Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism

[One Eyed Jack]

It may be stupid, but is it impossible?

It's not even worth considering.

Now you claim to know all of God's motives as well?

I never claimed that.

Absolute certainty is more than just a strong conviction. For that, we have the common english word "know", which would be completely useless if we held it up to the standard of absolute certainty. No one would know anything.

I know what kind of CPU I have, and I'm absolutely certain of it.

 

[Clete]

Well I've been away from the thread for the most part these last couple of days and it seems that very little has changed since l left. When I started this thread I intended it to be something that would compliment the upcoming Battle Royale; to be almost a warm up if you will. If the Battle Royale is the main event this was to be the undercard fight to get the crowd ready to see the real deal. It has served as that and more! I couldn't be more pleased with the way it worked out.

Over the weekend and as of yesterday morning I had intended to come in this evening and make a complete response to everything that had been said during my absence but Jim Hilston's openning post in the Battle Royale as well as his hand full of responses in the peanut gallery have caused me to change my mind. This thread will do nothing but serve as a distraction to the Battle Royale and so I don't feel right about allowing it to continue. I will offer direct answers to those direct questions that have been asked which I promised to answer and perhaps one or two other things but that will be it. Everything else would only amount to repeating myself any way and any additional questions will undoubtedly be answered in the Battle Royale and if not there then in the BR IX discussion thread.

So as promised here are my direct answers to avatar382's questions.

You have not accounted for the possibility that the origin of nature, universe, logic, and all else is merely beyond human capacity to understand at this time, instead of necessarily supernatural.

Yes I have. I have demonstrated that God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

It is my belief that religion and all appeals to the supernatural are but man's attempt to explain the unknown. It is clear that as science discovers the causes and mechanisms behind the nature that surrounds us, the need for supernatural explanations fall away.

Direct question: What makes you so sure that your own supernatural explaination, which you offer so readily, is not merely another example of man's arrogant attempts to explain away what he does not and probably cannot understand?

Because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. It simply is not possible that there is any other explanation inside of rational worldview. It's not that it simply hasn't been done but it is that it cannot be done.

Definition: axiom - A self evident truth.

Direct question
Do you agree with this definition of the term "axiom?"

Only within the context of logic! Look at the definition again. "A SELF EVIDENT TRUTH" Do you not see that this definition uses logic?
"Self" assumes the law of identity, the first of the three laws of logic.
"Evident" a form of the word 'evidence' implies deduction.
"Truth" implies that the self contained argument is both valid and sound.
Thus axioms are products of logic and exist because of it not the other way around and so this axiom argument does your position no good.

Think hard about what that means. Axioms are things so obvious that they require no proof, they require no validation. By looking for "justification" of axioms, you are needlessly complicating the simplest of concepts.

You are the one who needs to think more carefully. Why, for example, are these things "obvious"? You won't be able to answer that question without logic which is additional proof that axioms are products of logic not logic itself.

We (man) are in no position to attempt to "justify" logic. Any attempt to do so, or to disprove logic, must necessarily result in the use of logic itself.

Which would be irrational because it is question begging. The very spot you are stuck in without beginning your thinking processes with the existence of God.

If accepting logic without justification constitutes "blind faith" in your eyes, then so be it.

What do you mean "in my eyes"? Who gives a crap about what something is "in my eyes"? My opinion doesn't determine what is true or not. Whether it amounts to blind faith is a matter of fact, not opinion. And by your own definition of faith, you do in fact accept logic by faith because you use it and accept its conclusions without any means whatsoever of accounting for its existence or its varasity.

However - and read this carefully, this is vital - you are twisting the meaning of "faith" when you apply the term in this manner.

I read everything carefully and no I am not twisting the meaning of faith. See Hilston's openning post for a good working definition of faith in this context.

Direct question:
When you use your sense of sight, smell, touch to experience and interact with the world around you, how can you be sure that what your senses tell you reflects reality? Is it possible to verify that our senses are accurate?

Direct question:
Is it not true that any attempt to "verify" or "justify" what our 5 senses tell us about the world around us must necessarily use the very same senses?

This is my question to you! I don't think you are understanding my argument. I account for my senses and confirm their varasity by way both decutive and inductive reasoning depending on the specific question being asked, just as do you. But the point is that I can account for the existence of deduction and all other forms of rational thought because God exists. You, on the other hand make no attempt to account for the existence of logic, you simply accept its existence without explanation in violation of your own worldview and thereby borrow (unwittingly) from the Christian worldview which you are in opposition too. In short your worldview is incoherent and therefore false.

Direct question:
Is it "blind faith" to trust our senses without first "verifying" them?

