Beyond Materialism

thThus far, we’ve seen several things that either cannot be explained by materialism or positively contradict it. Contingent objects, the beginning of the universe, moral truth, the foundations of science, and conscious thought are among them.

Assuming one has followed the argument this far, we’re left with a timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, moral, and personal being. At least, this concept explains those things on the table which need explanation. This, I would argue, simply follows from the facts of reality as we experience it.

This much has been said, meaning that we have reached a being which, most would agree, could reasonably be called God. Setting aside the objections that might be made up until this point, we have yet to address an oft-heard objection:

But which God is it?

Many have pointed out, rightly, that simply stopping with the conclusion of “God” isn’t enough. We need a more specific answer than that. Though I’ve underlined that this question isn’t remotely a reason to reject belief in all forms of theism, it is a good question. And it is much more answerable than many realize.

It has already been shown that we are dealing with an entity which transcends time and matter. This being the case, we can throw out the overwhelming majority of gods proposed in human history. Almost all gods are material, not transcendent.

In fact, both the transcendent nature of this being and Ockham’s Razor give us reason to think that we’re only dealing with a single entity. Polytheism, after all, requires finite gods who typically serve specific functions in nature. One may concoct some metaphysical alternative, of course, but (as this isn’t a serious option in our culture) I’ll let that alone.

The deists, on the other hand, would accept monotheism, but question whether God is still active in the world–or even continues to exist. But there is no reason to think that God has ceased to exist, of course, and every reason to think that God is active in the world.

In fact, several of the things to be explained, such as consciousness and moral truth, require that, today, there is more than the physical. There simply having been so in the past is not enough.

Really, when we look at these facts, we clearly see a being that fits nicely into the vision of the great western monotheist faiths, and doesn’t mix well with much of anything else.

Though it is often claimed that the arguments for God’s existence shows little on the grounds that there are so many gods to consider, we see that the number of gods supported by these arguments is razor thin.

But the thoughtful reader, of course, will be very interested in which of the few concepts of God mentioned here is the most likely to be true. But, for the answers to that, we’ll have to turn to the Bible.

As such, I’ll be visiting the New Testament in the near future.


55 responses to “Beyond Materialism

  • Hagiographic

    how can a god be timeless when there was no such thing as time before the big bang?


    • Persto

      Timeless, in this sense, only means God exists *outside* of time. In other words, God is not constrained by the processes of natural phenomena, which is to say, the philosophy that every event has its cause(s). God did not exist before time, but beyond time. And I think it can be argued, although I don’t necessarily agree, that God took on a temporal mode of existence with the creation of the universe in order to relate to her creation, which is something I believe Craig would argue.

      Also, everything in philosophy has to be taken as a cause for further argument, not as a final statement of results. On that account, your checkmate seems misplaced.


  • William Ockham

    Great introduction to a fascinating topic. I also find it perplexing that materialism is so pervasive in western society when its explanatory power is very limited. I have recently blogged on the subject from a Christian perspective and have engaged in good conversations with atheists.

    I look forward to your continued posts on the subject.

    W. Ockham

  • Hagiographic

    Well I’m glad you get to make up definitions.

    And william lane craig is a fraud of an academic; kalam is the worst argument I’ve ever heard in my life. Oh, everything has a cause? You know this to be true? You’ve checked EVERYTHING? yeah, sorry he can’t make that claim..

    Also in philosophy there has to be a reasonable, defended argument advanced in order to respond to it.

    Sadly I can’t do that to any of the theistic claims.

    So I’ll continue to say,


    • Debilis

      As I’d agree with Persto’s response here, I’m confused as to why you think he’s making up definitions. What definition of timeless do you use?

      More to the point, what word would you like us to use to refer to something that exists beyond time?

      As to Craig, I happen to rather like him, but that’s not really the point. I will say some things in favor of the idea that things which begin to exist have causes, however.

      Specifically, this is a vital foundational principle to science. The rejection of it is the rejection of the idea that science works. However, I’d say that it is clear that science works.

