Ch. 5b, TAG and listener questions

[Emery]

Hey guys, thanks for the questions. We'll try to get to as many as we can. This week we spend the first half of the show on the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, and the second half on some of your questions. One thing I'm interested in concerning the TAG argument: do you think non-physical objects (or concepts) are necessarily mental concepts, or is there a third, non-mental category that non-material things can inhabit?

BTW, here are the links I mentioned on the show, that I think are a great intro to the TAG argument.

Debate between Matt Slick and Matt Dillahunty
Comment on the above debate by Theoretical Bullshit

[Pseudonym]

One thing I'm interested in concerning the TAG argument: do you think non-physical objects (or concepts) are necessarily mental concepts, or is there a third, non-mental category that non-material things can inhabit?

Without listening to the podcast, I'd say that yes, these aren't exhaustive possibilities. There are even some objects/concepts for which, as Phil Wadler once pointed out, the word "universal" is too limiting.

It's possible to have a universe where some things are vastly different than they are here, but it's impossible to have a universe where one plus one doesn't equal two. So pure mathematics would be an example of something that's independent of mind.

[Pseudonym]

One brief comment, after listening to the podcast: Some "logical absolutes" that were mentioned are not absolutes.

The law of the excluded middle, for example, does not necessarily hold in intuitionistic logic systems. The law of non-contradiction does not necessarily hold in paraconsistent logic systems. There are essentially only two things which are "absolute", and they are the identity and transitivity of entailment. (These are the two properties required for entailment to be a morphism.) Everything else can be modified, and you still have an interesting logic.

[yjoeyh]

I'm anxious to hear this week's podcast! I'm not so much interested in the questions since the ones I read posted seemed to just rehash more of the same kinds of things we've been hearing for weeks, but I am very interested to hear the discussion on the transcendental argument.

I did have a thought just a little while ago while watching The Apprentice that my TIVO recorded last night. One of the tasks at hand was for each team to write a jingle for Chicken of the Sea. At the end of it, Joan Rivers (of all people) said something that really got me thinking about this. She said that they went into (the task) with "nothing" and came out with "something." That really made me think, so what does it mean to go from nothing to something? More specifically, what do you not have going in that you do have coming out? The only possible answer I can think of is an original idea. It takes specific tools (in this case instruments, recording gear, musicians, etc) to build upon an idea and turn it into something tangible, but in the absence of any creativity and new ideas, would these tools be necessary? Would they even exist?

As a musician, one of the hardest things to do is to work on a project where you have to come up with a truly original idea. You can play with the tools all day long and even piece some prerecorded loops together, build on other ideas, maybe even plagiarize a little and come up with something. But the problem is that it is in no way an original idea.

What about the cosmos? Do the tools necessary to bring everything that exists into being and keep it there transcend the existence of everything that exists to begin with? I don't see how math, logic, reason could possibly exist outside of non physical reality unless they are part of an original idea which would fall into the category of a mental concept.


.

[scomsjw]

This doesn't seem like a very convincing argument to me. It seems to depend on accepting that everything is either "material" or "conceptual". I suspect that theists would argue that god is neither of these so they would need a third category just for him. I am uncomfortable about the use of the word "conceptual" - partly because I think it likely that thoughts cannot exist outside of brains. Surely a better distinction is "material" and "non-material". Its possible that "non-material" things could be subdivided into "essential" or "intrinsic" laws that exist whether or not there are brains to comprehend them and "conceptual" which I would use to denote things like unicorns which exist only as ideas and so would not in any sense exist if there were no brains to imagine them.

I feel as though I might be missing something in the argument because it seems so obviously flawed and yet it is apparently taken very seriously by some people.

[Naroch]

I don't buy the TAG argument because nothing about these laws scream to me that they had to be some fundamental framework of the universe. Take the law of identity, something is what it is. In order to say what something is, it takes someone to put it into that catagory in the first place. Essentualy, it's saying when you create a catagory for stuff, then put things into it, the things you put into that catagory will fit into that catagory. Well... duh.

