tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3506393064711045740..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The hiddenness of GodVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83851919010626851092013-05-01T19:42:04.289-07:002013-05-01T19:42:04.289-07:00You've made two points here.
1. Final causal...You've made two points here. <br /><br />1. Final causality inherently includes the idea of God, so one must already believe in God in order to believe in final causality<br /><br />Aristotle didnt think so. He thought that that is just the way nature is. More to the point, premise (2) only involves God when coupled with premise (1). (2) only says that there is causal regularity. It does not say what the reason for that is. The premise "Socrates is a man" does not contain mortality until coupled with "All men are mortal". This is how all deductive arguments work. <br /><br />2. Gravity explains why rivers run down hill<br /><br />But this only appeals to further causal regularity. Namely, that gravitons (or Higgs, or whatever the answer turns out to be) have a specific end result: attraction of mass. They never repel, or cause electricity, or burst into flames. They have a specific end result. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20538791046180533662013-05-01T18:32:35.971-07:002013-05-01T18:32:35.971-07:00Martin,
This 'end result' you refer to is...Martin,<br /><br />This 'end result' you refer to is a teleological attribute of things. It could only come from the 'agent' that has some kind of intent in directing those things. Therefore, it is inherently a theistic concept. An atheist would have no reason to see purpose in things, or to see any kind of goal toward which things strive. The river flows to the sea because of gravity. Nothing more.<br /><br />Not trying to be difficult. Just hoping that you might be able to see things from another perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6219173568447436812013-05-01T17:47:04.453-07:002013-05-01T17:47:04.453-07:00>If you believe God is behind everything, you s...>If you believe God is behind everything, you see God everywhere.<br /><br />That's precisely not the point. You don't need to believe in God to see objects operating for specific results, like the ones I just illustrated. But IF you see those specific results being generated, then coupled with the other two premises you accept, God results.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11558956346960482562013-05-01T17:20:21.810-07:002013-05-01T17:20:21.810-07:00"Temporarily, put on your theist cap and see ..."Temporarily, put on your theist cap and see acorns trending towards a specific end result: becoming oak trees.<br />...<br />Do you see nopw how one can see God in the world without needing such things as him writing his name in the stars or miraculously curing an amputee?"<br /><br />Sure, I could see that all along. The point I made is that you must be wearing that theist hat. If you believe God is behind everything, you see God everywhere. But if you don't already believe that, then you have no reason to see God everywhere, and you presumably don't. At least I don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26307848550095870612013-05-01T16:57:21.445-07:002013-05-01T16:57:21.445-07:00So this argument is logically valid. The only way ...So this argument is logically valid. The only way to reject the conclusion is to reject one of the premises. You accept (1) and (4), and reject (2).<br /><br />Far be it for me to convince you that (2) is true and that is not my intention. The point rather is to give you a glimpse over to the other side. <br /><br />Temporarily, put on your theist cap and see acorns trending towards a specific end result: becoming oak trees.<br /><br />See electrons trending towards a specific end result: orbiting atoms but never clumping with other electrons or sticking to neutrons.<br /><br />See rivers with specific end results: draining the highlands into the ocean, which evaporates, rains, and begins the process all over again.<br /><br />See the Moon with its specific end result: orbiting the Earth, but never galavanting around Jupiter, stopping for a bit, and the coming back again.<br /><br />See photons with their specific end result: showing both wave and particle characteristics when shot through a double slit, but never NOT showing that characteristic, or some other characteristic.<br /><br />All these things tending towards specific effects, rather than just any effect. Unlike unguided evolution, which has no specific end result.<br /><br />Do you see nopw how one can see God in the world without needing such things as him writing his name in the stars or miraculously curing an amputee?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26673142154810259522013-05-01T16:41:22.957-07:002013-05-01T16:41:22.957-07:00Ok, I accept (1) and (4) with the provision that w...Ok, I accept (1) and (4) with the provision that we're talking about simple things like electrons or rocks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64282782662844316182013-05-01T16:27:02.587-07:002013-05-01T16:27:02.587-07:00> I can conceive of an inorganic object that ha...> I can conceive of an inorganic object that has intelligence. I don't know if such a thing exists, but I think it could.<br /><br />The premise does not say such things cannot exist (you're right; perhaps there are robots or whatever). It simply says that objects like electrons, seeds, rocks, rivers, etc are not intelligent. <br /><br />I'm going to assume that you accept that.<br /><br />So you accept (1) and (4), then?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16506500677096807702013-05-01T16:18:29.500-07:002013-05-01T16:18:29.500-07:00Martin,
I accept (1).
