as seminaries are having difficulty attracting the number and quality of students they attracted in the past. Building a successful career on a deep knowledge of theology is no longer attractive to the best students. It used to be that clergy ranked right up there with lawyers and doctors, in terms of community respect and status. That’s largely changed, except in the case of mega-church pastors, who of course don’t rely on extensive theological study – just biblical inerrancy. Scary

Meg: Allah is a “no-name God” too. Allah is simply the Arabic word for god.

David T writes:

"The law of non-contradiction. How does that law exist if mankind is contradictory? How can mankind agree to the laws of logic if we cannot agree on what is logical?"

Who says we can't agree on what is logical? This is a fallacy, and blows your whole argument.
The "laws of logic" weren't drawn up by a committee. I'm not going to bother looking up their origins, but I'm pretty sure I'd come up with some Greek mathematician if I did. Still, all he (whoever) did was to put them into words - I think they're hard-wired into every human brain. All that was done was to codify them.

I don't believe there would be any problem getting any rational human to agree that two contradictory things can't both be true. A baby could understand this. Saying that different people have differing opinions on *what* is true (e.g., whether or not there is a god) doesn't negate the fact that either or both would agree that they can't both be right. It's not the logic law that they disagree about.

Even people who have never *heard* of the laws of logic, will still agree with them when they are explained, and such people have an innate understanding of them even before the explanation. It's part of having a brain that perceives the natural world as it is, and that evolved to deal with it.

Since rational discourse is possible (in fact happens every minute of every day) among people who have never heard of these laws, this should be self-evident. This was exactly my point when I said above that the laws weren't handed down on stone tablets. I wasn't being facetious.

David T: "Now, you agreed with me that the laws of logic must exist conceptually...in a mind. But if human minds could not have created them...then what mind?"

I disagree with this conclusion and don't think you've even come close to establishing its verity.

D.T.:"1, as demonstrated is illogical"

Not demonstrated to *my* satifaction. Not by a long shot.

Shelley

I like that..."Gods are for the history books" remark.
But they are already in the Myth books anyway are they not? All except the present one (or is it two?) who,god willing,will be there soon.
I've never been able to decide whether there are supposed to be one god,two,or dozens,if we include all the Indian gods,who have just as much right to exist as Allah,and the no-name white-man's god.
Modernity cannot handle all these gods as they look more and more ridiculous in light of what we now know about the world.

I google TAG.

I got all this stuff, listed below.

I thought, wow, this is a wild goose chase. (My father used to say, this is a wild goose).

Then way down the list, way, way, way-on down the list I spied it:

"Transcendental Argument for the existence of God"

That's gotta be it. I guess I must really be out of it. I never knew there was such a thing.

(See other tag's below)

TAG Techniques d'Avant-Garde (TAG Heuer)
TAG Tactical Ada Guidance
TAG Tactical Airlift Group
TAG Tactical Assault Group
TAG Tag Attribute Language
TAG Tagalog (Filipino language)
TAG Tagbilaran, Philippines - Tagbilaran (Airport Code)
TAG Tagliabue
TAG Tailored Air Group (UK Royal Navy)
TAG Talal Abu-Ghazaleh (Jordan business law firm)
TAG Talented And Gifted (school program)
TAG Tallahassee Area Geocachers (Florida, USA)
TAG Target Acquisition and Guidance (gaming)
TAG Target Adaptive Guidance
TAG Target Aimpoint Graphic
TAG Task Action Grammar
TAG Task Assignment Guide
TAG Tasmanian Association for the Gifted
TAG Taxon Advisory Group
TAG Teaching and Academic Growth
TAG Technical AdHoc Group
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TAG Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds
TAG Technical Applications Group
TAG Technical Architecture Group (W3C)
TAG technical assessment group (US DoD)
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TAG Technical Assistance Group
TAG Technical Association of Georgia
TAG Technology Advancement Group
TAG Technology Advocacy Group
TAG Technology Analysis Group
TAG Technology Applications Group
TAG Technology Assessment Group
TAG Technology Association of Georgia
TAG Technology Assurance Group (California)
TAG Telegraphist Air Gunner
TAG Telemetry-Archive Gateway
TAG Tell-And-Go protocol (switching technique)
TAG TEMPEST Advisory Group
TAG Temporal Annotation Generator
TAG Tenant Activities Group (Pentagon Renovation Project)
TAG Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia Railway Company
TAG Test Advisory Group
TAG Test Aerosol Generator
TAG Test Analysis Group
TAG Test Automation Group
TAG Tested and Guaranteed
TAG Text and Graphics
TAG Thalassemia Action Group
TAG The Adjutant General
TAG The Amsterdam Group (Brussels, Belgium)
TAG The Assassination Game
TAG Theater Air Group
TAG Thymine-Adenine-Guanine
TAG Tight Aggressive (Poker)
TAG Timneh African Gray (bird species)
TAG Tiny Aggregation Service (ad-hoc networks)
TAG Title Author Genre (literature)
TAG Tomahawk land-attack missile aimpoint graphic (US DoD)
TAG Towed Array Group
TAG Trailing Average Gross
TAG Training Advisory Group
TAG Trans-Atlantic Geotraverse
TAG Trans-Austria Gasleitung (Trans-Austria Pipeline)
TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
TAG Transfer Admission Guarantee (guarantee granted to students coming from community colleges into universities)
TAG Transition Advisory Group
TAG Transport-Aggregation-Grooming
TAG Transportation Acronym Guide
TAG Transportes Aereos Guatemaltecos (Guatemala)
TAG Tree Adjoining Grammar
TAG Triacylglycerol
TAG Troop Action Guidance
TAG True Armageddon Galactica (Star Kingdoms alliance)
TAG Trust Advisory Group
TAG Trusted Agent Group
TAG TWG Administration Group
TAG Two-Axis Gimbal

Chris

You're a very good man, to be able to compose a reply to a thing like that.