      But no, I’ve not personally checked literally everything. But I don’t need to. This is for two reasons:

      The first is the fact that an eternal past leads to logical contradictions, but the second tends to be more impressive to atheists. That is, to demand that we need to literally check everything in order to draw an inference is, again, to reject science. This is the entire concept of inductive reasoning.

      No one is demanding that scientists track the speed of literally every beam of light in order to support relativity. Nor is anyone demanding that gravity be carefully measured on literally every atom in the universe, either. To insist that one must check everything is to dismiss science entirely.

      Rather, we need to ask ourselves what is more reasonable: that things that come into existence have causes, or that some things pop into existence for no reason at all.

      The first is foundational to all inquiry about the universe, but the second is no different than an appeal to magic.

      Personally, I find the argument “You shouldn’t believe in God because things can pop into existence out of nothing” a little hard to swallow. But I don’t yet see how a rejection of the first premise of the Kalam is any different than this.

      • Hagiographic

        We don’t (normally) have words for things that don’t exist, nothing has been demonstrated to exist before the big bang.

        “Timeless” is a colloquial term for things that are in fashion for long periods of time, like gold coins or shit that your parents collect (because I assume that you’re still twelve years old).

        There’s no such thing as anything, that’s been shown to exist, as timeless. Why would I care what word you use for something that doesn’t exist, as long as you specify that you’re simply speculating (which you don’t) you can use the word magic for something that exists outside of time.

        And as for “Things beginning to exist having a cause” being a vital principle of science. That’s not true at all. Causality is a central principle, induction is a central principle, but there is no principle, law or theory in science that says that something that begins to exist has a cause.

        You’re not too familiar with physics or chemistry, and that’s okay.

        We’ve never observed anything “begin to exist.” As that (equivocal) phrasing states. We only see a restructuring of matter.

        How is rejecting “anything that comes into existence has a cause” a rejection of science?

        Do you know what science is?

        It is a method for observing, testing and drawing conclusions about reality.

        Science would NEVER make such a broad conclusion as “anything that begins to exist has a cause.”

        Saying something THAT broad is intellectual dishonesty (which in itself is rejection of the scientific method and ) and overreaching.

        Then you say “The first is the fact that an eternal past leads to logical contradictions”
        And I’d really ask you to stop parroting craig’s arguments because they are awful. I’m sure you’re talking about the entropy thing, by which in an infinite universe it would have broken down by now. Firstly, Craig doesn’t understand physics.

        Secondly, I didn’t say the universe was infinite, you did. Prove it, otherwise you’re begging the question.

        Next, no one demands science because they come up with reasonable expectations of how these theories work. Philosophy doesn’t do that. Look up meteorolgy (or pretty much anything) by aristotle and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

        Again, I really do not think you understand how scientific claims operate at all. Science makes models and predictions based on descriptions, it doesn’t assert things simply because they seem “reasonable.”

        Which is your fallacy near the end, which is more “reasonable.” lol

        And what? Who says you shouldn’t believe in god because “things pop out of nothing?”

        You shouldn’t believe in God, because you can’t even reach your own burden of proof.

    • Persto


      Am I making up definitions? It seems, to me, that you didn’t know the definition of the term you were attempting to dismiss.

      William Lane Craig is not a fraud. This is just another ‘new atheist’ myth, primarily, disseminated by Richard Dawkins, who himself knows next to nothing about philosophy, history, or theology. Craig is a respected philosopher of religion and time, and a cursory study of his books The Cosmological Argument: From Plato to Leibniz and Time and Eternity would make you aware of his originality and the significance of his work in these areas.

      I am not sure why you brought up the Kalam argument? Your initial objection was about God’s timelessness and I referenced an argument I believed Craig would make about God’s mode of existence after the Creation event. Nothing about Kalam was mentioned.

      As for your reference to the cosmological argument, I can only assume you are misunderstanding what is being stated. The general outline of Aquinas’ version is as follows:
      1) There exist things that are caused.
      2) Nothing can be the cause of itself. (causa sui)
      3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
      4) There exists an uncaused first cause.
      5) The word God means uncaused first cause.
      6) Therefore, God exists.