I'm not sure (4) is tr...Martin,<br /><br />I accept (1).<br /><br />I'm not sure (4) is true. I can conceive of an inorganic object that has intelligence. I don't know if such a thing exists, but I think it could.<br /><br />I don't accept (2).<br /><br />"If so, then you must agree with the logical formulation of that statement: If something is not intelligent nor guided by an intelligent agent, then it has no goals (specific end results)."<br /><br />Correct. I accept that, and I also believe that many things in fact are not directed toward any goal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3869676800264592672013-05-01T15:58:34.284-07:002013-05-01T15:58:34.284-07:00>because you believe there's a God the dire...>because you believe there's a God the directs everything<br /><br />I've told you, I don't know how many times, that I'm agnostic non-theist.<br /><br />Not to mention, speculation about motives has zero to do with the argument's soundness, and is a form of ad hominem. Talking about why I do or do not believe whatever it is you think I believe is a distraction.<br /><br />>Because (2) makes the claim that all things have goals, so my first reaction is that it's not true. <br /><br />Set (2) aside for the moment.<br /><br />What about (4)? "Inorganic objects are not intelligent." I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you probably think that one is true. Please tell me if I'm wrong about that.<br /><br />So of the three premises, (2) is set aside for the moment, and you presumably accept (4) as true.<br /><br />What about (1)? <br /><br />I bet you agree with this: Evolution has no specific end result or goal, because it is not an intelligent process and is not guided by an intelligent process.<br /><br />If so, then you must agree with the logical formulation of that statement: If something is not intelligent nor guided by an intelligent agent, then it has no goals (specific end results).<br /><br />And agreeing with that entails agreeing with the contraposition of the conditional. These two statements are logically equivalent contrapositions of each other. It is not possible to accept one and reject the other:<br /><br />If X then Y<br />If not Y then not X<br /><br />So if you agree with the first statement (and the logical formulation), then you agree with the contraposition as well:<br /><br />If something has a goal, then it is either intelligent or guided by an intelligent process.<br /><br />Yes?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32889801105316574302013-05-01T15:47:10.369-07:002013-05-01T15:47:10.369-07:00"I was under the impression that you were cla..."I was under the impression that you were claiming the argument was guilty of begging the question, which is what I addressed.<br /><br />Since you now simply take issue with the truth/falsity of one of the premises, am I to understand that you now agree that the argument is not guilty of such?"<br /><br />This is a different argument, so forgive me if don't make that same analysis of it. Because (2) makes the claim that all things have goals, so my first reaction is that it's not true. This one does lead directly to the conclusion that an intelligent agent directs all things.<br /><br />I would note that in this formulation of the argument, if you accept that (2) is true, you have already assumed that this intelligent agent is at work, because if it were not the case, not all things would have a goal. So even though the argument doesn't directly say it, it still makes the assumption that leads inevitably to the conclusion.<br /><br />The bottom line is that you don't observe that everything has a goal (I sure don't). You believe that everything has a goal for one reason only: because you believe there's a God the directs everything. If it wasn't for that belief in God, you couldn't make this argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50948847872313443192013-05-01T11:58:46.063-07:002013-05-01T11:58:46.063-07:00>I would have to take issue with (2) because, t...>I would have to take issue with (2) because, the mere fact that objects exhibit behavior does not imply that those objects have goals<br /><br />I was under the impression that you were claiming the argument was guilty of begging the question, which is what I addressed.<br /><br />Since you now simply take issue with the truth/falsity of one of the premises, am I to understand that you now agree that the argument is not guilty of such?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59804585550007269242013-05-01T11:55:48.598-07:002013-05-01T11:55:48.598-07:00Martin,
OK, a new formulation of the argument. I...Martin,<br /><br />OK, a new formulation of the argument. In this case I would have to take issue with (2) because, the mere fact that objects exhibit behavior does not imply that those objects have goals (at least, to my way of thinking). An electron within a bar of gold does not have to orbit an atom. It can move around. (That's what we call conductivity.) Electrons simply obey physical laws. You may see that as being directed toward a goal, but surely there's no intelligence to it. If you think there is an intelligence to it, then I would have to say again that you are making a presupposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46551626845624690562013-05-01T11:36:35.185-07:002013-05-01T11:36:35.185-07:00>think what you meant to say in the first one i...>think what you meant to say in the first one is that these objects have no goals of their own, right?<br /><br />Good point. Those are contradictory premises.<br /><br />Rather:<br /><br />(1) Everything that has goals is either A) intelligent, or B) is guided by intelligence<br /><br />(2) Inorganic objects have goals (e.g. electrons always "try" to orbit atoms)<br /><br />(3) Therefore, inorganic objects are either A) intelligent, or B) guided by intelligence<br /><br />(4) Inorganic objects are not intelligent<br /><br />(5) Therefore, inorganic objects are guided by intelligence<br /><br />The only ones that can possibly presuppose a guiding intelligence are (1), (2), and (4), since (3) and (5) are conclusions that follow from them and not themselves premises.<br /><br />(1) does not involve the presupposition that intelligence is guiding anything towards goals, since it is only a conditional. It says that IF something has a goal, then intelligence is involved either internally or externally. But it does not say whether anything does have a goal or not.<br /><br />(2) does not involve the presupposition that intelligence is guiding anything, since it only says that when we look around us, we see that inorganic objects have goals. Whether goals require intelligence or not is not a presupposition of this premise by itself.