David T,

TAG strikes me as utterly obscurantist. I'm not going to pursue it far but:

1) What does it mean to say that "mankind is contradictory?"

2) Why do you say that mankind cannot agree on what is logical? Your example of disagreement (God vs. no god) isn't necessarily due to a disagreement about what the admissible rules of logical inference are; it could be just a difference in axioms. Also, who says that the statements are deduced? They are empirical, so they must be the result of INDUCTIVE logic. And inductive assertions are always contingent.

3) You seem to conclude that man cannot "create" the rules of logic because he somehow isn't absolute and eternal, like you say the rules of logic are. But why can't we have inferred the rules of logic from our observations of nature? Why can't the rules of logic be no more absolute than nature is regular? You have no basis for saying that logic is EVEN MORE absolute that that. Why? Because you can't imagine otherwise? So the "absoluteness" of logic, whatever that means, is still in doubt.

4) You say "The only possible way for logical absolutes to exist is if they exist in the mind of an absolute, transcendent being." First of all, what does this even mean? How do you know? How is the quality of this argument different from the counter argument "Only an absolute, transcendent being can be absolutely sure of anything, and since mankind is not absolute, he cannot be absolutely sure of anything, particularly when it comes to absolutes such as logical absolutes."

5) You say "By using logic the only logical conclusion is that a transcendent, absolute being is God." If this is true then you should be able to express your argument within a logical formalism. That is the standard, of course. At the very least it would make it possible to follow and dissect. As is, it appears to be is full of unsupported statements like 4 above, with terms that are so ambiguous that not much can really be done with them.

So, regarding David T's very long and drawn out essay about (???), just what is TAG?

I didn't understand the first thing about what he was saying.

All I got from it was an ice cream headache.

I believe in God, but not for any of the reasons that he gave. In fact, I have never seen nor heard anything like that before, in my entire life.

mmmmmmmmm !

To The Jihadist
I'm with Drew,and all the wriggling in the world is not going to change the reality that religion is cultural groupthink,and that childhood indoctrination 'almost' guarantees lifelong adherence to that religion.
We are like robots if programed early enough.
Religious institutions know this.Their very survival depends on knowing this,and we see it at work throughout the world. Why deny it? Can one be so programed that one becomes blind to the bigger picture?

However,I think Pam has it right when she says (above)

"I think it's obvious without research to see that the world is (slowly) moving toward atheism. Just look at Europe and the British Isles (well, maybe not Ireland). The more education prospers, the more superstition retreats.

"It's happening in the US, too, but much more slowly. You can see it best where the US interfaces the most with the rest of the world - coastal states; especially those in the West and the Northeast, where immigration is greatest; and those closest to more populated Canadian areas. It's also more prevalent in University towns and large cities. Wherever you find the least intellectual stagnation."

This is my observation too,despite everything the world gets a little bit smarter and a little less superstitious every day.Despite the Muslim 'surge',the momentum is for rationality and common sense.
Gods are for the history books.

Chris Everett;

I find your following comments to be RIGHT ON the money,and I hope all posters give them some thought;

"So far, nobody has an explanation of the existence of consciousness, although stronger and stronger correlations are being made between brain activities and reported conscious states (and behavioral capabilities), so the evidence is strong that brain and mind are two sides of the same coin. Also, I don't find it at all inconceivable that there are some things that humans are incapable of knowing. That doesn't mean that "God did it" is the explanation. That's just the old God of the Gaps argument. In fact, "God did it" isn't and explanation at all, since it provides no illumination to the issue. Instead, it's a name for the ABANDONMENT of explanation, and if you look back at history you'll find that religious institutions have always used it to preserve the intellectual status quo. The firey ball in the sky, the planets in their orbits, biological diversity, weather, sickness, all have been points at which people have stopped and said "God did it". So when you say "God is the only explanation" you are really saying "I can't think of any explanation, so I'm going to quit trying, and call it God".

Ain't that the truth!

Oops! Sorry. Forgot about this thread. Having too much fun with CCNL in the main thread.

Do you guys realise how the global markets is going split-splat here and there due to the US economy?

But back to some of your questions addressed to me at before the next question comes tomorrow possibly.

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

E Favorite,

You : I don't recall seeing atheists here calling believers irrational and stupid.

Moi : Not lately, but in general terms. The prefered current term is "moron" and "idiot". This by both believers and atheists in exchanges that infuriates or frustrates one of the other, or both.

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

Drew,

You : Do you think I would be an atheist if I had grown up with you in Malaysia,as a child born (or adopted) into your family? I believe if I had been born and raised exactly as you were,I would be a believing Muslim now.What is your view?

Moi: What! Drew playing gallant in asking ladies to answer first, or playing chicken in not stating first and we thrash him? :)

This question has been posed by atheists many, many times to make a case for religion as being "indoctrinated" due to the faith of one's parents etc. and one has no choice and such.

Certainly, if you were born in Salt Lake City, a high probability you'd be a Mormon. If in Mumbai, a Hindu. If in Tel Aviv, you'd be Jewish. If in Tehran, a Shiite Muslim. If in Havana, an atheist.

One born a Catholic may remain and call himself Catholic, but be an admitted "lapsed" Catholic sometimes. Or, one born of Orthodox Jews may not practice his parents' faith, but asserted he is Jewish, or a secular Jew all the same. There are Muslims born of Muslim parents who don't fast or pray, happily down alcohol etc, but still call himself a Muslim. These are personal choices people made regardless of the tenets of their faiths - to fully comply or selectively, or none at all for any given reason.