      What can we say of this argument? Certainly, premise 1 is true. Science proclaims that the laws of physics are sufficient to explain all events in the universe. We generally believe that every event has a cause that explains why the event happened. Premise 2 seems correct. Nothing can cause itself to come into existence, for it would have had to exist before it caused anything at all. To cause something implies causal power and nonexistent things have no power at all. Premises 2 and 4 do not contradict each other. There is nothing incoherent about the idea that something existed from eternity and so is uncaused, whereas there is definitely something incoherent about the idea that something nonexistent caused itself to come into being.

      The problem, as Hume and Aquinas himself would point out, is with premise 3. Some might say there can be an infinite regress of numbers, why not causes? Well, I would mention that numbers are abstract, eternal entities. In other words, they exist in all logically possible worlds. However, events and persons are concrete, temporal beings, the sorts of things that have to *brought* into existence.

      Also, as Craig observed, the key is distinguishing between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Common objections like, people can’t count to infinity and that there are an infinite number of prime numbers and one shouldn’t apply infinity to real world things, would be valid if one was talking about a potential infinite. No one is. We are talking about an actual infinite number, which would have to be coherent when applied to real world material. A potential infinite is better called an indefinite number of things rather than an infinite. It’s duty is too increase towards infinity as a limit but never get there. An actual infinite must get there and Hilbert’s Hotel illustrates, as Craig showed( For example, imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are occupied. Let us say a guest arrives, asking for a new room, the manager responds, “Sorry, we are full; no vacancies.” Makes sense. Now, imagine that the hotel has an infinite number of rooms and that they are full. The guest asks for a room and the manager signs him in a room. Now, even though the guest was signed in, no more people are at the hotel after the guest arrived than before the guest arrived. That seems absurd.
      Now, suppose an infinite number of guests apply for rooms at the hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are full. The infinite number of guests are signed in. How? Just move every former occupant to a room twice their previous room number. Because any natural number multiplied by two is always an even number, all the present guests are able to move into rooms with even numbers, leaving an infinite number of odd-numbered rooms for the infinite number of new guests. Yet, there are just as many guests as there were before the new guests arrived. Absurd, no doubt. I mean, the hotel is full, but has an infinite number of vacancies. Seems quite absurd.) the absurdities of an actual infinite series of events, including an infinite regress of events or causes.

      Also, I should mention that in the case of the argument of contingency–not the argument I am talking about–a beginning point is irrelevant. As Copleston said, “An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being.”

      But seeing as how you think the arguments being advanced are not reasonable I am going to post a previous comment about the contingency argument:

      1) Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
      2) Not every being can be contingent.
      3) Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
      4) A necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by ‘God.’
      5) Therefore, God exists.

      A necessary being is a self-existing and independent being that has its explanation in itself, whereas contingent beings do not, but rather depend on other beings. One prominent advantage of the contingency argument is that the First Cause cannot cease to exist because the world depends upon its existence. It is really like a set of chains that are supported in midair. You can count the links backward, but at some point one must reach a being sufficient to maintain the whole chain of dependent beings. So, only something outside the contingent reality, a self-existing reality, can constitute the ultimate ground of existence for anything else. God becomes the logical connection between the contingent world and the noncontingent world.

      Of course, the argument has a problem with premises 2 and 3. Just because not every being is contingent it doesn’t seem to follow that there must be an independent existing being. It seems fallacious. Suppose:
      1) Every human being has a father.
      2) Therefore, every human being has the same father.

      This seems absurd to infer one father from all the children ever born. So, it still remains unanswered why there couldn’t be more than one necessary being? If I am not mistaken Aristotle allowed for multiple prime movers.

