Board index ‹ Noah's Ark & the Flood

[J Lord]

> You have claimed, if I am remembering right, that something is right if it contributes to human well being,

I am saying this is how we use the words. As you have agreed, morality correlates with human well being. It could be that some being has dictated this to us but it wouldn't matter. The only way we can judge an action morally is with reference to human well being. It this were not the case then there would be examples of harmful actions that are morally good. And you have agree there are none. So there is clearly a direct correlation here that we both agree to.

> But if there really is a God, and idolatry and false religions lead people to eternal death

Then the person choosing to impose eternal death on these people is unfair and cruel. Nobody who practices polytheism does so out of any ill will towards other human or the real God if he exists. Teh real God in this case is enacting the worst possible punishment on someone for the "crime" of being honestly mistaken as to the nature of reality. It is completely arbitrary, ridiculous, and uncaring.

> Let me know if I have your syllogisms right:

No, it is not right. Your claim was something purely physical could not reason. A computer disproved this assertion. End of argument. Purely physical things can produce rational outputs.

A separate question is whether or not a biological "computer" can arise through natural processes. The evidence suggests that it can because the human brain appears to have evolved from simpler organisms through a natural process. There is no evidence of any non-physical component to the brain. So we know that purely physical things can produce rational outputs and the evidence suggests human brains could have developed through natural processes.

> What you claim is that human can reason freely

I have never claimed that humans can reason freely in some sense where they are not limited by their physical brain. All the known evidence suggests that the brain is purely physical and that it alone is the basis for human reasoning.

> Abductively speaking, inferring to the most reasonable conclusion leads me to theism, not logical positivism, scientific naturalism, or atheism.

This doesn't make any sense because at best all you can say is that you don't know how human reasoning is possible through natural processes. I think there are pretty obvious possible answers to this question, but even if you dismiss them all your logic is:

I can't explain something, therefore something supernatural exists.

This is not convincing and it should be obvious how such reasoning has led people to accept erroneous claims time and time again throughout human history.

[jimwalton]

I wonder if we're reaching the end of this particular discussion. We're starting to circle over old ground.

> An example of harmful actions that are morally good

A doctor doing surgery
Amputation of a gangrenous limb
Radiation therapy for cancer patients

All of these cause great harm, and yet they are morally good actions, intended to improve human well being in the great harm they cause.

> Then the person choosing to impose eternal death on these people is unfair and cruel.

Then we're obviously not agreeing on the definition of justice. Is justice or is it not justice to punish wrongful, deceitful, ultimately destructive behavior to oneself and to others?

> End of argument

It's NOT the end of the argument. A computer cannot "reason" in the sense that we can. A computer can only follow prescribed paths. Purely physical things can only produce rational outputs if they have had rational inputs. That's the point: reason cannot come from non-reason, and yet that's exactly what scientific naturalists claim. There is no evidence that such has ever happened or is even possible.

> I can't explain something, therefore something supernatural exists.

That's nowhere close to my logic. I have never asserted it or even implied it. I don't believe that. That's an old wives' tale typical cheap shot at the origins of religion (never substantiated) and at Christians. But it's totally out of the blue and unreasonable to attribute that to anything I said. Of course such malarky has led people to accept erroneous claims time and time again throughout human history. That's because it doesn't make any sense.

> you don't know how human reasoning is possible through natural processes.

This is where I think I can say with some confidence that you have a disconnect. You are bridging two worlds without a bridge.

There is no example in science where reason comes from non-reason.
There is no example in science where purpose comes from randomness.
There is no example in science where informational data comes from anything other than other informational data.
There is no example in science where personality comes from impersonal sources.

And yet you are claiming, "Well, we live in a purposeful, informational, reasoning world, so it must have happened." That's a leap of faith, my friend, with no substantiation. You are borrowing from the presuppositions of theism, transplanting them into scientific naturalism, and claiming that it must have happened. It's illogical and a non sequitur.

The base of your system is matter, cold and impersonal. The method of your system is chance, sheer shuffle. That's the only input you have. And yet you claim that out of that came personality, purpose, and reason. There's no sense in your bridge, and no evidence of it.

[J Lord]

> A doctor doing surgery; Amputation of a gangrenous limb

No, this increases human well being and it is morally good. If morality has nothing to do with human well being then why are there no examples of things that you think increase human well being and that you also think are immoral?

> Is justice or is it not justice to punish wrongful, deceitful, ultimately destructive behavior to oneself and to others?

It is fair to punish people who harm others. But it is a fundamental principle of justice that the punishment should scale to fit the crime. You obviously don't agree with this because you think it's fair to impose death and eternal punishment on someone for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion about how many gods exist. Why should the punishment not differ based on the severity of the crime?