In Malaysia itself, as Muslims are 60% of the population, chances are, Drew could be probably born or adopted, and raised not as a Muslim, but Buddhist, Hindu, animist or atheist.

In Vietnam and China, people born of atheist parents do chose to be adherents of belief. More and more so, especially in China where the Chinese goverment made it explicitly clear that they are not opposed to Chinese being Protestants or Catholics, but that the church must be indigenous based. Meaning, no reporting to and intefering by Protestant church headquarters based in Europe or North America or the Vatican. Their 18th and 20th century experiences with western powers are ones they don't forget easily it seems.

As for me, my family history is a bit different. Briefly, my father is a nominal Indonesian Muslim, my Dutch mother indifferent to the faiths of her parents, Judaism and Catholicism.

Not much religious instructions from them when we were growing up. At best, they are agnostics or deists or freethinkers. While our parents hardly spoke of God except as figures of speech and never do any rites associated with belief, for their offsrpings, the belief there is a God seems to be instinctively and inexplicably wired in all of us since very young.

My paternal grandmother attracted us to Islam by her example - a spiritual, humane, selfless, considerate, kind, patient and courteous person active in helping others no matter what and when.

I just hope the Christians I like here, Arminius, Daniel in the Lion's Den, David T and Gary D et al don't take personal offence - my mother, in spite of being indifferent to religion, send us all to Catholic run schools because they are more academically stringent. We also learn about God from the Catholic perspective there, and we came to realise what we think and believe on God is closer to Islam.

Of course our "secular" parents were surprised that their offsprings turned out to be more religious than they are. Most interesting, our maternal Catholic grandfather and Jewish grandmother, not quite devout themselves, seem pleased that at least some of their grandchildren are religiously devout, never mind the faith we chose is not theirs.

I still don't know if it is because we show more respect for their religions than their other grandchildren in politely going along to Mass when he wanted to, and participating in Hannukah when she wanted to, without cringing or giving excuses not to.

We don't take the sacraments during mass and no one forced us to. We just attend and wait out until it is all over. Hannukah is easier for us. In fact, Judaism is easier for us to take in stride due to many similarities in theology, religious practices and traditions in Judaism and Islam.

In gist, I believe in God, and discovered that Islam express the belief I have best for me spiritually, and I like the functionality of its tenets.

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

Jeff P,

You : I'd be curious: what would it take to change your mind regarding your particular belief-system. I've wondered, if a belief-system is unchallengable or unmoveable, is that a good thing?

Moi : My mind is already made up on my faith, and most of the books quoted here by atheists are ones I have already read before On Faith was started. I am, frankly, not bothered nor have any problem with evolution etc and other science and reason and logic based proof there is no God, which has yet to be diproved at this stage, but on the social imposition of beliefs in the public sphere. Of course, I am into the ongoing revisions of the man-formulated Shariah based on interpretions of Suras and Hadiths.

Islam is never unchallenable or unmoveable if one look at its history. The most challenges are by believers themselves on everything from theology to the Shariah, either as proponents or opponents of specifics. Classical Muslim scholars do selectively abrogate or ignore certain Suras if they have practical problems with them on their functionality for the public.

Muslim scholars also accepts the various strains of thoughts on theology and Shariah stating all are equally valid. It they disagree very strongly, they say, the other is in "error", and to agree to "disagree".

Mind you, these are bona-fide Muslim ulema independent of the state. Muftis appointed by states can be compromised and politicised, specifically in issuing fatwas - religious/legal opinions that Muslims either comply with or don't.

It is the lay believers or free-lance imams who are quite dogmatic, literal, hardline and militant on their interpretations. Mainstream Muslims, for better or for worse, regard them as buzzing mosquitos and ignore them.

There are not really Muslim "churches" out there competing for hearts and minds of Muslims, but more of Islam infused (in various interpretaions) political/social Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammadiyah etc. They are defined by their interpretations of what Muslims should be and do as individuals and in the public sphere - from politics to social norms.

Like the evangelical and church groups in the US, they have an impact on state policies as well as on the population that is akin to the culture war in the US, and just as intense and emotive.

I don't mind these groups operating freely in Indonesia and Malaysia. The test of the viability of their ideas is by public debate, acceptance or rejection of what they think and do.

There is much to be learn from their organisation and commitment even if one don't agree with them. And of course, they force us to think and debate on what is it we want for ourself and for others? The debate goes on..........

Thanks and regards
"J"

Daniel,

Thank you for the link about Sartre. Thanks for the offensive remarks as well. Continue in your onslaught. It's well appreciated. :)

E Fav,

Forgive me for not referencing or even trying to reference for my claim. I thought that it wasn't that important of a point. Even if he did say that as he meant it that way you made the point that it doesn't mean it was unlivable but simply for him. I agreed and figured that you refuted that example if or if he did not say that. Not a big deal.

Chris,

Nice response. Please allow me to clarify a few things because I think you have made some false assumptions about TAG. Firstly as stated in your first paragraph, I never claimed that "logic is God". I am stating that the only logical conclusion for the existence of logical absolutes is that they are a reflection of God's thinking. Not logic is God, but logical absolutes are a part of God.

You said,

" On the issue of logic, I think it's a set of man-made rules that flows from nature's order, and there's no basis to say, as you have, that logic would exist even if the universe didn't (although that's a valid conjecture). Logic exists only within consciousness."

I have shown why the laws of logic could not be man-made before. But let me give you an example.

Christian says "God exists"
Atheist says "God does not exist."