      However, one may rightfully wonder how there could be multiple necessary beings if being a necessary being constitutes being a maximally great being, which for a being to be necessary is for the idea of it to involve its existence. So, a necessary being must be a maximally great being, and if a maximally great being exists, then God exists. If God, as we understand her exists, then only one maximally great being can exist because it seems superfluous to suppose more than one all-powerful being. Also, Leibniz would argue that if two beings bear all the same predicates, then there are two identical beings, which means, in other words, that there is only one being. Of course, one might also argue that if there are two gods, then both cannot be omnipotent because, by one god being omnipotent, the other could not be omnipotent. Therefore, if there are two gods, then none are God, which is illogical. And several other contradictions could be provided that frustrate the notion of multiple maximally great beings.

      I wonder if you’ll continue to say checkmate?

      As for your last comment, causality is every event has a cause(s), so I am confused as to what you are talking about here. Additionally, induction is the idea that every time we pursue an event far enough, we discover it to have a natural *cause.* Here again, I am confused as to how that is not every event has a cause(s).

      “We’ve never observed anything “begin to exist.”’

      We’ve also never observed anything that exists that did so without a cause.

      “How is rejecting “anything that comes into existence has a cause” a rejection of science?”

      Be direct. Are you rejecting the philosophy that every event has a cause(s)? More technically put, are you rejecting the the process whereby certain types of events are always followed by a definite kind of other event? For example, do you reject that the law of gravitation entails that, within Earth’s gravitational zone, objects will fall downward toward Earth at an acceleration of 32.17 ft/sec/sec or ft/sec^2?

      Science tells us that the Earth has an elliptical orbit and that one gram of hydrogen contains 303 x 10^21 molecules and that arsenic is poisonous, but it doesn’t tell us anything about God’s existence or non-existence. To have a conversation about God you have to be doing metaphysics, which is what you have been doing, and science plays a very limited role in that discussion.

      Science offers a description of reality, as you noted, but it doesn’t offer an explanation. In my mind, science can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. Perhaps, one could, and Gould did, go as far as to suggest, although I wouldn’t, that science has no bearing on the existence or nature of God. However, although I wouldn’t go that far, I would go so far as too say that science–the method–cannot prove nor disprove the existence or nature of God. Of course, some people think the natural sciences create a positive environment for faith, and others think that the natural sciences have negative implications for faith. But science does not prove anything, either way on this issue. The question about God cannot be settled, solely, on scientific grounds. So, we must either abandon the question entirely–unintellectual–or we must attempt to answer it on other grounds, which is precisely what you have been doing this whole time–metaphysics. If you want to you utilize Darwin’s theory of evolution, as developed in the light of Mendelian genetics and our understanding of the place of DNA in the transmission of inherited information, to dogmatize on matters of religion, then go right ahead, but know that you have strayed far beyond the straight and narrow way of the scientific method, and are in the philosophical badlands, so to speak.

      “You shouldn’t believe in God” is a claim about the world and, as such, carries a burden of proof.


      • Hagiographic

        I welcome philosophy as an appendix to scientific understanding of the world, within reason. This is for a few reasons, like I said, philosophical logic is often very very wrong about the world when you feed unjustifiable information into the premises. Aristotle was wrong about pretty much everything. He used logic, he was a much more respected philosopher/theologian etc than Craig will ever be. If aristotle can be DEAD wrong about just about EVERYTHING he wrote (because at the time we did not have the scientific understanding) then what chance does a nitwit like Craig have?

        Also I love how you took my quote out of context “you shouldn’t believe in god because you have yet to meet the burden of proof” and turned it just into “you should not believe in god” so you can flip the onus back on me.

        What you said:
        “You shouldn’t believe in God” is a claim about the world and, as such, carries a burden of proof.

        can me made all the more absurd by switching out a few words:

        “You shouldn’t believe that I have a pink dragon in my garage” is a claim about the world and as such, carries a burden of proof.

        I think you misunderstand onus, it’s not my job to disprove your jesus fairy myth, it’s your job to prove it, which you haven’t done.