Lets take a rock. A rock is a rock. The catagory "rock" is just something we made up to describe "hard roundish things we find on the ground." There are tons of sub-catagories within "rocks" like limestone or shale. The point is that catagory "rock" is something we made up to begin with so we could all agree on what to call the world around us. Then we looked back and said "hey, when we put something into an arbitrary catagory it stays there." That doesn't take some fundamental law of the universe to notice, it's just an obviousness about matter, things tend to not change.

If there was no person alive to sit back and say "that rock is a rock" then it would be kind of true that they would no longer be rocks. Again, "rock" is an arbitrary catagory made up by us, if there is no "us" then the arbitrary catagory ceases to exist. The rock would still be the same thing, but it would just be un-named stuff untill someone comes along to re-place it into their own catagory system. Could be a diffrent system, they could have two completly seperate catagories for limestone and shale that never inter-mingle, but it will fit into whatever system they come up with because they will put it into it.

[Penguin]

This doesn't seem like a very convincing argument to me. It seems to depend on accepting that everything is either "material" or "conceptual". I suspect that theists would argue that god is neither of these so they would need a third category just for him. I am uncomfortable about the use of the word "conceptual" - partly because I think it likely that thoughts cannot exist outside of brains. Surely a better distinction is "material" and "non-material". Its possible that "non-material" things could be subdivided into "essential" or "intrinsic" laws that exist whether or not there are brains to comprehend them and "conceptual" which I would use to denote things like unicorns which exist only as ideas and so would not in any sense exist if there were no brains to imagine them.

It strikes me that the TAG is one example of theists entering into a materialist viewpoint through the back door.

The materialist position is that only material things exist. Normally, this position is used to dismiss God as non-existent, because God is not a material thing. However, in this case, I think they've accepted the materialist position (i.e. that only material things exist), but where the garden-variety materialist concludes that God is non-existant because He's not a material thing, these "theistic materialists" conclude that God, or at least some source for logical absolutes, is a material thing (albeit not in the sense of atoms and energy, but still existant on some other etherial plane and able to interact with this universe) because it exists.

But all that doesn't make the argument false. What does that, though, is its inconsistency: on the one hand, it assumes that logical absolutes are just that - absolutes, i.e. non-contingent - to explain why they're universally true. However, this claim that they're absolute is forgotten when the time comes to make them contingent on God. It tries to have things both ways.

[scomsjw]

I don't see how math, logic, reason could possibly exist outside of non physical reality unless they are part of an original idea which would fall into the category of a mental concept.

I've read this a few times but I still can't grasp what you are saying. You seem to be suggesting that you cannot imagine logic existing unless it is part of an original idea. I don't have this problem. I find it impossible to imagine the laws of logic not existing. They don't seem to be the kind of thing that needs an explanation. On the other hand a creative idea absolutely demands a cause - but I would think of that cause as something going on inside a brain. Its true that when you start to think about consciousness you can go crazy trying to understand what the hell it is. I've decided that this is a result of having to use consciousness to understand consciousness - this might be impossible. There may well be limits to what the human brain can comprehend.

[isaone]

Surely a better distinction is "material" and "non-material".

Nope I cannot agree. Even something defined as a concept (say a unicorn) exists as a set of chemical/electrical states in a brain. There is only one category.

As far as TAG goes I must just be stupid because it is glaringly obvious to me that the emperor has no clothes. Very simply we are totally confusing the map with the country. On one hand we have facts that are demonstrated in the physical universe such as "a rock specifically designated cannot be in two places at the same time" (the country) . Using agreed on definitions of the terms "rock" and "place" and "be" and "same time" . We note that this is true. Then as we expand our knowledge of the world we decide that this rule applies to everything. Thus we have the facts which have given rise to a law (the map). This law no more exists independently than the law of gravity exists independently of Newton's apple. If at some time it is shown that either law no longer applies, then changes will be made. Until then we will continue to use these laws to help us interact with the world.