<br /><br />And (4) does not presuppose a guiding intelligence, since it simply says that inorganic objects are not intelligent.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28165902171259537972013-05-01T11:24:11.881-07:002013-05-01T11:24:11.881-07:00"* Inorganic objects are no intelligent and t..."* Inorganic objects are no intelligent and thus cannot have goals<br /><br />You don't need to presuppose God in order to believe that.<br /><br />* Inorganic objects do have goals<br /><br />You don't need to presuppose God in order to believe that."<br /><br />Finally, an attempt to address what I said. That's a good start.<br /><br />So let's see. The first and second statements don't agree with each other: cannot have goals - do have goals. I think what you meant to say in the first one is that these objects have no goals of their own, right? The second statement clearly implies that goals are imposed on them by an intelligent agent, since they can't have goals of their own, right? But you say it doesn't have to be God. Ok, so we presuppose an intelligent agent (that doesn't have to be God) that makes everything happen - electrons orbiting their nuclei, etc - that provides the goals all these things have. Are we in agreement so far or do I not understand? Then the conclusion says (surprise, surprise) there must be intelligent agent (and I'll give you three guesses who it is). I say it's a circular argument. What have I missed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89734347485958347082013-05-01T11:05:00.750-07:002013-05-01T11:05:00.750-07:00>how does this argument not presuppose an intel...>how does this argument not presuppose an intelligence who is doing all this 'pointing'?<br /><br />* Inorganic objects are no intelligent and thus cannot have goals<br /><br />You don't need to presuppose God in order to believe that.<br /><br />* Inorganic objects do have goals<br /><br />You don't need to presuppose God in order to believe that.<br /><br />And with those two premises flows the conclusion that there must be an intelligence somewhere outside the object guiding it to its goals.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80556686402845258892013-05-01T10:50:40.916-07:002013-05-01T10:50:40.916-07:00This thread was originally about the supposed prob...This thread was originally about the supposed problem of "hiddenness", and there have been some interesting responses. The fundamental problem with the ideologically rigid atheist perspective is that it presupposes the outcome before the discussion even begins. ("Give me evidence," they shout, but never stop to consider that there might be a two-way street here.)<br /><br />I think Isaiah wrote something very pertinent to this discussion: "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." (Isaiah 55:6, KJV) I see the very opposite in play in many postings here - a tightly shut mind, clenched fists, closed eyes and fingers in ears while shouting, lest one hear anything. So is it any wonder if they can't perceive what is right in front of their noses? <br /><br />Im-skeptical complains, "This really is a waste of time." Yes, he is unfortunately right. With that attitude, it certainly is. Just don't blame it on those trying to get through to you.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53701317266748953032013-05-01T10:45:29.002-07:002013-05-01T10:45:29.002-07:00Martin,
You still haven't answered my objecti...Martin,<br /><br />You still haven't answered my objection. please explain how it's not a circular argument. Instead of taking pot-shots at me, please tell me, how does this argument not presuppose an intelligence who is doing all this 'pointing'? If you don't think I understand, what part of it have I got wrong? Can you explain it coherently?<br /><br />I don't think so, because you have made absolutely no effort to address my objections to the argument. It's nice that you worked so hard getting that other guy to understand, but I see no evidence that you are even willing to say to me "here's what's wrong with your argument..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17143857652573712102013-05-01T10:36:36.830-07:002013-05-01T10:36:36.830-07:00>What they're telling you, skep, is that yo...>What they're telling you, skep, is that you're not even understanding the argument as it's laid out, and what you think is a refutation clearly isn't.<br /><br />That's always the problem with im-skeptical. If he objected to the arguments for good reasons, I would have no beef. For example, I worked trying to get a guy on another forum to understand Aquinas' metaphysics properly, and finally, after much pain on my part, he did. Then, he found an alternate metaphysic that was opposed to Thomism. <br /><br />Fair enough!<br /><br />I literally had zero issue with him after that point. He presented his alternate metaphysic on the forum, and I had nothing to say to him anymore. He understood the Thomistic arguments correctly, how they work, and that they are metaphysical and not physical, etc. My job was done. He provided good (or at least proper) objections.<br /><br />But im-skeptical rejects the arguments for very, very bad reasons before he's even given them a fair hearing. Part of the problem is exactly what Feser says in his <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html" rel="nofollow">Road From Atheism</a> article:<br /><br />"...to understand someone, it’s not enough to sit there tapping your foot while he talks. You’ve got to <i>listen</i>, rather than merely waiting for a pause so that you can insert the response you’d already formulated before he even opened his mouth. And when you’re a young man who thinks he’s got the religious question all figured out, you’re in little mood to listen..."<br /><br />Everyone, especially im-skeptical, could benefit from learning <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13435" rel="nofollow">DH7 argumenation</a>:<br /><br />"If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents’ arguments. But if you’re interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents’ arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse. But of course this takes the most effort of all."<br /><br />And effort, I think, is the core problem. It's just <i>easy</i> and produces good feelings to think that your opponent is easily refuted without doing hardly any work at all. That's why the "new" atheists are convinced that the top philosophers of two thousand years of thought made obvious and silly logical errors that no one has noticed until the new atheists came along. <br /><br />A form of arrogance, I think.<br /><br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28385426610230736362013-05-01T10:32:09.822-07:002013-05-01T10:32:09.822-07:00"I knew this would be fun to watch."