        • Persto

          Aristotle was also wrong about how many teeth women have, but I am still confused as to what this has to do with my comment? Okay, so, Aristotle was wrong, but can you demonstrate where the arguments I presented were incoherent or invalid or unsound? You don’t get to dismiss the conclusion because Aristotle’s philosophy was flawed or because philosophical arguments are subject to alteration. You know what else is tentative: science. But I don’t go around saying, “Well, Newton was wrong. Therefore, gravity doesn’t exist.” or “Darwin didn’t know about genetics. Ergo, evolution must be wrong.” Is this your objection? Are you dismissing an argument because Aristotle, specifically, and philosophy generally makes mistakes and is not all-knowing? Are you really saying this?

          Nevertheless, the way this works is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily–the conclusion is logically unavoidable. If the premises are more plausibly true than not, then the conclusion follows necessarily. It doesn’t matter whether you like the conclusion or not; or whether Aristotle made philosophical mistakes or not; or whether philosophy is a reflective discipline or not. What matters is: are the premises more plausibly true than not? And this is what you didn’t address at all, and you must address this in order to justify your dismissal of the conclusion.

          Ladies and gentlemen, this is what an ad hom looks like. You are not just being impolite, which I could tolerate, you are refusing to consider or even address the argument on the basis of your dislike for Craig. That is just bad thinking. The crazy part is I am only using a portion of Craig’s Kalam Argument, that highlights the absurdity of an infinite series of causes.

          Yes, if you are claiming God does not exist, then you have a burden of proof. Your problem is that you don’t even know you have a metaphysical system of beliefs–the denial of God’s existence is a metaphysical belief. Your entire argument, if it can be called that, sorry, it is true, seems to be very close to Clifford’s declaration that: “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Is this what you hold too? If not, then what is your specific objection(s) to the arguments presented?


        • Hagiographic


          But you know what? Aristotles conclusions were logically valid and sound during his day. And he was very very wrong, so keep talking about how your “deductions” are flawless.

        • Persto

          Not all of them and certainly not to everyone. Whole schools of philosophy disagreed with Aristotle. You keep thinking that because Aristotle said something everybody in the ancient world accepted it as valid and sound. They didn’t. Aristotle was wrong about some things and he was right about some things also, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

          I never said my deductions were flawless. In fact, I pointed out areas where they could be called into question. I have only asked you to provide a coherent objection to the arguments I presented, which, apparently, you can’t do.

        • Hagiographic

          Aristotle believed his logical conclusions to be valid and sound. Lots of people did, aristotles logos was wrong because he did not have relevant evidence to support his conclusions. My argument is only that unreasoned/unjustified logic leads to false conclusions. Which you said you agreed with (I think) all I’m asking you to do is convince me that you are not feeding presumptions/assumptions/unverifiableinto your premises. Show it.

        • Persto

          Read my comments. I have shown it. If you don’t think so, then point to where I have failed to do so.

        • Hagiographic

          Sure, but before i do, a question:
          Where’s your (or wl Craig’s of that matter) nobel prize for clearly and without presumingly snowing the existence of god? Where are all your book deals? Why aren’t you internationally recognized as the guy who proved gods existence? There have been philosophers for centuries who have said their claims are valid and sound and you know what? None have persisted. What makes you any different? Why should people waste their time with your arguments?

        • Persto

          None have persisted, huh, I mean I don’t guess anyone is still talking about Aquinas or Clarke or Anselm or Plato or Leibniz or Descartes or Plotinus or Berkeley or Spinoza or Epicurus or Schelling or Tillich or Kant or Malebranche or Heidegger or Whitehead. To your answer your question: I am not any different than these men. I believe the things I believe because I have studied and read the works of these great men. Of course, we know more than these men knew; that is what makes us modern and them dead. But not to respect antiquity is not smart; it is to forget that their ideas are in a state of perpetual self-correction and development in the minds of individuals who read their works; it is to be woefully indifferent as to how we became intelligent human beings.

          You know, if I am going to be honest, this has to be the stupidest comment in the history of blogging. If you want to discuss this seriously, then I’ll continue the discussion, but I am not going to waste my time, nor Deb’s, going back and forth with a person who refuses to engage honestly in the discussion, a person who only wants to score rhetorical points and who shamelessly plugs their own blog without the host blog’s permission.