These are contradictory statements. Only one of them can be true. We contradict each other. But why? Because there is a law of logic called the law of non-contradiction that will not allow both statements to be true. This law is universallly shared. We contradict each other all the time and even ourselves. I say something that I believe to be a true statement and you say otherwise. We both say they are true statements, but yet they both cannot be. The law of non-contradiction. How does that law exist if mankind is contradictory? How can mankind agree to the laws of logic if we cannot agree on what is logical? That is why man could not "create" the laws of logic. Since man is not eternal, that also would mean that logical absolutes at one time would not be true. If I take the statement "something cannot exist, and not exist at the same time", that statement will always be true even if mankind did not exist. The only way it could transcendently be true is if the laws of logic exist.

I want to clarify that I only pointed to passages of Scripture to indicate that if TAG is true, then the Bible does account for the laws of logic. It does not mean that God exists, or that the Bible is true. I merely wanted to point to the fact that the Christian worldview can explain the laws of logic.

Now, you agreed with me that the laws of logic must exist conceptually...in a mind. But if human minds could not have created them...then what mind? Your pre-supposition that all things are natural and that God cannot exists will not allow you to agree that the possibility may be that it is the mind of God. I've argued TAG several times and there are three major illogical conclusions atheists make when determining how the laws of logic exist. 1. as stated being humanly created. 2. being contingent on language and 3. they are not absolutes.

1, as demonstrated is illogical
2. language is contingent on human minds which brings us back to the illogic of 1.
3. If the laws of logic are not absolute or transcendent then there is not possible way to have rational discourse. The law of non-contradiction would not exist, therefore, the statment God exists and He does not exist would be true. We know that would be impossible.

Now, when you say that I say "only God is the explanation" it is because it is a logical conclusion. Let me show you why. It is not a pre-supposition in this argument, but the only logical explanation of the conclusion.

The only possible way for logical absolutes to exist is if they exist in the mind of an absolute, transcendent being. There are no human beings who are absolute, transcendent beings. Therefore, only God is a logical explanation.

You said,

"the physical world is ordered, and we have some degree of understanding of it."

I agree. But how? The atheistic worldview cannot justify knowledge and how it is possible. If we could understand the universe or not, both statements of reality would still rely on the laws of logic. The Christian worldview can account for knowledge. In order for reason or logic to be possible the atheistic worldview borrows from the theistic worldview. In fact, in order for the atheist to logically conclude that God does not exist, he pre-supposes God's existence by using the laws of logic in the first place.

I want you to know, that this is not a "God of the Gaps" argument. By using logic the only logical conclusion is that a transcendent, absolute being is God. Unless you can logically conclude that a human can be absolute, transcendent and eternal, then the only explanation is God.

I have some emergency business to attend to this week, so I really wish I didn't pick a fight and have to run, but unfortunately I must. I wanted to give you guys some references and maybe you can learn this transcendental argument a little better.

First, a website called carm.org under the section titled "atheism" has a simple outline of TAG (transcendental argument). Also, if you have time, watch the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein on youtube. I do believe Greg Bahnsen is the best at presenting TAG and he even uses induction as a means of evidence for God, although that is in another debate with Tagobash.

Infidels.org has a refutation of TAG called TANG. Unfortunately for infidels.org, they misrepresent Tag by stating that God "created the laws of logic" which is not what Tag claims and the rest of the refutation just falls apart on that. I still have yet to hear a refutation of Tag. I've even sat by myself and tried to think atheistically on how I could logically refute it. I kept going in circles which ended up with positing mankind as the author of the laws of logic, which does not work. I'm not saying that Tag cannot be refuted, I just haven't heard it yet and to be honest, I don't think I will.

But really, watch the Bahnsen/Stein debate, known as the "Great Debate" and maybe you will get a better idea about it.

Thanks for the conversations. I'm sorry to pick a fight and have to run, but I don't think I'll have time this week to respond.

I wish you all well.
Take care.

E Favorite

Another point, since we have been discussing Jean-Paul Sartre:

In the months just after the liberation of France, and at the war's end, Jean-Paul Sartre became very famous in France for his thinking and writing on Existentialism. He attained pop-culture fame. It is almost impossible to imagine that a philosopher such as this could ever attain such a level of popularity and fame in America. This was most certainly the traumatic reaction to all that the French nation had experienced, the extermination of a whole generation of young men in WWI, and the national subjugation, humliation, and destrution in WWII.

E Favorite

Yes, that is my own interpretation. Maybe I left a little bit out. No matter how much I want to say, I always seem to leave a little bit out.

In the United States, we have the separation of church and state. In Europe, they do not; they have a church authority merged with the state and with politics.

This would seem to suggest that religion would become weak and wither in the United States, because there is no central power to prop it up. And it would seem to suggest that religion would maintain dominance in Europe, since it is part of the institutions of the state.

The only problem, in Europe, the churches are part of the institutions of the state, but no one goes to church. I am not saying that people dropped their religious belief because they were mad at their governments. Even in World War II, most people still felt nationalistic pride, the French for France, the Brits for England.

It is just that the hypocrisy of the government sponsored church became impossible to overlook, when millions and millions lay dead. After all, Germany was Christian; Italy was Christian, in fact the cradle of the Catholic Church; what is wrong with this picture?

I do not say that I know what happened to motivate people. I am not saying they were mad at their governments. I am just observing that right about the time of this war, people stopped make their weekly visits to church.

In the United States, if someone gets upset with his own church, or if he just gets more and deeper insights than his church allows for, or if he is just restless and not sure what he wants, he can stop going to his church, and start up with another, or even start his own. It is more fluid and dynamic.

But it is not this way becaue we are more spiritual or relgious in nature; it is this way because we have the separtion of church and state in America, and they did not have that in Europe.

Daniel ITLD - thanks for the wiki reference -- they can't always be trusted either, but they often provide legitimate links that can be trusted.

