Saturday, May 30, 2009

A Question For William Craig

I am developing an argument for the existence of God that I believe is more immediately verifiable by ordinary people and in my experience is far more persuasive than the cosmological and other arguments. It is what I call the Backdrop Argument or the Argument from Background Assumptions. I necessarily reference God-like construance rules that govern my thinking about the total reality. By inventorying these referential assumptions and cross-assuming them as a system, I in many ways am referencing an object that is indistinguishable from a single ultimate mind, the truths about whom are exceptionless, universal, ultimate, and make possible my functioning as a person and my ability to recognize other objects as persons, including that referenced object itself. One can discover God by comparing an inventory of the assumptions we use to recognize other persons with an inventory of the universals and ultimate domain of mind-ruling assumptions we use to think any thought.

Unlike the ontological argument, this argument does not depend on a set definition or idea of God, but only on already-implemented assumptions that either presuppose or are themselves tantamount to an ultimate personal being.

I'm interested in what you think of this argument.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Why I Believe In God

The existence of God is a prior tacit assumption. The conscious manifestation of God as a person is for the most part lacking in the normal interaction we experience, especially in common with other limited personhoods, and therefore usually viewed as a mere list of principles or axioms. But the god-like nature of this universal rule-set is a suppressed notion of rationalistic atheism.

I necessarily reference God-like mind objects in accessing my own awareness. The total irreducible integrated object set is an intuitively cross-assumed system, in many ways indistinguishable from a single mind.

The total set of assumptions we use to be aware of reality is treated as the God of mind. Reason communicates through the statements that make up its definition, assumptions, and implications.

We reference our ultimate ruling factors as a single interrelated and self-supporting system, and therefore God is a single being, in addition to the fact that it would be impossible to distinguish between two or more such ultimate beings because of the absence of positable differences.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Chatting Up Atheists: Some Excerpts

Do atheist believe there's some kind of mind-god about what to think? Ultimate construance rules about the total?

If i were an atheist i wouldn't be throwing around implicit obligations about what to believe or what is true. Whining about religion as if on a crusade against evil.

A certain atheist concedes that religion contains goodness and badness, but not in equal measure
But the whole good/bad crusade is just the same god thing all over again. They claim that religion is a dangerous system of belief because of its ability to compel people to do things they otherwise wouldn't consider, caving to religion's moral do-goodism.

Yeah right, the belief god says no no no. I've always had assumptions that play a god role but which have no *logically* prior assumptions. I think a lot as an atheist even though the universal begs the question. How to construe the total is just as questionable as belief in god. God-belief determining factors are even more questionable than first-order belief in god or disbelief, and carry even more of a burden.

What standards decide the god issue? That's where the real god role is played out.

One objection is that there are so many religions with so many ideas of god that none of them could possibly be right. As if people differ on some math problem, therefore it can't be solved. A plurality of answers in math hardly means there's no answer possible. This would release all suspects in criminal cases where there was more than one suspect being considered. Multiple views do not imply there is no reliable principle of general reason.

Atheists as well as theists are more committed to avoiding the questioning of background assumptions than to their commitment to theism or atheism. There's nothing about multiple views that implies the impossibility of some one view being correct, just like in math or science, both of which are based on a mono-truth notion in some sense and to some extent.

I don't have any argument that excludes the possibility of cycles of kharmic rebirth *or* experiencing an everlasting hell of some kind upon my death.

Atheists and religionists walk hand in hand whistling past the same graveyard of background assumptions and values. It's a lot easier than talking about criteria.

One atheistic way of looking at truth is that if the belief merely survives, then it's true. That is, it's survival is an example of the truth of evolution, by combining consciously arbitrary aggressive willing with social darwinism. So if one killed all who differ, then by that fact one's beliefs would be proved true. To *need* reasons would on this view be a sign of weakness of will, etc. That's an undiscussed factor in the study of why some coercive societies have been so appealing. It relieves them of any intellectual burden, replaced by choosing to conquer without the need to justify any belief. To conquer would be seen as self-enhancing, evolutionary, and self-authenticating---create your own values. *Be* evolution by conquering others and thus refute their beliefs. Rank and file will not be so lofty but that would still the driving idea of the collectivist elites. If survival is the highest value, then truth is a function of that and nothing else. The highest value according to what? Whatever is chosen as the highest value. It doesn't have to be *according* to anything. That's the whole point, that to *need* a reason is to be weak.

Belief in that case does not need to be measured against anything. Sheer act of will makes things true. To whine about criteria would be a sign of weakness, you simply choose your own values and beliefs, nothing logically prior needed. To *need* criteria or reasons was a sign that you would not survive, were weak etc. You choose the belief without having little needs that you must obey like some thought commandment. No thought commandments, you merely choose, and aggressively eliminate those with differing beliefs. When sheer acts of will and survivability are the highest values, any reasoning except for personal and scientific advancement would be considered signs of weakness and impending extinction in the overall evolutionary process.

It's not even ascertained, you merely choose it, and acting to further one's survival dictates all other values, without the pedestrian need for any kind of justifying rationale. I'm not saying all atheism is that way or implies that, but there is in fact no argument that is even relevant to the nazi brand of atheism. To *need* reasons at the philosophical level was just a sign of weakness and even mental defect.

But it is true that each person is the arbiter of the meaning and the status of notions of truth. Everyone is the god of their own belief-choices, including beliefs about meaning, truth, etc.

As soon as you try to argue a point about god, you've just admitted some kind of neutral notion of truth or reason plays a god-role about the issue of god itself.

Criteria about truth plays god to all beliefs.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Fragmentary Synthesis

Reflection begins with a collision between a system or order already in the mind, and some fragment that ought to be included in that system but remains outside of it.

A detective reflects on someone's death because there's a conflict between the fact that someone died and something already in the mind. Detectives order their experience by assuming that events have causes. This event challenges inclusion in that order. The detective makes it fit by first learning the details of the problem by reflecting and observing.

Observation is guided by what experience has taught about which details are relevant. Consequently, the detective pays more attention to bruises apparently made by some blunt instrument. The details are not obtained by focusing on a single point. The basis of a new thought must be broad. If the question was merely who might have used the blunt instrument, their would be an indefinitely large number of answers. The question is who must have done this in view of unemptied pockets, signs of a struggle, the butler's loyalty, and perhaps a hundred other things---all relevant details. A successful conclusion from a single factor alone would be an accident. The conclusion comes from all of them taken together.

The problem is to fit a detached fact into a complete surrounding system that is already assumed to be ultimate and decisive.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Laughing Lions

You train hard, you fight easy.
You train easy, you fight hard---and die.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Monday, May 04, 2009