The only out for the TAG people is the argument that only through God's existence do objects exist (i. e. have measurable properties). I believe that argument has been made historically and of course there is no way to have any discussion concerning it at all (sort of like the Deist God or Russel's teapot) .

"Laws" of logic are developed just as are all other "laws" of science. They are based on physical experiences and then extrapolated and built upon one another. Only if there is no physical anything without God can it be argued that logic results only from God's existence.

So my real questions is " How come anybody sees the ridiculous concept (TAG) as a reasonable proof for anything ?" Scott I was particularly disappointed to hear you stating that (I paraphrase) "This may not prove God's existence as a transcendent being but it clearly represents something transcendent" . I simply cannot agree. Humans are pattern seeking creatures. We store the patterns that work in the physical structure of our brains. The fact that these patterns exist is proof of nothing immaterial.

Now on the other hand many many people smarter than I seem to think this argument holds water so am I missing something ?

[darkumbra]

It's possible to have a universe where some things are vastly different than they are here, but it's impossible to have a universe where one plus one doesn't equal two. So pure mathematics would be an example of something that's independent of mind.

Ah crap... here we go.

1+1=2 ... putting aside all discussion of which base we're talking about, if we're talking about groups, sets or Aleph numbers and just assuming we're talking about the normal meaning of 1+1=2 ... then you're in for a surprise.

1+1=2 is true in one and only one place. In our mind/thoughts. It has NO meaning anywhere else. I'll restate that, so that you can put aside that you're reading a type of some sort.

1+1=2 is true ONLY in the mind ie. in our thoughts. It has NO meaning anywhere else. Likewise? You cannot find a perfect circle ANYWHERE except in the mind, and PI exists ONLY in our thoughts.

Let's take the easiest one first. The Perfect circle. A perfect circle is a closed curve (line) defined as the set of points on a plane equidistant from a single point. The plane has zero thickness. (to coin a word it ONLY has thinkness) There is NO physical thing with zero thickness. Hence... not only can't a 'plane' be found in the physical world, nor can any thought object on said plane. That takes down the 'plane', 'perfect circles', and all ratios dependent on attributes of these thought objects.

Now onto the slightly more difficult one. 1+1=2 implies that there exists in the universe/physical world at least two things that are identical to each other... no such things exist. Two dogs? Not a chance... they weight different amounts, are not identical by any physical measure you care to make. Can you have 'two dogs'??? Of course you can. Why? Because the 'term' 'dog' is a thought category that we chose to place around different things that we perceive as having a lot in common. Ditto for 2 people, 2 coins, 2 buttons, 2 planets etc. etc. etc.

But what about 2 photons? someone asks from the pews? Same thing. Photons are NOT identical in every respect. They are 'different' from each other in at least 2 aspects... direction of movement (in this case wave propagation) and position. ie. NOT the same. 1+1=2 is meaningless here UNLESS we decide that those two differences are to be ignored.

'pure math' is a thinkthing... remove the thinker from the context and all of pure math vanishes... and because it doesn't exist IN the physical world in the first place? The universe will not even be 'aware' of its passing.

Such is the way of things and thinkthings

[StillSearching]

Thank you to Emery, Scott and Tony for an entertaining podcast. Much to think about in this one. And yet another thank you to all three for honoring my question with discussion time on the podcast. Lots to think about there as well.

Tony, first let me say that I think I have an understanding of your perspective. I've said it before, and meant it in all sincerity, that I can relate to your perspective because I think life in general, and humans in particular, crave security in an insecure world. I'm man enough to admit that I do. So it makes a weird sort of sense to me to ponder on that which might be greater than me, seek out a guardian, a helping parent-like figure to explain all of the subtleties of life, and that's not surprising given my upbringing as a christian. Also, I appreciate anyone who brings a faith perspective because it offers me a chance to examine my own.