Now, I assume this is your own interpretation: "The reason why Christianity has declined to such an extent in Europe is because each European nation supported a national church, funded by tax-payers. And these same nations drove the whole of European society to the brink of physical extinction in World War II. In the light of the experiences of their own nations and national churches, people simply stopped going to church."

Interesting, but I'm not so sure it a widely accepted view. How did you come up with it? Also, if it's true, it suggests to me that people will drop religious belief if they get mad at their government. Why would that be? Seems like a pretty shallow belief, if so.

When I was wondering why Europe had gone so secular, I had trouble finding sources - almost as if it were a non-subject.

I grew up in WW2 Britain. The churches were already close to empty during the war,while the pubs were bursting at the seams.
After two wars most folks simply gave up on the god idea.It was a hypothesis totally unrealistic and irrelevant in light of the brash reality of war.
People sought out other people,sang and got drunk,
lived for the moment,and were never sure they'd be around the next day..
The churches were grim and depressing and had nothing to offer.They were places to send the kids on Sunday to get them out of the way for an hour or two.I remember it all so clearly.

This is for E Favorite and David T regarding the rumors of Jean-Paul Sartre's deathbed confession.

This is copied and pasted from Wikipedia:

"Sartre's atheism was foundational for his style of existentialist philosophy. In March 1980, about a month before his death, he was interviewed by his assistant, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed his interest in Judaism which was inspired by Levy's renewed interest in the faith. Through Sartre's study of Jewish history he became particularly interested in the messianic idea of the faith. Some people apparently took this to indicate a deathbed conversion; however, the text of the interviews makes it clear that he did not consider himself a Jew, and was interested in the ethical and "metaphysical character" of the Jewish religion, while continuing to reject the idea of an existing God. In a separate 1974 interview with Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre said that "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." But immediately adds that "this is not a clear, exact idea…"

Jean-Paul Sartre introduced the world to a fully formed philosophy of existentialsm, which suited post-war France perfectly, and for a time, there was a Sartre-mania in France. He was not, however, the first important atheist, nor the primary spokesmen of atheisitc thought. Belittling him to attack atheism is not really relevant to the statement that any human being can make: "I do not believe in God."

The reason why Christianity has declined to such an extent in Europe is because each European nation supported a national church, funded by tax-payers. And these same nations drove the whole of European society to the brink of physical extinction in World War II. In the light of the experiences of their own nations and national churches, people simply stopped going to church.

The last sentence in the above Wikipedia citation, is something that I tend to believe, espeically the part where he says, "...this is not a clear, exact idea."

Dear Chris Everett

Please sit down and tell us more.

You said:

"...everything flows from two observable facts: the physical world is ordered, and we have some degree of understanding of it."

At one time, I was like many people who post here; I thought I knew alot. Gradually, I came to realize that I know less and less. Much of what is widely regarded as rock-solid and certain, really is not.

Then I came to believe that we know little, very little. All we really know is that we have "impressions of order." And that is all we know.

We can sometimes see patterns in these impressions of order, but just what do these patterns mean? I am not so sure.

All of our knowledge consists of our cataloging of these impressions of order and the patterns we have noticed in these impressions.

Our consious awareness of the order which impresses us, is a reflection of this order, and could not exist without this order.

I often think about these things; these ideas have recently become quite clear in my mind. Yet, I have the greatest difficulty in translating my ideas, which are clear to me, into words, so that other people can understand. I am usually pretty awkward at. You are expressing, in very clear language, what I believe.

Chris Everett;

Awesome.Just awesome.

David T,

I would like to weigh in on this "logic must be God" debate, though I'll admit up front that I don't have any firm positions or well thought out arguments. Just idle musings. You say:

"This is the main question for atheists. If the laws of logic are not natural, not material by nature. How do they exist? They could not have just come into existence as shown above. They are not products of the universe, yet they are always true. Even if the universe did not exist, they would always be true.

"God is the only explanation because He is the mind that fits the description. And according to Gen 1:26, since we are created in the image of God, we can use logic since it is a reflection of God's thinking."

Aristotlians and Platonists can argue with each other about the existence, and possible primacy, of some abstract reality of logic and math, but I suspect that everything flows from two observable facts: the physical world is ordered, and we have some degree of understanding of it.

On the universe being ordered, I can't explain it, though it's less ordered than one might imagine. For example, the conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum and the conservation of angular momentum seem to be fundamental to the universe and can be used to solve many practical problems, but it has been shown that they necessarily follow from the assumptions that there is no preferred time (conservation of energy), no preferred place (conservation of linear momentum) and no preferred direction (conservation of angular momentum). Thus it is the LACK of any kind of inhomogeneity in spacetime that gives rise to its fundamental structure.

Also, if the universe WEREN'T ordered, how would we experience it? The answer is pure conjecture, of course, but I suspect that to the degree it was disordered, we wouldn't be able to predict its behavior. At best we would be able to come up with a rule for calculating the odds of various behaviors. But that's EXACTLY what quantum mechanics is - a rule for calculating odds.

On the issue of logic, I think it's a set of man-made rules that flows from nature's order, and there's no basis to say, as you have, that logic would exist even if the universe didn't (although that's a valid conjecture). Logic exists only within consciousness.

Which gets to the second (subjectively) observable fact: we are conscious (well, I am anyway. I'm not sure about anyone else!). So far, nobody has an explanation of the existence of consciousness, although stronger and stronger correlations are being made between brain activites and reported conscious states (and behavioral capabilities), so the evidence is strong that brain and mind are two sides of the same coin. Also, I don't find it at all inconceivable that there are some things that humans are incapable of knowing. That doesn't mean that "God did it" is the explanation. That's just the old God of the Gaps argument. In fact, "God did it" isn't and explanation at all, since it provides no illumination to the issue. Instead, it's a name for the ABANDONMENT of explanation, and if you look back at history you'll find that religious institutions have always used it to preserve the intellectual status quo. The firey ball in the sky, the planets in their orbits, biological diversity, weather, sickness, all have been points at which people have stopped and said "God did it". So when you say "God is the only explanation" you are really saying "I can't think of any explanation, so I'm going to quit trying, and call it God".

