Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: An absolute, objective truth, has to have an absolute beginning. Only God could be the origin of an objective
truth.

What is God? Origin of an objective truth. What is objective truth? Given by God. That's a circular reasoning.

DannyM wrote: http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledg ... heism.html

I started to read that and stopped here:
"But it has been argued that beliefs possess intrinsic features, such as subjectivity and intentionality, which cannot be reduced to the physical or eliminated. Similarly, the concept of truth—understood as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements—is not susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge)."

Anderson talks about truth which he understands as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements. But truth lives outside our thoughts and statements.

I have further question: At the beginning Anderson talks about distinctive claim of Van Tilian that human knowledge presupposes the existence of God. Do you happen to know the argument?

awesome 1over137 has made 137 posts dont make anymore okay? =D

What is God? Origin of an objective truth. What is objective truth? Given by God. That's a circular reasoning.

How is that circular reasoning?

1over137 wrote:I started to read that and stopped here:
"But it has been argued that beliefs possess intrinsic features, such as subjectivity and intentionality, which cannot be reduced to the physical or eliminated. Similarly, the concept of truth—understood as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements—is not susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge)."

You just ceased reading further from there?

Anderson talks about truth which he understands as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements. But truth lives outside our thoughts and statements.

If a proposition is true, then the proposition contains the concept of truth. Thus the object of the proposition has the "property" of truth. There is no controversy here. The proposition is true independent of yours and my attitude towards it

I have further question: At the beginning Anderson talks about distinctive claim of Van Tilian that human knowledge presupposes the existence of God. Do you happen to know the argument?

Yes. If knowledge, then God.

I see that I have to improve my English, because I got into misunderstandings.

La Volpe wrote:awesome 1over137 has made 137 posts dont make anymore okay? =D

Now I spoiled it.

RickD wrote:

What is God? Origin of an objective truth. What is objective truth? Given by God. That's a circular reasoning.

How is that circular reasoning?

Sorry, not reasonning but definition. Circular definition.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote:I started to read that and stopped here:
"But it has been argued that beliefs possess intrinsic features, such as subjectivity and intentionality, which cannot be reduced to the physical or eliminated. Similarly, the concept of truth—understood as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements—is not susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge)."

You just ceased reading further from there?

Well, I had to stop. The article is a logical thread and when you do not understand something you cannot continue.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote: Anderson talks about truth which he understands as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements. But truth lives outside our thoughts and statements.

If a proposition is true, then the proposition contains the concept of truth. Thus the object of the proposition has the "property" of truth. There is no controversy here. The proposition is true
independent of yours and my attitude towards it

If the proposition is true independent of my and yours attitude towards it then it is not subjective and can be reduced to the physical, is susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge). This is contrary to what Anderson says.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote:I have further question: At the beginning Anderson talks about distinctive claim of Van Tilian that human knowledge presupposes the existence of God. Do you happen to know the
argument?

Yes. If knowledge, then God.

Sorry, I meant to ask if you happen to know the proof.

1over137 wrote:If the proposition is true independent of my and yours attitude towards it then it is not subjective and can be reduced to the physical, is susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge). This is contrary to what Anderson says.

Forgive me, but that is nonsense. What has the non-subjectivity of a truth got to do with anything? Propositions are abstract objects. How can a proposition be “susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge).”?

The object of the mind when it has knowledge is reality. The object of the mind when it believes without knowledge is a proposition (a purported representation of reality)

A positive attitude towards a proposition and a negative attitude towards a proposition are opposite mental states. They are not true and false. If I believe the proposition that Plato wrote The Republic, and you disbelieve it, then I have a positive attitude towards the proposition and you have a negative attitude towards the proposition. But the proposition is either true or false independent of yours and my attitude, or ’thoughts’ towards it.

Am I making sense now?

1over137 wrote:Sorry, I meant to ask if you happen to know the proof.

This is from board member Brother PL:

P1: If the human mind can obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.

Step 1 - Assume the opposite. ~A: God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 2 - ~A --> B: If God is not the precondition of human knowledge, then knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 3 - ~B: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 4 - ~~A: It is not the case that God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 5 - A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I doubt you’ll read this, but I’ll put it up anyway, as there are a number of proofs offered by Van Til and Plantinga in this paper

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf

And who said Van Til never gave any actual arguments?

DannyM wrote:I doubt you’ll read this ... http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf

I'd like to read it. But need someone who helps me in case I do not understand something.