I'm saying all of this because I want to make it clear that I am not trying to win an argument. I am simply trying to learn, and have a little fun, through discussion and good natured debate. The podcast almost always sticks to this goal. The forum, not so much. I think that's due in large part to the limitations of electronic communication.

Your answers regarding my question were, to be honest, less than satisfying. Your initial response of self-evidence seemed like a verbal stun grenade, lobbed out to divert the conversation until you could think of something better. On top of that, you diverted the question from "describe personhood" to "prove personhood" which I wasn't yet asking.

Then Emery brings it back to the question at hand: What is personhood? The soul? An equally evasive term, and I gather you agree with this given your response of, "Whatever you want to call it." You hold the view that the brain and body are simply tools for use by the person/soul. Then you begin to tear into the materialist world view and once again lift the cry of it-all-can't-be-random. Just to be clear, since I am approaching middle age I lift the very same cry with a fair amount of frequency. Well, maybe not the exact same cry. Mine is more like, "It better not all be random!"

Like Emery, I don't dispute the existence of something we call personhood, but I am inclined to define it as just a natural aspect of humans, as opposed to some immaterial entity that is hard to define and study.

Then you argue that personhood lies on a continuum, with plants at one end which have no personhood, then bugs, then dogs, then humans, then presumably God at the other far end of the spectrum. What is the criteria for placing things on this spectrum? Size and complexity of brain? This seems to me to be a clear cut case of subjectivity. Isn't it? If so, then aren't morals equally subjective, since I can subjectively be morally justified in killing a bug, or a dog, or even another human under a given set of circumstances? In addition, different persons could look upon my actions and make entirely different evaluations of the morality of them. Can you clear all of this up for me?

As to the question that you've gleaned from the book, "Does it take more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a theist?"

I say no. Neither has more or less faith than the other, they simply put their faith in different things. The theist puts his faith in God, the atheist in man.

[yjoeyh]

On the other hand a creative idea absolutely demands a cause - but I would think of that cause as something going on inside a brain.

Does a creative idea absolutely demand a cause? It would seem to me that an idea could indeed be physiological (something going on inside a brain,) but it could also be another idea, or it could really be nothing at all. If the idea were really original, it seems it would have to be the latter.

For instance, if I get up and go make a sandwich, I would necessarily first need to come up with the idea of doing that. That is of course unless I am somehow compelled to make sandwiches involuntarily. I may see a commercial that gives me the idea that I'm hungry and a sandwich might hit the spot, but I would have to decide whether or not to do it. Again, unless I am somehow programmed to involuntarily decide whether or not I'm going to make it, the decision itself constitutes my original idea. Now I can contemplate whether or not I should decide to make a sandwich. Maybe I see dinner in a couple of hours and decide I don't really need a sandwich right now, but then the decision to decide becomes an original idea. The process can only regress so far, though, or my lettuce will end up turning brown and I will die of starvation deciding to decide to decide to decide in perpetuity.

Some ideas can be, and certainly are, based on trained or involuntary responses, but all ideas cannot be, or no one could be held accountable for their actions based on their ideas, since they were all essentially predetermined. No matter how complex the variables, people would have no choice but to decide what they were programmed to decide.
Some ideas can be, and certainly are, based on other ideas, but all cannot be, or we have the regress problem I was talking about.
It would seem to me that a great number of ideas we have do not fit into one of these two categories, so where do the rest of our original ideas come from? The only other answer that makes sense to me is "nothing," at least in the sense of physical reality. They can only be transcendent mental concepts.



.

[Btodd]

I also want to thank Emery, Scott and Tony for using my question. Especially to Emery for not letting my real question get skipped over after addressing the joke question I started with...I was afraid I hadn't been taken seriously because of the joke. Scott, I was just kidding! Seriously, you guys do a great show. As much as I disagree with Tony's answers, I think he adds something to the show. It's a very good balance of views, and always respectful.