But even if you're comfortable with the feeling that "God" is an explanation, there is still the question of which god (as many have said above), and there's nothing about "God did it" that implies that the Christian religious narrative is true. Even if you think it's better than other narratives, there's still the possibility that the true narrative simply hasn't been written yet (there was a time when the new testament hadn't been written yet). Your argument that Jesus said "I am the way, the truth....", which is consistent with Christianity being true, thereby proving that Christianity IS true, is circular reasoning of the silliest kind. It's no different from the Koran's assertion that Mohammad is the last and final word on God.

So the situation is this: Naturalistic explanations ARE explanations because they unify phenomena under simplifying principles that have predictive power. Religious explanations AREN'T explanations, they are an ABANDONMENT OF EXPLANATION. History has shown that it is wise NOT to abandon naturalistic explanations since this is the pursuit that has consistently and demonstrably increased knowledge. Even if there's a fundamental limit to our ability to produce naturalistic explanations, that doesn't necessarily imply God. Even if you start with an ASSUMPTION of God, there's nothing that you can say ABOUT God other than that God exists at "the ground of being", whatever that means.

For David T

Nothing about your argument makes any sense at all. There is nothing really to argue with. What are your trying to prove?

I think I liked it better when you were doing your stock Bible-quoting and running everyone else down. (But I didn't like that much either).

david T: "Sounds great buddy. Just ignore my quote then. Maybe I was hallucinating. :) But then again, it would be safe to assume that not everything can be found on the internet."

I'd like the lesson to be to not quote someone without a solid reference to back it up. If you couldn't find it on the internet, you could go to a reputable reference book on Sartre - or just leave off a quote that you can't reference.

That would be the honest and fair thing to do -- learned in high school English class, from parents and probably in church too.

David T wrote:

--"I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible."

--"There is no point in going on with you obviously since a rational discussion would seem impossible."

Does that mean god may not exist? ;)

Seriously though...and maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems as though you're saying that logic would not exist without god and I'm having a tough time accepting that. I also have no clue how "logical knowledge" pre-supposes a being that exists outside nature.

--"And "Insert "Zeus". Sounds great, but all that matters is the definition of God's nature. Absolute, transcendent, eternal. You can call Him whatever you want. I just see your "zeus" claim to be an intellectual avoidance to the transcendental argument. However, I don't blame you. It is an un-refutable argument if you are a naturalist."

I cannot agree more that gods, as super-natural beings, are generally defined as being transcendental, absolute and eternal (some of the time.) It seems self-evident, being gods and all.

I also cannot agree more that "naturalists" cannot absolutely disprove the transcendental natures of super-natural beings any more than "super-naturalists" can absolutely prove *any* attribute of *any* gods' nature, or even which particular version of god is the correct one. (My clumsy point about Zeus.) It seems that once speculation moves into the realm of the super-natural pretty much anything goes.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities (or anyone else's), but at this stage of my life seemingly pat assertions regarding the nature and/or existence of god attracts my attention.

Thanks

Thanks for your input Daniel...

Anyway, Pam thanks for the response.

There is a problem with your conclusion that the laws of logic are products of the human mind. First of all, logical absolutes can never be false otherwise they would no longer be absolute and it would be impossible to have a rational discussion. Secondly they are transcendent by nature because no matter how far you travel in the universe they are still true and no matter how far in the past or future, they are still true. They are conceptual realities that only can exist in a mind.

There are a few problems with the laws of logic being "man-made". First, since the laws of logic are universal and applicable to all humans, that would mean that we would all have to agree on what is logical or not. We cannot do this. We also contradict ourselves once in awhile. This would no longer allow logical absolutes to be absolute. Again, resulting in the inability to have knowledge or truth.

Now, I never said the laws of logic were sent by God "on engraved stone" as you said. I find that to be somewhat of a cheap shot at this argument to make fun of the ten commandments. I will overlook that and continue though. The laws of logic are not "handed down" as you assume by God. They are a reflection of His perfect thinking. God cannot contradict Himself nor lie. This is why morally lying is a sin because lying is in contradiction to God's perfect nature as are other other sins. The laws of logic were never created by God because they are a reflection of His thinking and since God is eternal, so are the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic are absolute and transcendent by nature and also are conceptual by nature they can only exist in a mind, but since human minds are contradictory and not absolute and transcendent, that mind must be an absolute and transcendent mind, namely God.

I do agree that the brain will work naturally. But scientists today cannot figure out what produces a thought. This is something abstract from nature. If all the brain is is a bunch of chemicals that fire on and fire off naturally there is no way of explaining the laws of logic, especially in light of mankind being contradictory to ourselves.

This is the main question for atheists. If the laws of logic are not natural, not material by nature. How do they exist? They could not have just come into existence as shown above. They are not products of the universe, yet they are always true. Even if the universe did not exist, they would always be true.

God is the only explanation because He is the mind that fits the description. And according to Gen 1:26, since we are created in the image of God, we can use logic since it is a reflection of God's thinking. Also, biblically John 1:1 says the "Word" which in greek is "logos" which is the very word we use for logic is how God is described. John 14:6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth...." He doesn't just say He speaks the truth, but says He IS the truth. This is consistent with the transcendental argument as well as positing not just any god, but the Christian God. Jesus (God in flesh) claimed to be the embodiment of truth and righfully so since the absolute transcendent mind of God who is logically absolute would in fact be the embodiment of truth!