1over137 wrote:

DannyM wrote:I doubt you’ll read this ... http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf

I'd like to read it. But need someone who helps me in case I do not understand something.

I don't understand things; just keep reading it (and the other link) if you are interested, and it'll all fall into place.

DannyM wrote: The object of the mind when it has knowledge is reality. The object of the mind when it believes without knowledge is a proposition (a purported representation of reality) A positive attitude towards a proposition and a negative attitude towards a proposition are opposite mental states. They are not true and false. If I
believe the proposition that Plato wrote The Republic, and you disbelieve it, then I have a positive attitude towards the proposition and you have a negative attitude towards the proposition. But the proposition is either true or false independent of yours and my attitude, or ’thoughts’ towards it.

Am I making sense now?

I am starting to understand.

meno wrote: P1: If the human mind can obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.

Step 1 - Assume the opposite. ~A: God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 2 - ~A --> B: If God is not the precondition of human knowledge, then knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 3 - ~B: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 4 - ~~A: It is not the case that God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 5 - A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED

The core of the proof is the Step 3 which is still to be proved. Why knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe?

Now let's go back I was focusing on in Anderson's article (which IMO is the most important part):
"But it has been argued that beliefs possess intrinsic features, such as subjectivity and intentionality, which cannot be reduced to the physical or eliminated. Similarly, the concept of truth—understood as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements—is not susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge). Thus there seems to be no respectable place for ‘beliefs’ and ‘truths’ in a naturalist ontology."

I have problems with the sentence 2. Still don't see it to be true. Someone can prove it?

1over137 wrote:The core of the proof is the Step 3 which is still to be proved. Why knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe?

Then you need to refute step 3.

Now let's go back I was focusing on in Anderson's article (which IMO is the most important part):
"But it has been argued that beliefs possess intrinsic features, such as subjectivity and intentionality, which cannot be reduced to the physical or eliminated. Similarly, the concept of truth—understood as a property of certain thoughts or propositions or statements—is not susceptible to analysis in terms of purely natural qualities (such as mass, electromagnetic force, or electrical charge). Thus there seems to be no respectable place for ‘beliefs’ and ‘truths’ in a naturalist ontology."

I have problems with the sentence 2. Still don't see it to be true. Someone can prove it?

I'm not being difficult, 1over, but I did ask you what exactly your problem is here. I've actually shown you how the second sentence is perfectly fine. Saying you still have a problem with it after neglecting to address my initial response to this 'problem,' seems a little strange...

DannyM wrote: I'm not being difficult, 1over, but I did ask you what exactly your problem is here. I've actually shown you how the second sentence is perfectly fine.

Let it be for a moment. I will reread the article several times.

DannyM wrote: Then you need to refure step 3.

I was asking for a proof and what I was given is not at all a proof. It's uncomplete.

1over137 wrote:

DannyM wrote: Then you need to refure step 3.

I was asking for a proof and what I was given is not at all a proof. It's uncomplete.

I'm confused. So it's the proof now? The proof is complete. If it is not, then refute step 3.

1over,

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=35153

See this thread. Particularly follow the posts of 'Puritan Lad'

Danny

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote:

DannyM wrote: Then you need to refure step 3.

I was asking for a proof and what I was given is not at all a proof. It's uncomplete.

I'm confused. So it's the proof now? The proof is complete. If it is not, then refute step 3.

Here it is:

Let's prove A: Knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.

Step 1: Assume the opposite. ~A: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 2: ~A --> B: If knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe, then it cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 3: ~B: Knowledge can be reduced to the physical.
Step 4: ~~A: It is not the case that knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 5: A: Knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.

Thus I 'proved' that knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe and 'refuted' your step 3. If you do not agree with my step 3 then please refute it.

1over137 wrote:Let's prove A: Knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.

Step 1: Assume the opposite. ~A: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 2: ~A --> B: If knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe, then it cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 3: ~B: Knowledge can be reduced to the physical.
Step 4: ~~A: It is not the case that knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 5: A: Knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.

Thus I 'proved' that knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe and 'refuted' your step 3. If you do not agree with my step 3 then please refute it.

Are you playing games? You didn't refute step 3 - you just re-worded the whole proof. If you are not going to take this seriously then please don't waste my time.

Knowledge cannot be reduced to the physical since knowledge, or justified true belief, is non-physical, abstract and universal. Step 3 refuted.

Now either take the former proof seriously or stop playing games with me.