> It's NOT the end of the argument. A computer cannot "reason" in the sense that we can.

You're already on to the next argument. The question of whether a computer could do things on par with a human or the question of whether humans evolved from simpler life forms are separate arguments. The question of whether a purely physical object can produce rational output is settled by pointing to a computer. That's the end of that argument, now we can move on to the more contentious arguments that you have raised.

> reason cannot come from non-reason

You don't know this to be the case. At best you can say that you don't know how something capable of reason could arise through a natural process.

> There is no example in science where reason comes from non-reason.

This is what I am talking about. The fact that you don't know of any examples of something happened should not lead you to conclude that it is impossible. This is the same reasoning that went wrong time and time again throughout history. You don't know of any way that something could happen naturally so you assume the existence of something supernatural.

> And yet you are claiming, "Well, we live in a purposeful, informational, reasoning world, so it must have happened."

No, I haven't claimed anything along those lines. I would never say the world is reasoning or purposeful. There are things in the universe that are able to assign purpose to things, that are able to process information, and that are able to reason. Some of these things were purpose built by humans and some of them appear to have descended from simpler life forms.

I don't know what your objection to this is, because evolution from simpler life forms is very well understood. But even if you don't believe this happened for some reason you are still left with nothing other than: "I don't know how human brains came to exist." You cannot conclude the existence of anything supernatural based on this information.

[jimwalton]

> If morality has nothing to do with human well being

Somehow we're talking in skew lines to each other. I did agree, many times, that morality was intimately related to human well being. All I have contended all along is that human well-being was an inadequate grounds of objective moral law. I ride between teleological and deontological positions on this one, more like a Rule Utilitarian, if I had to label myself. I am contending that there is an objective moral law outside of ourselves, but that objective moral law plays itself out in many ways to the benefit of human well being. Sometimes, because of what I believe about ethics and justice, the RIGHT thing to do is execute someone who is destructive to humanity. Well, that's taking into consideration human well being, but not that particular individual's well being! But I'm not even always advocating the greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarianism). I'm advocating conforming to the objective moral law grounded in the character and nature of God that plays itself out largely to the benefit of human well being, but "human well being" must be defined within the confines of "justice"—that sometimes harsh and violent actions must be taken against individuals, groups, and even societies when the principles of justice and "human well being" demand the RIGHT and the GOOD.

And I also completely agree with you that the punishment must fit the crime. That basic to the definition of justice. You said, "you think it's fair to impose death and eternal punishment on someone for honestly coming to the wrong conclusion about how many gods exist." Let's make this personal. You're a bright person, astute, well-read, and articulate. You have read and considered the evidence for the existence of God and reasoned within yourself about his nature and the morality of his nature. Should you be held responsible for your well-weighted conclusions, in the same way that I should be held responsible for mine? Isn't it true that we have made decisions based on great consideration, and we OWN those decisions. If the leader of our country "honestly [came] to the wrong conclusion" about a global matter and acted on it, should he or she be held accountable for his or her reasoned decision and actions? I say yes. If someone has ignorantly worshipped the wrong gods, they will be held accountable to a different judicial standard (Rom. 5.13) than someone who has weighed the evidences and willfully (in some cases defiantly and rebelliously) made the wrong decision. If someone weighs the evidence and concludes that our country is a crock and commits treason against it, they will bear the consequences (justly) of their decision, even if they were wrong. In the same way, if someone weighs the evidence against God and concludes that he is a crock and commits "treason" against him, that person will bear the consequences (justly) of their decision, even if they were wrong. Obviously sometimes treason is the moral course to take, but only if the government has been immoral. But against a moral authority, justice inflicts due penalty.

"Reason cannot come from non-reason"

The problem here is that you can neither give me a logical line of thought or any example from life to substantiate that reason can come from non-reason. It's both illogical and impossible. Since you believe it, you need to authenticate it.

> There are things in the universe that are able to assign purpose to things, that are able to process information, and that are able to reason. Some of these things were purpose built by humans and some of them appear to have descended from simpler life forms.

Again, the burden of proof is on you to show either logically, historically, or scientifically how this is either reasonable or possible.

> I don't know what your objection to this is because evolution from simpler life forms is very well understood

I have no problems with evolution simpler life forms. What I have problem with is rationality, personality, morality, and purpose from matter + time + chance. That's where you're not making sense, but borrowing from theism. All the quotes I've given you bear this out: if you start with matter + time + chance, there is no justification for the evolution of reason, personality, morality, and purpose. You can't get blood from a rock.