Truth is only possible when pre-supposing God. You can count on the laws of logic to always be true. Of course I could never say that something exists and it doesn't exist because the law of non-contradiction would not allow that statement to be true. And that statement would never be true no matter if you were on Jupiter or a trillion years in the past. Because the laws of logic will not allow it.

How in a naturalistic worldview where everything in the universe that exists is only natural, can the abstract laws of logic exist? I have already demonstrated that the human mind cannot be the cause of the laws of logic So how?

Thank you.

Oh don't bother Pam; he knows everything already.

David T.,
Since you've dismissed Neal as too flip, perhaps I can give it a try?

You wrote above, " I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible. "

I don't see that this follows at all. The "laws" of logic are not laws in the sense of having been handed down by some ultimate authority - they are the product of the human brain as a way of describing how it works in reaching conclusions, and the human brain is a product of natural selection acting upon evolutionary processes.

I see no necessity for God in this at all. The brain will work the way the brain works, with or without a supernatural overseer. Human beings formulated and codified the laws of logic. They did not arrive engraved on stone tablets.

The "rules of logic" only exist in the mind of man, and otherwise have no reality of their own.

If you want to prove something by the fact of their "existence," it could only be something about the mind of man, and how it functions.

The universe does not exist or operate according to any rules of logic, but only by the fact of its existence.

When someone has the absolute truth about everthing already reserved unto himself, then, indeed why disucss anything with that person?

David T, I guess you didn't realize you were being insulting again. And you cannot understand the hostility of atheists towards Christians? I understand, perfectly well.

E Fav,

Sounds great buddy. Just ignore my quote then. Maybe I was hallucinating. :) But then again, it would be safe to assume that not everything can be found on the internet. And again, I'm not sure who "moderate" is.

Neal,

Insert "Zeus". Sounds great, but all that matters is the definition of God's nature. Absolute, transcendent, eternal. You can call Him whatever you want. I just see your "zeus" claim to be an intellectual avoidance to the transcendental argument. However, I don't blame you. It is an un-refutable argument if you are a naturalist.

There is no point in going on with you obviously since a rational discussion would seem impossible. Your "zeus" comment just showed the nature of your childish avoidance to the question.

Wish you the best though. Bye.

Nice irony to mis-type the word "intelligent" due to not pressing hard enough on the "n" key. Irony is one of the things that most intrigues me about life. Cest la vie.

Pam,
Thanks for your comments. I was responding about colors in the physical world in response to the following words by Chris:
"To your second paragraph, I would say that there is a solid evolutionary evidence for the colors, etc, that you speak about, and for our subjective yet evolutionarily-formed appreciations of them." (But I think he had your comment in mind when he wrote that, yes.)

I agree that you and I (as any itelligent thinking being) should "want to know how and why", and I was being facetious in my comment but I guess that didn't come through. 'Genuinely sorry. We all should keep exploring, including me. We haven't finished with life yet. (I don't mean that as a put-down or a simpleton; I just think one of our major purposes here is to learn all we can through study and observation as well as through inspiration, in spite of all the confusion about the reasons and the vastly different windows for what we see, hear, and feel.)

David T - it's not a simple matter of your word not being enough -- people's memory can fail - or remember things the way they like to. On something as serious as what a person said on his deathbed, it behooves you to be sure of it before posting. And these days it's easy enough to check. Speaking of which, I just googled "Sartre deathbed" and "Sartre deathbed unlivable" and found nothing to support your claim.

As for "Moderate" - you have similar writing and thinking styles.

Arminius - You flatter me -- I don't have a rule yet, just a hypothesis.

Parker wrote:
"Chris,
I had forgotten that in re-writing a post that didn't "take" because of a phone call interruption, that I left out a response to the color issue. I was speaking about physical formations, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the many worldwide variations in rock formations and colors within them. To say all of that "evolved" just so mankind could enjoy it, or that our eyes "evolved" so that we could enjoy the colors whereas on Mars we would have developed Martian eyes that would have found beauty in some variations that appear to me to be drab indeed, is I think just as much a conjecture as anyone could have. But again, that is my perspective. I respect that yours differs. At least we all get to enjoy the current product of "whatever" happened to bring us here. For that I am profoundly grateful."

I think maybe you meant to address this to me...?

The rock formations that you speak of were formed by many layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water - specifically, the shallow inland sea that once covered much of what is now the U.S. Then, long after the sea was gone, erosion by a river (in the case of the G.C.) exposed those layers.

Mars probably has never had the amounts of liquid water necessary for such things.

I didn't ever say that these things "evolved" (only living things are subject to natural selection) for human enjoyment. Rather the opposite.

I also didn't say that our eyes evolved so that we could enjoy them. Our eyes evolved so we could see what it was necessary for us to see in order to survive. Our *brains* evolved to appreciate the appearance of our home planet, and that in ways and for reasons important to our making our way in this world.

Nothing like us could ever possibly have evolved on Mars, so the point is moot. What it takes to produce us, is what exists on Earth, and Earth is what appears beautiful to us. Surprise, surprise.

I think your willingness to simply be grateful for "whatever" brought us here, really points up the difference between you and me. You can be told that there's a magical being, unseen and unheard, that created all of what you see, and just accept that and be happy for it. I want answers. I want to know how and why, and simple answers don't satisfy me.

David T wrote: "I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible."

If I'm reading the preceding correctly, I assume you would agree with the following:

1 - Without God, the laws of logic are not absolute.
2 - Without absolute laws of logic, logical conclusions are impossible.
3 - Logical conclusions are possible.
4 - Therefore God exists.

If you do agree, please now insert the word "Zeus" for the word "God".