I do hope you guys expand on that question and possibly do a show on Hell that focuses on it a bit more. However....I wanted to clarify what my question was. I asked how one can justify an eternal Hell with the fact that geography, surrounding culture, and family upbringing are the main determinant in the religious beliefs a person holds. The second part of my question mentioned those people who preceded the Law, and subsequent revelation of salvation through faith in Jesus.

The answers immediately focused on 'those who haven't heard', when that's only a small part of the issue. Even for those who have heard the Gospel, it presents a serious problem for the notion of a loving God....here are some questions that might help to drive the point home.

1. How many Christians came to believe AFTER studying all of the major religions, and then decided Christianity was true, as opposed to it being what they were brought up with, surrounded by, and for lack of a better word....indoctrinated with? People largely adopt the religion of their parents and surrounding culture, and just like a Muslim who was raised in a Muslim culture....they defend their religion as the True one. I don't know a single Christian who has ever even studied another religion at all (unless they plan on reaching out to those religions to convert them to Christianity), and I think it's safe to say that the vast majority haven't. I think it's also safe to say the same about Muslims and Hindus. In a sense, people tend to choose their religion like they choose sports teams....adopt whomever is in closest geographical proximity, and stick with the home team until death. Sure, there are exceptions, but not many by percentage. If you grow up in the Middle East, your chances of being a Muslim are exceedingly high. This cannot be disregarded as mere 'personal choice' or 'failure to respond to the Gospel'.

2. If the answer is 'but God is just and fair', then that's special pleading. We don't know that, we just assume it to deal with the horrible idea that so many people will suffer eternally, when there seems to be very little choice involved in their religious beliefs. What happens to a baby that's born in sin, and dies very quickly from a horrible disease or unexpected illness? Do they get a free pass to heaven*? If so, then how is it fair in comparison with someone who lived a normal lifespan, only to come to the wrong conclusion, and thus trade 70 years of life or so for an eternity of suffering? If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to die at birth than to live a normal life? The potential downside would make life not worth living. By Tony's own admission, the gate to heaven is very narrow.....meaning that the majority of people who ever live will not get there, and instead will suffer for eternity. Whether that's literal hellfire-and-brimstone or not, it's still supposed to be the worst possible outcome and state of existence one can imagine.

*If the baby does not get a free pass, then the problem is even worse.

I have many more ways to expand on this, and I realize these aren't novel questions, but they're very important. As a former Christian, I had serious problems with the concept of Hell in light of a loving God. The justifications I've heard are not even remotely satisfactory. For those people who claim that God instilled morality in our hearts, and it's reflected in the Bible....I find the idea of an eternal Hell morally repugnant. Who instilled that in me?

[isaone]

I second Btodd's comments. It is no answer at all to simply say "I cannot explain why ...... but since God is just and fair I am sure the decision will be just and fair".

In fact I find it beyond amazement that anyone could even make the statement "God is just and fair" . Have y'all actually read the bible ? Do you really think that the billion or so humans on this planet who cannot get enough to eat are being treated justly and fairly ?

There are only two choices concerning God's justness/fairness

• We judge God to be just or not based on the actions reported in the Bible and the quality of life for humans throughout their history. Since we are using the English terms just an fair, we must make the evaluation based on the use of those same terms as they relate to humans. God of course fails this test miserably.
• The second choice is simply to admit that we have no mechansm to even begin to discuss the justness/fairness of God. In this option we admit that a being such as God cannot think or relate in any manner remotely like humans and state that we simply have no idea if God is just and fair or not.

Thus a statement "God is just and fair" is completely false.

[Btodd]

isaone, that's a good point about 'God's fairness', and is very similar to the statement I've often heard when Christians are confronted with the impossibility of reconciling God's love with eternal Hell, "God's love is not our love". To which the obvious reply is, 'Then it does no good to refer to it as love, and we might as well not talk about it'. Appealing to the incomprehensible does nothing at all to help me comprehend something. One might as well say, 'Well, just believe anyway.'