        • Persto

          Also, who cares if Aristotle or anyone else believed his conclusions were persuasive. What matters is: are the premises more plausibly true than not? Some people in the ancient world did not think so and some did, but, here again, they presented coherent objections and arguments that refuted or attempted to refute Aristotle’s conclusions.

          Philosophy is not so much a subject as it is a way of thinking. It is reflective. It examines and ruminates about ideas in a critical manner. It teaches one how to spell out, hold, and defend one’s beliefs. It does not muddle one’s thinking; it clarifies it. It secures one’s life on intellectual ground in place of the fragile supports provided by inherited prejudices. And, more to my point, everything in philosophy has to be taken as a cause for further argument, not as a final statement of results.


        • Hagiographic

          Stopped at “plausibly true”

          Lol @ u

        • Hagiographic

          Feel free to make your baseless theistic claims here, I don’t have time to deal with people who explain everything with “godidit” .

        • Eduardo

          Please come to my blog to waste your time arguing with me….

          Lol, i like the rules, they are so vague I bet I could get rid of almost anything lol, just by saying: oh that is magic!

    • Debilis

      Philosophy is the basis of science; to make it an appendix is to reason in a circle.

      Certainly, if one isn’t willing to accept the idea that things have causes, one isn’t capable of doing science.

      However, I completely agree that one can’t get good conclusions out of false premises. This is fundamental. But this is only pertinent if there is reason to think that the premises of anything being said here are false.

      On the contrary, everything I’ve claimed is in line with the findings of science.

      In our example of the Kalam, for instance, the idea that the universe began to exist is based in evidence discovered by cosmologists.

      As to the issue of burden of proof, I’m not “flipping the onus”. The greater question here is “Does God exist?”. We should look at the reasons to answer “yes” to that question, and the reasons to answer “no”. Our conclusion will depend on which set of reasons is stronger.

      So, anyone who enters the conversation needs to defend his/her position. This is how logical discourse works. I fully agree that I should give arguments (and, if you look over this blog, you’ll find that I’ve done exactly that). But this does not exempt other positions from needing to defend their positions.

      For instance, I find materialism a deeply problematic position, and one for which the burden of proof has never been met. Simply claiming “you can’t prove God exists” does not support materialism.

      To choose between these views, we’re going to have to apply logic to what we know (i.e. do some philosophy). And, so far, all of the best reasons are on the side of theism.

      • Hagiographic

        “Does god exist?” is a positive claim about the world

        If you accept that claim as true it is on you to provide reason, if you do not meet your burden of proof I don’t have to do anything.

        Secondly, even if I were unable to “prove” that you should reject the claim of God existing, that doesn’t make you correct.

        I’m not a materialist or a naturalistm, and I’m talking about formal philosophy. Sure science is a subset of “knowledge” but it has consistently been shown to provide to most accurate results time and time again.

        Did you look up Aristotle’s Meteorology? Yeah, the one where he uses “logic” to “prove” that the direction of the wind on a pregnant woman will cause her baby to be male or female.

        Yeah.. logic sure is accurate, aint it?

        • Debilis

          “Does God exist?” is a question.
          Answers to that question are positive claims about the world.

          As is materialism, for that matter.

          Whether or not you have to do anything, if you are unwilling to do anything, I’m not terribly interested in this discussion.

          But I agree with you that your inability to disprove God does not make me right. That is why I’ve given arguments. Similarly, my inability to prove God would not make your view right. (So far, everything you’ve said is completely consistent with materialism, so please let me know what the difference is.)

          The only solution to this is look at the respective arguments, and see which is stronger. So far, I’ve offered quite a few arguments for the truth of God and the falsehood of materialism. Your statements here seem to imply that you don’t have any arguments, but, if you do, please let me know what they are.

          I know quite a bit about Aristotle, actually. I’m fully aware that his science is terrible. I hadn’t addressed it because it is beside the point. This is because:

          1. His being a bad scientist doesn’t make him a bad philosopher (they are different subjects)
          2. Even if he were a bad philosopher, this doesn’t remotely show that philosophy itself is problematic.