I&..."I knew this would be fun to watch."<br /><br />I'm sure you did. Tell me, how does this argument not presuppose an intelligence who is doing all this 'pointing'? If you don't think I understand, what part of it have I got wrong? Can you explain it coherently?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5929332524311332982013-05-01T10:23:02.446-07:002013-05-01T10:23:02.446-07:00What they're telling you, skep, is that you...What they're telling you, skep, is that you're not even understanding the argument as it's laid out, and what you think is a refutation clearly isn't.<br /><br />I have to admire Martin's attempt though. I knew this would be fun to watch.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32648424122585835522013-05-01T09:21:58.104-07:002013-05-01T09:21:58.104-07:00Bob,
So you agree that I didn't refute Martin...Bob,<br /><br />So you agree that I didn't refute Martin? Where's his answer to what I said? The circular logic of his argument is fine with you? The only way I can argue with you guys is to drink the kool-aid, accept that the rules of logic don't apply, and say If I don't think about it, it all makes sense (sort of). This really is a waste of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90558812432556163562013-05-01T09:11:27.244-07:002013-05-01T09:11:27.244-07:00(Channeling Ilion here) Translation:
"I'...(Channeling Ilion here) Translation:<br /><br />"I've been beaten in this argument, but can't bear the thought of admitting it, so ple-e-e-ease leave me alone!"<br /><br />What "im-skeptical" is championing is the idea of turtles all the way down. It's a great argument, being undefeatable by definition.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9507672482659127822013-05-01T08:55:29.000-07:002013-05-01T08:55:29.000-07:00Martin,
Let me repeat. I didn't accept the p...Martin,<br /><br />Let me repeat. I didn't accept the premise to your original argument because it says that things can't fulfill a role (as in a river flowing to the sea) without being directed toward that role by an intelligence. I don't buy that, and you didn't prove it. I said gravity is what makes the river flow down to the sea, and you said that's just putting the intelligent direction at a different level. I said your argument assumes intelligent direction (which could only be god) to prove that there is a god who is performing this intelligent direction. It's a circular argument. I have logically refuted your argument, and you say that I haven't addressed it at all. That's why this is all pointless. No matter what I say no matter what logic I use, you will reject it. So let's just let it rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56029202177349692112013-05-01T08:06:22.016-07:002013-05-01T08:06:22.016-07:00I never said I buy it. I have repeatedly stated th...I never said I buy it. I have repeatedly stated that I am agnostic. <br /><br />But the argument may be one of the keys to finding out IF God is even hidden at all, like Crude and Bob say he isn't.<br /><br />What I do note is that I provided a logical argument, and you go off on tangents when I ask for a response, but you still just say "Nope!" to the conclusion. But without denying one of the premises, you have no basis for denying the conclusion.<br /><br />Which only underscores my earlier point: are you sure that God's existence isn't hidden in plain sight, and you are just shutting your eyes? Because I'm not sure of that for myself at all. A little skepticism here would be good...Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68918007499009441862013-05-01T07:55:44.051-07:002013-05-01T07:55:44.051-07:00Martin,
Let's just say that you buy the argum...Martin,<br /><br />Let's just say that you buy the argument and I don't. I don't see any point in debating that, because we have both staked out our positions, and it won't go anywhere. The whole teleological bit is for people who believe it, and meaningless to those who don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com