YES! Not that you have to answer that specific question but if you discover that no such verification is possible and you just keep on going with your life as though no such verification is necessary then you've just crossed over into "blind faith".

If so, then you must necessarily admit that everything you see and hear or otherwise experience must be taken on blind faith. If not, then I'd like you to explain to me why is its "blind faith" to accept the axioms of logic without justfication, but it's not "blind faith" to accept what your senses tell you without justification.

Both your senses and logic are accounted for in the same way. They exist and work because we are created by a God which is both logical and able to sense and interact with His environment.

Faith is defined as belief in spite of a lack of evidence.

Direct question:
Do you agree with this definition of faith?

For the purposes of discussing your stated worldview, yes.

Direct question:
How can one hold belief in spite of a lack of evidence in axiom A, if axiom A, by definition, does not require evidence?

It does require evidence. Axioms simply provide their own evidence. Axioms are not "super-logical" (beyond logic).

I appreciate in advance your direct answers to the questions I have posed.

You're quite welcome and I appreciate your patience with my delayed response.

Now, there is one addition peice of business that I think needs to be addressed before we bring this to a close. That being the issue of whether or not I did or did not win this debate. First a quick quote from Jim's openning post in the Battle Royale...

Winning the debate
It should be duly noted that an argument does not need to be agreed to or accepted by everyone, or even the majority, for it to be nonetheless conclusive. There is a difference between personal persuasion, which is subjective, and conclusive proof, which is objective. For example, despite whatever reasoning or facts are presented to him, a man can be unpersuaded that the engine of his car is on the verge of complete failure. He may even refuse to add oil to its crankcase. But the conclusive and objective nature of the case is that the motor will indeed seize up in a matter of time.​

It is in this context in which I have declared victory and in which I have, in fact won this debate, in spite of any of your protestations to the contrary. I did so when the following exchanges occured...

Would you agree, along with every scientist that I've ever known of, including Carl Sagan, that all truth claims must be verified via logic and reason?

To answer directly, yes.

I then estabish that there is no rational means to account for logic in an non-theistic worldview with the following..

The statement that, "all truth claims must be rational", is itself a truth claim.
How would you propose to verify the truth of that claim?

If you answer that this truth claim is also to be verified via logical reasoning then you commit the logical error known as begging the question. You cannot verify logic with logic because by attempting to do so you have to presume that logic is valid which is the very question you are attempting answer. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, that question begging is irrational.

You are then left with the option of saying that this truth claim need not be verified by logic. But if you do that, then you violate the truth claim itself and thererby falsify it.

Then later, you conceded the debate with the following statement which is my argument in a nutshell...

Going back to the dilemma you posed, I offer that the laws of logic are our axioms for building rational thought. If we do not take them to be self-evident, without proof, then we have "nowhere to start", so to speak.

might duck then followed suit and lost the debate by directly conceding my argument in the following statements...

Science only deals with relative knowledge, and makes no claim to absolute knowledge. Everything science has ever said about the world, is only as true as it's basic axioms (which aren't known to be true)

and later in the same post...

You are right. I don't know that reality is real.

He has from that point on done nothing but continuously argue my side of the debate and I have had endless fun proding him on to do it all the more. :chuckle:

And I further declared victory by stating concisely...

Logic is an attribute of God and would not, could not, does not exist apart from Him. He is its source and its foundation. It is God that I presuppose not logic. Logic does not work apart from the existence of God, as I have demonstrated in this thread and thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

No other justification is adequate. We are here talking about logic and reason, we could just as easily discuss personality or morality or any number of the several invisible attributes of God that cannot be explained in an non-theistic worldview and the further down the road you go, the closer you get to a God which resembles the Christian God. As I said a moment ago, it is rationally inescapable; the God of the Christian Bible is the One and only living and true God because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

I want to thank all of you for a the spirited debate and I want you to know that I have thought quite about about whether or not to close this thread. I started not too because of the obvious objections and related accusations of running away and being a coward yada, yada, yada. But the fact of the matter is that I did in fact start this thread with the full intent of ending it when the Battle Royale started, although I must admit that I did not anticipate this level of interest and participation. And in addition the subject matter is just too similar to that which it seems evident that Jim is going to present in the Battle Royale that I just cannot see how this thread wouldn't serve to distract and detract from that debate. So I have, therefore decided to close this thread. If there is anyting that you really want to discuss, including some of the side discussions about computer chips and whatnot, then please feel free to start your own thread but I think you'll find that the Battle Royale itself as the parallel discussion thread will answer all of the unanswered questions which remain here and much more.

God bless you all (according to your actions)

Resting in Him,
Clete