          It is simply bad reasoning to say that, because Aristotle reached false conclusions, philosophy is wrong. It is perfectly easy to point to the wrongness of his premises. But, how on earth this refutes logic is beyond me.

          But, if you’re rejecting logic, you’re rejecting science and mathematics.

          And, if your view requires the rejection of all logic, science, and math, I will maintain that it is not the most reasonable view.

        • Hagiographic

          That’s not what I said,
          It goes back to my previous comment, you can’t reach true conclusions feeding in assumptions or unjustifiable claims into your “logic”

          And aristotle as an example was an anecdote, first of all aristotle wasn’t a scientist, secondly it does show that unreasoned logic is necessarily problematic.

          I’m not rejecting logic, nor if I did it wouldn’t be a rejection of science. I’m rejecting logic as the sole way to answer questions because deductive logic cannot answer questions without scientific support.

          We don’t have the scientific support for many of the claims you are making, so you go back to logic anyways, it’s begging the question.

        • Eduardo

          Basically putting.

          1- Every deductive argument must have it’s premises confirmed by inductive logic or a scientific work.

          2- There is not scientific as of yet that shows that things begin to exist…. for instance I have existed forever… and no scientific work that demonstrates that things that begin to exist have causes to them.

          3- So the argument fails for the lack of scientific support to it’s premises (and possibly it’s conclusion). You know… like this argument right now.

        • Hagiographic

          My only claim was that unreasoned/unjustified logic is necessarily problematic. If you don’t believe that then go ahead thinking that aristotle was right about things falling at the same speed, oh yeah and don’t forget how aristotle used “logic” to prove that the other planets orbited around the earth.

        • Eduardo

          No, your claim is just that having bad premises give bad conclusions, I think we all here agree to that.

          You don’t even know what logic is. Logic is rules of inference, you are confusing premises with logic. Logic is part of a system you use to prove something but by itself it proves in theory nothing. *well may a logician correct me in case I am wrong*

          Oh now I get it, the whole falling at same speed, that is not really it, Aristotle thought that the nature of objects if not affected in any way thing would go in a straight line until it loses all impetus and then it falls because it goes to it’s natural places… the ground.

          Now are you really suggesting that Aristotle never saw an object fall???

        • Eduardo

          Let me see…

          1- Hagio’s epistemological theory is the correct

          2- This is proven by a criteria

          3- This criteria exist in his head

          4- But it is a trust worthy one… which is another criteria in his head…

          5- So you ought follow it… even though there is no reason to.

          6- Therefore you can not go back to “logic in a completely weird definition that means: your inference procedure or your own epistemological theory.”

        • Hagiographic

          The criteria is eclectic
          Supporting one epistemological position only provides goals to jump through.
          Changing definitions you can prove anything

        • Eduardo

          I don’t care if the criteria comes from all the parts of the universe… or are you using your personal definition of eclectic XD?

          …. I have no idea what you meant by the second phrase. It only provide goals to jump through…. ???? what???? I thought by supporting an epistemological theory you are at least showing that it is coherent… I mean at least that if you are starting from epistemology anyway.

          Yeah … you are very good at using your own definitions and proving things… come on…

        • Hagiographic

          an eclectic approach uses more than one paradigm, but go ahead and stick to your single narrow worldview. Are you a theist? That’s probably why.

          You’ve never heard the phrase “tennis with no net” have you, or “philosophical masturbation”

          that’s what lawyers do, they prove a person is guilty by fitting their definitions through the hoops of the law. Ex. “X spit on y’s face, Did x assault y,
          Philosopher: define assault
          by the end the lawyer will go through all the hoops to make it that spitting on someone else is or is not assault.

        • Eduardo

          Funny, you are the one with the extremely narrow epistemology and I am the one with the narrow worldview. Who cares if I stay in a narrow worldview… oh yeah so you can criticize me, oh I love atheist lovely remarks filled prejudice =3!

          lol, olly shit, how the heck you concluded that I do not understand what you said…

        • Debilis

          I completely agree that premises must be valid. If you can demonstrate that a premise is false, I’ll agree that the argument in question is no good.