Thanks

Chris,
I had forgotten that in re-writing a post that didn't "take" because of a phone call interruption, that I left out a response to the color issue. I was speaking about physical formations, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the many worldwide variations in rock formations and colors within them. To say all of that "evolved" just so mankind could enjoy it, or that our eyes "evolved" so that we could enjoy the colors whereas on Mars we would have developed Martian eyes that would have found beauty in some variations that appear to me to be drab indeed, is I think just as much a conjecture as anyone could have. But again, that is my perspective. I respect that yours differs. At least we all get to enjoy the current product of "whatever" happened to bring us here. For that I am profoundly grateful.

Jeff,

IMHO, you are quite correct in your assessment of the situation in Wounded America today. The Shrub and his gang of knuckle-dragging neocons have done great harm to our country and to the world. Christian though I am, I want no more of 'leaders' who respond only to 'a higher father'. I want a leader who responds to the will and the needs of the people of this land, and to the Constitution.

Incidentally, I am an exception to E Fav's rule. I was raised Christian, but, as a young adult, left it for over 3 decades. But I came back, due to a spiritual experience. I am an avowed liberal Christian, trying to live my beliefs rather than shouting them on the street corners. I seem, unfortunately, to be in a minority, especially since I hold to the Gospels as the basis of my belief, not the Old Testament.

Arminius

Chris,
As you had added a P.S., I also have one about parents' influence. I find that I differ more with my parents than agree with them in matters of how we deal with people including my children, how we view the world in many respects, I having had far different experiences than they had. I didn't "copy" my parents as to feeling inpiration in my life. It has gone in far different directions than did theirs.

I also have many concrete and real bases for living as I do--healthwise, father-wise, husband-wise--learning as I go and vey much appreciating that learning process which includes sources of knowledge both outside of myself and within the breadth of my experiences. These experiences enter into realms of psychology, physiology, kinesiology, all making sense one layer at a time. This is not delusion, though you may describe it so, and if that were delusion then everyone in the world is deluded because all they have is their own reality--not someone else's.

Daniel in the Lion's Den:

Your comment are interesting.

I've often wondered if it was enough to just "live and let live" as far as our understandings or beliefs, as you point out in your post above. And to some varying degree, that's exactly what we do day to day.

However, where I think we've got to be able to come together, to agree and even to be passionate about, are those public decisions with ramifications that are universal and far reaching.

For myself (and others I suppose) the last 7 years of political rule have seen the erosion of many of our civil liberties (unauthorized telecommunication taps, imprisonment without trial or representation, deportations, government-sponsored torture, etc), a profound erosion of world confidence and trust, and a growing distrust among fellow Americans (the "moral" vs "amoral" categorical split created in a political spirit by Karl Rove) that have largely been based on belief-systems without the advantage of the analysis of evidence-based reason. Many of our administrative actions have been based upon self-confessed "gut feelings" and an appeal to a "higher Father."

This is where I think we as a nation must resoundingly say "no more" to attempts at theocracy, pseudoscience, fear-based politics, 30-second ADD-friendly sound bites, and above all religious "certainties" that alienate and divide us.

Animals might do fine in their blissful ignorance, but humans have great potential to build or destroy the future, one way or another.

Chris,
I have appreciated reading your insights, and totally respect your point of view.

As to Dawkins, I read part of "God Delusion" and noted his speculation that an evolved "God" would be possible (not probable). If one looks at probability and evolutionary theory honestly, I think that is a logical conclusion for somewhere in the Universe (or Multi-verses).

I like Darwin's idea that morality ought to "evolve" at some point in the future as an instinctive characteristic, enhanced by societal evolution in that nations would be the stronger and hence more prone to survive as they have a greater number of benevolent and energetic men, and weaker nations gradually recede such as happened to ancient Greece. It will be interesting to see in 60 years how the nations with lower-than-replacement birth rates will be doing economically, as the median age advances and the few end up working to support the many.

As to questioning how "religionists" can claim inspiration yet differ so much among themselves, I suppose any two people who would describe having been in the same place at the same time will describe what they saw differently. I have no problem with differing descriptions of inspiration. The test I would extend to any such claim would be "does the result uplift others, does it yield love and acceptance, does it enhance the human species and also preserve the Natural order on earth and in the universe, respecting all forms of life?" If not, the source was not inspiration, for sure, but perhaps "delusion" as you inferred.

I also believe it is much easier to explain a Shakespeare (or de Vere), a Darwin, a da Vinci, or other geniuses by a greater force at work than evolution. I have yet to read the writings of anyone today who can surpass Shakespeare in the incredible power, literary mastery, and depth of his writings.

E Fav,

Good point. Maybe Sartre's philosophy was only unlivable for him. I'm sorry, but I read that a long time ago when mildly studying philosophy, and I can't give an exact reference to where I read that. Of course you can disregard that if you feel that my word is not enough...I will understand.

And no, I'm not the "moderate". I'm not sure who that is. I've always been David on here. How can I "sound familiar"? Is moderate just as honest and ignorant as me? :)

Pam – of course, you’re right – broad demographic trends indicate that the educated western world is moving toward atheism. Still, I’d like to see survey research done on childhood indoctrination and the various routes to adult atheism.

Jeff P – good wording

David T: “BTW, even Jean Paul Sartre said his philosophy was unlivable while on his death bed.”
Maybe Sartre’s philosophy WAS unlivable - for Sartre. That needn’t apply to all people with a similar philosophy. If one famous Christian clergyman says he doesn’t believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, does that mean there was no resurrection? And could you reference that death bed quote of Sartre’s? I never heard it before and am a little suspicious of supposed atheist death bed quotes.

Also, David T – are you “the Moderate” too? You sounded familiar to me. I was trying to figure out who you might be, when “the Moderate” popped up here, just once yesterday, reminding me.