          I also agree that “unreasoned logic” is problematic. Again, if you can show that the logic is wrong in an argument being made, I’ll reject it.

          But rejection of logic is rejection of science. We need good premises, of course, but it is completely strange to say that every position needs scientific support.

          The most obvious question is “What is the scientific support for the idea that every idea needs scientific support?”. This approach is called “verificationism”, and it fails its own test.

          Every premise I’ve supported is both consistent and confirmed by experience. What is inconsistent and disconfirmed by experience is the idea that things pop into existence uncaused.

  • Eduardo

    Pearl to the pigs…

  • Eduardo

    I bet Haggy is lying hahahaha … hence I will download the works of Aristotle right about now…

  • Eduardo

    yeah logic is accurate.. is the premise that is inaccurate 😄 …. olly shit gottta be kidding.

  • Eduardo

    You suck at talking about formal philosophy dude, we allllll already know this!

  • Persto

    Hagio at 1:43 pm

    None have persisted, huh, I mean I don’t guess anyone is still talking about Aquinas or Clarke or Anselm or Plato or Leibniz or Descartes or Plotinus or Berkeley or Spinoza or Epicurus or Schelling or Tillich or Kant or Malebranche or Heidegger or Whitehead. To your answer your question: I am not any different than these men. I believe the things I believe because I have studied and read the works of these great men. Of course, we know more than these men knew; that is what makes us modern and them dead. But not to respect antiquity is not smart; it is to forget that their ideas are in a state of perpetual self-correction and development in the minds of individuals who read their works; it is to be woefully indifferent as to how we became intelligent human beings.

    You know, if I am going to be honest, this has to be the stupidest comment in the history of blogging. If you want to discuss this seriously, then I’ll continue the discussion, but I am not going to waste my time, nor Deb’s, going back and forth with a person who refuses to engage honestly in the discussion, a person who only wants to score rhetorical points and who shamelessly plugs their own blog without the host blog’s permission.


    • Eduardo

      Enough man… 4 years ago I was in your shoes… Don’t go the distance for people like him, they are not worth it.

      • Persto

        I can’t not go the distance for people like her. I was a ‘new atheist’ just like Hagio for several years, but a conversation in the comments section of an obscure blog altered, forever, my worldview. If it can happen to me, then it can happen to anyone.


      • Eduardo

        You know usually I just go in these blogs just with the desire to either get thrilled by some insightful idea or just see people behaving like crap, like Hagio. With time I could no longer point to reasonable intentions the way most atheists in the net act *The theists are not exactly any better*. I just had to accept that people despised the belief in G*d, and as a result despised people that propagated such things. Eventually I gave in to the pressure and gave up on expecting anything out of people like Hagio, and really… Never really got anything from them anyway.

        BUT here you are… You are different. You are the type of people my soft stupid self wished existed all over the net.

        What happened in that underground site?

        • Persto

          Meaningful dialogue happened and I was exposed to arguments that were better than mine. It wasn’t instantaneous enlightenment, but it certainly initiated a process that led me to my current belief system.

        • Eduardo

          … I see …

          You ex Christian and ex Atheist hahahah, well anyways Persto may I say that it is nice to that you exist?

          Well I would to know more about your beliefs, but you have a blog, so I have no reason to keep the train going.

          So all I can is good luck dude! See ya… In case we post in the same blog again!

    • Eduardo

      Youknowwho said:

      ” I want to give you a chance to try and witness/proselytize/convert me to your faith. I have an open mind, but I’ll surely approach your considerations rationally.”

      LOL…. Gold, just gold.

  • paarsurrey

    Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
    Paarsurrey says:
    Referring to your last line “As such, I’ll be visiting the New Testament in the near future.”
    Your argument is good if we adhere to what Jesus believed in; but NT does not present Jesus’ teachings and what he believed in; it presents Trinity of Paul and the Church that Jesus never believed in.

What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: