Atheists, I challenge YOU!

...To solve the problem of induction.

Danwallacefan, you asked the same thing in the OT. What exactly do you mean by induction?btaylor2404

Taken from other thread in OT (my post) seeing as TC doesn't seem to have anything productive to contribute,

From Wikipedia:

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to truth. That is, what is the justification for either:

1. generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or

2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold).

The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method. Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later. A more recent, probability-based extension is the "no-free-lunch theorem for supervised learning" of Wolpert.

That line of thought, IMO has nothing to do with Religion or Atheism. btaylor2404

That's the only conclusion I've come to as well. 

Well you're in luck, i just had a test friday over induction. According to Faraday's law of induction, an induced emf is produced in a circuit when there is a changing magnetic flux through said circuit.

Not sure what that has to do with atheism.  

The problem of induction relates to presuppositional apologetics, specifically the transcendental argument for God. The problem of induction was most famously articulated by the great Skeptical philosopher David Hume. David Hume noted that the uniformity of nature (the resemblance of the past to the future) is based upon inductive inference. However, He, as well as Bertrand Russel, noted that our only epistemic grounds for inferring the uniformity of nature are, of course, inductive inference. The belief that inductive inference leads to truth on an atheistic worldview is nothing more than begging the question.

That being said, The Christian has another reason to believe in the power of inductive inference, and that is that reality in its totality is rooted in an unchanging mind. Presupposing this, the Christian can give a reason for the uniformity of nature, or the resemblance of the past to the future.

The Atheist however cannot give an account for inductive inference. This makes Atheism, as a total worldview, completely unintelligible.

The problem of induction relates to presuppositional apologetics, specifically the transcendental argument for God. The problem of induction was most famously articulated by the great Skeptical philosopher David Hume. David Hume noted that the uniformity of nature (the resemblance of the past to the future) is based upon inductive inference. However, He, as well as Bertrand Russel, noted that our only epistemic grounds for inferring the uniformity of nature are, of course, inductive inference. The belief that inductive inference leads to truth on an atheistic worldview is nothing more than begging the question.

That being said, The Christian has another reason to believe in the power of inductive inference, and that is that reality in its totality is rooted in an unchanging mind. Presupposing this, the Christian can give a reason for the uniformity of nature, or the resemblance of the past to the future.

The Atheist however cannot give an account for inductive inference. This makes Atheism, as a total worldview, completely unintelligible.

danwallacefan

The resemblance of the past to the future is an obvious observation. It's overanalyzing its obviousness by supposing that there must have been a god to have illustrated these resemblances. It's a non-sequitor, ultimately, and easily refuted by Occam's Razor. Even if god were to exist, how would the theist suppose that it would make a difference by existing in terms of the uniformity of nature? Occam's razor would eliminate that needless assumption, because it ultimately does not validate the uniformity of nature. In fact, it also raises the question whether or not a disruption to the uniformity of nature would be considered supernatural, and if the uniformity of nature would best fit within a materialistic universe as opposed to a divine framework. One could only logically come to that conclusion.

The resemblance of the past to the future is an obvious observation. It's overanalyzing its obviousness by supposing that there must have been a god to have illustrated these resemblances. It's a non-sequitor, ultimately, and easily refuted by Occam's Razor. Even if god were to exist, how would the theist suppose that it would make a difference by existing in terms of the uniformity of nature? Occam's razor would eliminate that needless assumption, because it ultimately does not validate the uniformity of nature. In fact, it also raises the question whether or not a disruption to the uniformity of nature would be considered supernatural, and if the uniformity of nature would best fit within a materialistic universe as opposed to a divine framework. One could only logically come to that conclusion.

Genetic_Code

But, as David Hume and Bertrand Russel said, the only epistemice warrant for inductive inference is either inductive inference (which is question begging) or the uniformity of nature (more circular reasoning). Ontologically speaking, the Atheist has absolutely no way of giving an account for the uniformity of nature. How do you know that everything will not change in a few seconds? How do you know that the plane you're flying in won't turn into a banana? It is this lack of any sort of Ontological grounding of the uniformity of nature that makes Atheism ultimately unintelligable.

This is how the Christian presupposition of an unchanging mind as the Ontological grounding of all reality is the most viable way of escaping the problem of induction.

This is how the Christian presupposition of an unchanging mind as the Ontological grounding of all reality is the most viable way of escaping the problem of induction.

danwallacefan

Coming up with a convenient answer to a question doesn't exactly mean that that answer is actually correct just by virtue of having made it.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

This is how the Christian presupposition of an unchanging mind as the Ontological grounding of all reality is the most viable way of escaping the problem of induction.

GabuEx

Coming up with a convenient answer to a question doesn't exactly mean that that answer is actually correct just by virtue of having made it.

I guess its time for me to put on my "brutal honesty" cap. You completely misunderstood the problem of induction and the implications of said problem. The only (emphasize ONLY) epistemic warrant you have for believing in the uniformity of nature as an Atheist is observation of said uniformity. But in order to say that the uniformity of nature follows from your own experience is by the assumption of the truth value of inductive inference.danwallacefan

I think in most cases, inductive inference is a placeholder for what we don't know. Of course we can't know the sun won't rise tomorrow, but it's illogical to assume otherwise given however many years the sun has been rising in the east. If the sun were to not rise tomorrow, then inductive inference would have to be adapted to the new situation and we would have to analyze the situation through looking at whatever might be different from this situation than in situations in years past, whether it be because the rotation of the Earth stopped moving due to some magnetic glitch or something else.

 But, as David Hume and Bertrand Russel said, the only epistemice warrant for inductive inference is either inductive inference (which is question begging) or the uniformity of nature (more circular reasoning). Ontologically speaking, the Atheist has absolutely no way of giving an account for the uniformity of nature. How do you know that everything will not change in a few seconds? How do you know that the plane you're flying in won't turn into a banana? It is this lack of any sort of Ontological grounding of the uniformity of nature that makes Atheism ultimately unintelligable.

danwallacefan

Isn't inductive inference enough to assume that a plane won't turn into a banana. Additionally, when you introduce the divine, you're then presenting ridicilous arguments such as moving mountains via faith, which by inductive inference is impossible. 

 This is how the Christian presupposition of an unchanging mind as the Ontological grounding of all reality is the most viable way of escaping the problem of induction.

danwallacefan

How can God's mind not change when it has in the past?

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." -Joshua 10:13 

its correct by being merely the most intelligable solution.danwallacefan

If they get to suppose that God's mind is unchanging just because it is, why can't atheists just cut out the middleman and suppose that the universe is unchanging just because it is?

The whole thing of lifting qualities out of the universe that would be inconvenient for theists and then attaching them to God just fundamentally makes no sense.  It's just passing the buck, not actually answering any question.

I'm still confused by this but here is a dialogue on the issue just for fun.

Atheist: I propose the uniformity of nature

Theist: how do you justify your proposition?

Atheist: I will justify the uniformity of nature through inductive reasoning

Theist: How do you justify the validity of inductive reasoning?

Atheist: I will justify inductive reasoning through the uniformity of nature

Theist: Hah question begging you lose

Atheist: How do you justify the validity of induction then?

Theist: I propose an unchanging mind which prescribes the uniformity of nature

Atheist: And how do you justify your proposition?

Theist: By inductive reasoning

Atheist: And tell me again how you justify inductive reasoning?

Theist: By an unchanging mind

Atheist: Hah question begging you lose

I'm still confused by this but here is a dialogue on the issue just for fun.

Atheist: I propose the uniformity of nature

Theist: how do you justify your proposition?

Atheist: I will justify the uniformity of nature through inductive reasoning

Theist: How do you justify the validity of inductive reasoning?

Atheist: I will justify inductive reasoning through the uniformity of nature

Theist: Hah question begging you lose

Atheist: How do you justify the validity of induction then?

Theist: I propose an unchanging mind which prescribes the uniformity of nature

Atheist: And how do you justify your proposition?

Theist: By inductive reasoning

Atheist: And tell me again how you justify inductive reasoning?

Theist: By an unchanging mind

Atheist: Hah question begging you lose

domatron23

The transcendental argument, and all presuppositional apologetics doesn't actually aim to prove the existence of GOd, that's evidentalism :P Presuppositional apologetics just argues that Christianity is the most intelligable worldview, and that Atheism and naturalism is a completely unintelligable one. danwallacefan

It's not "intelligible", it basically just says "some quality of the universe probably would not be the case if God did not exist (stated without any proof at all), therefore God probably does exist". It's quite possibly the worst attempt at an argument I've ever seen.

The transcendental argument, and all presuppositional apologetics doesn't actually aim to prove the existence of GOd, that's evidentalism :P Presuppositional apologetics just argues that Christianity is the most intelligable worldview, and that Atheism and naturalism is a completely unintelligable one. danwallacefan

Well if my dialogue was accurate then doesn't Theism suffer from the problem of induction in the same way that you propose Atheism does? If both are begging the question then aren't both equally unintelligible?

 As much as I abhorr getting into this logical induction argument again (as it's been defeated so thoroughly by philosophers far better than any of us) tootime did a round browbeating of this arguement here fairly recently in response to a guy named Mike.

Reply to Mike Part 1

Reply to Mike Part 2

 As much as I abhorr getting into this logical induction argument again (as it's been defeated so thoroughly by philosophers far better than any of us) tootime did a round browbeating of this arguement here fairly recently in response to a guy named Mike.

Reply to Mike Part 1

Reply to Mike Part 2

cjdaweasel

Ah that's a nice clarification. Good ol' tooltime. *waits for danwallacefan to reply*

:lol:

Great video. The guy he responds to is quite hilarious. "So this is a response to a pseeeudo intellectual..." *snark* *lifts up handkerchief to show how sophisticated he is*

Well you're in luck, i just had a test friday over induction. According to Faraday's law of induction, an induced emf is produced in a circuit when there is a changing magnetic flux through said circuit.

Not sure what that has to do with atheism.

mikeg0788

This is the only post in this thread I've understood. E = -N dphi/dt

[QUOTE="cjdaweasel"]

As much as I abhorr getting into this logical induction argument again (as it's been defeated so thoroughly by philosophers far better than any of us) tootime did a round browbeating of this arguement here fairly recently in response to a guy named Mike.

Reply to Mike Part 1

Reply to Mike Part 2

domatron23

Ah that's a nice clarification. Good ol' tooltime. *waits for danwallacefan to reply*

EDIT: In the comment section, I was trying to explain (fruitlessly) why his solution fails and why the presupposition that there is a necessarily existent, unchanging mind as the cause of the universe is much more intelligible.

Simply put: the laws of logic (as we see) are prescriptive (NOT descriptive. Sorry theoreticalbull****), in other words they CAUSE reality to behave in a consistent, uniform pattern. The laws of logic, if they exist by themselves however, are causally isolated. Like Theologica37 said, to say that the laws of logic just exist is to put them onto an arbitrary island. This consistent, uniform pattern justifies inductive inference. However, unless one presupposes a *necessarily* immutable mind as the cause of this consistency, one has no justifaction for the reliability of Inductive inference or that the laws of logic and the laws of nature will continue to remain uniform.

And that's TAG

his resposne to the problem of induction was absolutely pitiful TBH. His only solution is the idea that there are "laws of nature" which govern how the universe works. Now he's just moving the problem one step back. What deduction proves that the laws of nature or even the laws of logic will remain the same? None that's what. There is absolutely no reason to say that the laws of logic or the laws of nature, under his worldview, are NECESSARILY immutable.danwallacefan

No, his response was completely apt. The "solution" that there exists an unchanging mind is only a solution if there actually does exist this unchanging mind. Similarly, one could propose as a solution that the laws of nature are themselves unchanging by virtue of their being the laws of nature. There is absolutely no difference: both are proposing a possible way of solving the problem without actually proving that it is the case.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]his resposne to the problem of induction was absolutely pitiful TBH. His only solution is the idea that there are "laws of nature" which govern how the universe works. Now he's just moving the problem one step back. What deduction proves that the laws of nature or even the laws of logic will remain the same? None that's what. There is absolutely no reason to say that the laws of logic or the laws of nature, under his worldview, are NECESSARILY immutable.GabuEx

No, his response was completely apt. The "solution" that there exists an unchanging mind is only a solution if there actually does exist this unchanging mind. Similarly, one could propose as a solution that the laws of nature are themselves unchanging my virtue of their being the laws of nature. There is absolutely no difference: both are proposing a possible way of solving the problem without actually proving that it is the case.

Bingo.

No, his response was completely apt. The "solution" that there exists an unchanging mind is only a solution if there actually does exist this unchanging mind. Similarly, one could propose as a solution that the laws of nature are themselves unchanging by virtue of their being the laws of nature. There is absolutely no difference: both are proposing a possible way of solving the problem without actually proving that it is the case.GabuEx

GabuEx, You are committing the exact same leap of logic that Tooltime committed. If there are two ideas to solve a certain problem, and one is unintelligible, then we dont say "well we can't go with the other one, we dont have any other evidence for it!". This is a classic appeal to ignorance.

Moreover, you and tooltime are completely misunderstanding the method of presuppositional apologetics, and it is because of this misapplication of your empiricist, evidentalist paradigm your responses completely miss the point. The Transcendental argument is not an argument intended to PROVE that God exists, but rather it is an argument which argues that it is NECESSARY FOR US TO PRESUPPOSE that God exists.

Moreover, the second part of your response completely missed the point of my own post. Your response only moves the problem of induction back one step. By what principle, by what deduction can we say that the laws of nature will not change? is there some reason to say that the laws of nature will not change necessarily, like we can say for the existence of an immutable mind?

EDIT: Like I said before, your response and tooltime's response to the problem of induction is COMPLETELY TAUTOLOGICAL.

GabuEx, You are committing the exact same leap of logic that Tooltime committed. If there are two ideas to solve a certain problem, and one is unintelligible, then we dont say "well we can't go with the other one, we dont have any other evidence for it!". This is a classic appeal to ignorance.

danwallacefan

The entire point of this is to show that it is no more intelligible than the alternative. The assumption that one is unintelligible is not a rebuttal against the argument that it isn't.

Moreover, you and tooltime are completely misunderstanding the method of presuppositional apologetics, and it is because of this misapplication of your empiricist, evidentalist paradigm your responses completely miss the point. The Transcendental argument is not an argument intended to PROVE that God exists, but rather it is an argument which argues that it is NECESSARY FOR US TO PRESUPPOSE that God exists.

Moreover, the second part of your response completely missed the point of my own post. Your response only moves the problem of induction back one step. By what principle, by what deduction can we say that the laws of nature will not change? is there some reason to say that the laws of nature will not change necessarily, like we can say for the existence of an immutable mind?

EDIT: Like I said before, your response and tooltime's response to the problem of induction is COMPLETELY TAUTOLOGICAL.

danwallacefan

You can use all caps and all the big, fancy words you want, but they don't mean I'm actually missing the point. The question - which I assure you is perfectly relevant - is this: if we can simply assume that there exists an unchanging mind and say that that is a workable solution to the question of how we can know that the laws of nature do not change, then why can we not simply cut out the middleman and assume that the laws of nature are unchanging even without the existence of this unchanging mind?

You can say "but how do you know that the laws of nature are unchanging", but I can say "but how do you know there exists an unchanging mind and not merely unchanging laws of nature". Your entire argument rests upon the idea that, were there no unchanging mind, the laws of nature necessarily would be capable of change - and that is not even approaching the realm of a self-evident statement. Why can't the laws of nature be themselves unchanging? You can say you don't think they would be, but that does not hold up to any form of logical rigor. Certainly, with the existence of this supposed unchanging mind, you could know for certain that they are unchanging, but the non-existence of this unchanging mind does not mean that the laws of nature are necessarily capable of changing. In order for this argument to work, a critical requirement is to prove that the laws of nature would necessarily have the potential of changing at any moment if this unchanging mind did not exist - not that they would merely possibly have the potential of changing. Otherwise you do not get to claim that it is necessary to assume the existence of this unchanging mind.

So here is the million-dollar question: why is it impossible for there to be unchanging fundamental laws of nature without the existence of this unchanging mind? Because if it is not impossible, then any suggestion both of the nonexistence of this unchanging mind and of the existence of unchanging fundamental laws of nature does not encounter any logical contradiction whatsoever, and this argument falls apart.

PS: "tautological" means "unconditionally true". Presumably you do not think that what I am saying is unconditionally true such that it is impossible for it to be false. If you're going to use big words, at least first understand what they mean.

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

Well you're in luck, i just had a test friday over induction. According to Faraday's law of induction, an induced emf is produced in a circuit when there is a changing magnetic flux through said circuit.

Not sure what that has to do with atheism.

_glatisant_

This is the only post in this thread I've understood. E = -N dphi/dt

[QUOTE="_glatisant_"][QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

Well you're in luck, i just had a test friday over induction. According to Faraday's law of induction, an induced emf is produced in a circuit when there is a changing magnetic flux through said circuit.

Not sure what that has to do with atheism.

THUMPTABLE

This is the only post in this thread I've understood. E = -N dphi/dt

Eh don't worry I have hardly any idea about what's going on either. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this one yet but I do get the feeling that an immutable mind is subject to the same problems as a uniform law of nature is. Danwallacefan really needs to explain why the problem of induction doesn't apply equally to God.

I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this one yet but I do get the feeling that an immutable mind is subject to the same problems as a uniform law of nature is.

domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this one yet but I do get the feeling that an immutable mind is subject to the same problems as a uniform law of nature is.

ChiliDragon

Yeah I guess so.

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="_glatisant_"][QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

Well you're in luck, i just had a test friday over induction. According to Faraday's law of induction, an induced emf is produced in a circuit when there is a changing magnetic flux through said circuit.

Not sure what that has to do with atheism.

domatron23

This is the only post in this thread I've understood. E = -N dphi/dt

Eh don't worry I have hardly any idea about what's going on either. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this one yet but I do get the feeling that an immutable mind is subject to the same problems as a uniform law of nature is. Danwallacefan really needs to explain why the problem of induction doesn't apply equally to God.

Fundamentally yes, the argument gains no traction from introducing a God in any form.

 An argument from experience outght to be seen, not as an irreparably fallacious attempt to deduce conclusions necessarily wider thatn the available premises can possibly contain, but rather as a matter of following a tentative and self-correcting rule, a rule that is part of the very paradigm of inquiring rationality. This rule could be stated in these terms:

When all known cases of so-and-so have been found to be such-and-such, expect and presume that other so-and-sos have been and will be until and unless you discover some particular reason to revise these expectations.

 I think Tooltime said it best: "If you want to chase the tail of false certainty, be my guest. The problem of induction does not destroy science, it simply exposes a limit to what we can prove about what we know, or might know. If you want to lecture me about induction you might want to understand the actual scope of the conclusion first."

I am done with this thread. I am so tired of arguing this already-well-studied and well-argued point.

Eh don't worry I have hardly any idea about what's going on either. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this one yet but I do get the feeling that an immutable mind is subject to the same problems as a uniform law of nature is. Danwallacefan really needs to explain why the problem of induction doesn't apply equally to God.

domatron23

Well, as danwallacefan said, this isn't really attempting to prove the existence of this unchanging mind; it is attempting to prove the necessity of this unchanging mind by saying that, without this mind, it would be impossible to say that the laws of nature could not change.

Which, to me, seems like the critical error: while it is true that, with this unchanging mind, it would be a certainty that the laws of nature could not change, I do not see where one can derive the idea that it is necessary for the laws of nature to be able to change if this unchanging mind did not exist.

And yes, this argument is incredibly mind-rending in its pedanticalness. :P I half-wish I didn't understand it so I wouldn't have to bother.

They're both one single constant that forever remains unchanged, and that everything else is relying on for consistency, right? So that makes it two different labels for what could just as well have been called "the uniform and immutable one thing that all my other assumptions are based on".ChiliDragon

Yes, but the difference between an unchanging mind and unchanging laws of nature in the absence of an unchanging mind is that the former is intelligent, whereas the latter is not. This argument is basically attempting to show that there must be an intelligent source - God - for the lack of change in the laws of nature.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]

They're both one single constant that forever remains unchanged, and that everything else is relying on for consistency, right? So that makes it two different labels for what could just as well have been called "the uniform and immutable one thing that all my other assumptions are based on".GabuEx

Yes, but the difference between an unchanging mind and unchanging laws of nature in the absence of an unchanging mind is that the former is intelligent, whereas the latter is not. This argument is basically attempting to show that there must be an intelligent source - God - for the lack of change in the laws of nature.

Unless of course we assume that the universe wants to be in a complete state of total never-ending flux and chaos where absolutely nothing makes sense, and the only thing keeping it from doing so is the presence of God and his (its?) mind forcing everything to behave according to his wishes every single moment until the universe ends, if it ever does, that is. That's such a strange thing assumption to start out with, that I would really want to see an argument trying to justify that first, before we move on to the presumed necessity of an unchanging mind forcing unchanging laws onto an ever-changing universe.ChiliDragon

That's basically the argument that danwallacefan is trying to make: the argument that the existence of God is necessary to ensure that the laws of nature do not change, and that it would be impossible without God for the laws of nature to be static and unchanging.

As you can see above, I don't exactly buy that argument... but that's what's being made.

the existence of God is necessary to ensure that the laws of nature do not change, and that it would be impossible without God for the laws of nature to be static and unchanging.GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]the existence of God is necessary to ensure that the laws of nature do not change, and that it would be impossible without God for the laws of nature to be static and unchanging.ChiliDragon

Not really, they're actually saying identical things, which I suppose makes one of the clauses unnecessary. :P

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]the existence of God is necessary to ensure that the laws of nature do not change, and that it would be impossible without God for the laws of nature to be static and unchanging.GabuEx

Not really, they're actually saying identical things, which I suppose makes one of the clauses unnecessary. :P

But I maintain my previous point and would argue that it still stands: It's just a different way of labeling the one and only "uniform and immutable one thing that all my other assumptions are based on".ChiliDragon

Right, but if your goal is to prove an intelligent creator, it's not exactly useful to have that uniform and immutable thing be non-intelligent.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]But I maintain my previous point and would argue that it still stands: It's just a different way of labeling the one and only "uniform and immutable one thing that all my other assumptions are based on".GabuEx

Right, but if your goal is to prove an intelligent creator, it's not exactly useful to have that uniform and immutable thing be non-intelligent.

Not in any way shape or form. However, twisting the argument too suit my goal would not exactly be intellectually honest, now would it? ;)ChiliDragon

Hey, you said it, not me. :P

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]The transcendental argument, and all presuppositional apologetics doesn't actually aim to prove the existence of GOd, that's evidentalism :P Presuppositional apologetics just argues that Christianity is the most intelligable worldview, and that Atheism and naturalism is a completely unintelligable one. GabuEx

It's not "intelligible", it basically just says "some quality of the universe probably would not be the case if God did not exist (stated without any proof at all), therefore God probably does exist". It's quite possibly the worst attempt at an argument I've ever seen.

In my youth I started a religion in which we used cheese balls as communion wafers. I wish I was making this up - it nearly got my team thrown out of an academic competition... anyway. Long story short, I've seen worse arguments - the tenet of why my friend was god was "we have the cheesy poofs, and we bring you their cheesy goodness, oh ye of faith may consume their cheesy-richness, and be filled with the light of god. And we shall know thee by thine orange-stained lips and hands, and we will know you are of god.".

-

The problem of induction is that most people are bad at it - not that god is involved.

That's basically the argument that danwallacefan is trying to make: the argument that the existence of God is necessary to ensure that the laws of nature do not change, and that it would be impossible without God for the laws of nature to be static and unchanging.

As you can see above, I don't exactly buy that argument... but that's what's being made.

GabuEx

This is precisely what "TAG" says. The basis of "TAG" is formed on the assumption that laws of nature are not governed by the physical properties of matter which implies something or someone is keeping the world in balance. Here TAG is literally begging the "god" question.

To me the obvious question is why would any one, out of the blue for no apparent reason, assume the laws of nature doesn't depend on the physical properties of matter but  on something metaphysical, in the first place?

To me the obvious question is why would any one, out of the blue for no apparent reason, assume the laws of nature doesn't depend on the physical properties of matter but  on something metaphysical, in the first place?7guns

The most obvious answer would be that a person is, for whatever reason, incapable of reconciling the idea that there could be no god, and as such, the person will latch onto whatever "proof" they can find, as long as it validates their preconceived notions about the universe.

I mean, this argument is absolutely airtight - if you already believed that God was necessary for the laws of nature to be unchanging.  In that respect, it's excellent at keeping oneself assured of the existence of God - just not so much at convincing someone else.

The entire point of this is to show that it is no more intelligible than the alternative. The assumption that one is unintelligible is not a rebuttal against the argument that it isn't.GabuEx

GabuEx, if we have two options to solve a problem, and one is unintelligible, we should go with the other, intelligible option.

You can use all caps and all the big, fancy words you want, but they don't mean I'm actually missing the point. The question - which I assure you is perfectly relevant - is this: if we can simply assume that there exists an unchanging mind and say that that is a workable solution to the question of how we can know that the laws of nature do not change, then why can we not simply cut out the middleman and assume that the laws of nature are unchanging even without the existence of this unchanging mind?GabuEx

Because we run into the problem of induction and if we assume your system, we have no justification for saying that the laws of nature and the laws of logic, NECESSARILY, will not change. If we presuppose the existence of a necessarily immutable mind, then we completely solve the problem of induction.

You can say "but how do you know that the laws of nature are unchanging", but I can say "but how do you know there exists an unchanging mind and not merely unchanging laws of nature". Your entire argument rests upon the idea that, were there no unchanging mind, the laws of nature necessarily would be capable of change GabuEx

NO that is NOT what I am saying. I did NOT say that the laws of nature or laws of logic would NECESSARILY be capable of changing. What I DID say is that the Atheist has absolutely no justification for the statement that the laws of logic will not change necessarily.

- and that is not even approaching the realm of a self-evident statement. Why can't the laws of nature be themselves unchanging? GabuEx

Because we have no justification for such a statement without the presupposition of a necessarily unchanging cause.

You can say you don't think they would be, but that does not hold up to any form of logical rigor. Certainly, with the existence of this supposed unchanging mind, you could know for certain that they are unchanging, but the non-existence of this unchanging mind does not mean that the laws of nature are necessarily capable of changing. In order for this argument to work, a critical requirement is to prove that the laws of nature would necessarily have the potential of changing at any moment if this unchanging mind did not exist - not that they would merely possibly have the potential of changing. Otherwise you do not get to claim that it is necessary to assume the existence of this unchanging mind.GabuEx

This entire paragraph of yours was a giant strawmen.

So here is the million-dollar question: why is it impossible for there to be unchanging fundamental laws of nature without the existence of this unchanging mind? GabuEx

Because there's no justifaction for the declaration that these laws are necessarily unchanging.

Because if it is not impossible, then any suggestion both of the nonexistence of this unchanging mind and of the existence of unchanging fundamental laws of nature does not encounter any logical contradiction whatsoever, and this argument falls apart.GabuEx

PS: "tautological" means "unconditionally true". Presumably you do not think that what I am saying is unconditionally true such that it is impossible for it to be false. If you're going to use big words, at least first understand what they mean.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The entire point of this is to show that it is no more intelligible than the alternative. The assumption that one is unintelligible is not a rebuttal against the argument that it isn't.danwallacefan

GabuEx, if we have two options to solve a problem, and one is unintelligible, we should go with the other, intelligible option.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]So here is the million-dollar question: why is it impossible for there to be unchanging fundamental laws of nature without the existence of this unchanging mind? danwallacefan

Because there's no justifaction for the declaration that these laws are necessarily unchanging.

We do not need to declare that these laws are necessarilyunchanging. All we need to show is that these laws are not necessarily capable of change without the existence of an unchanging mind. For an unchanging set of laws of nature to necessitate the presupposition of an unchanging mind, it must be the case that the nonexistence of this unchanging mind necessarily makes the laws of nature capable of change.

As long as there can be both unchanging laws of nature and yet no unchanging mind, then you cannot logically come to the conclusion that unchanging laws of nature necessitate the existence of this unchanging mind. Thus, what I have been saying all along: you must show, in order for this argument to work, that the laws of nature are necessarily capable of changing if this unchanging mind does not exist, not that they are simply possibly capable of changing.

Here's an analogy: If there are no clouds in the sky, then it is necessarily not capable of raining. And if there are clouds in the sky, then it is possibly capable of raining. But, if it is not raining, that does not mean that there are no clouds in the sky.

Similarly, if there is an unchanging mind, then the laws of nature are necssarily not capable of changing. And if there is no unchanging mind, then the laws of nature are possibly capable of changing. But, if the laws of nature are not capable of changing, that does not mean that there is an unchanging mind.

So: either prove that the nonexistence of an unchanging mind necessitates the ability of the laws of nature to change, or admit that this argument comes up short. As long as the laws of nature can possibly be unchanging without the existence of an unchanging mind, then that unchanging mind does not need to be presupposed at all.

Actually a tautology is a logical fallacy. A tautology is a simpler form of circular reasoning, wherein your only premise for a conclusion is the conclusion itself. In other words, A is true because A is true. That is your entire structure of justification for the uniformity of nature. danwallacefan

...And, again, you don't understand the meaning of "logical fallacy". A logical fallacy is one where an argument does not sufficiently link the premises to the conclusion such that if the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily also true. Conversely, "Assume A. Therefore, A" is, far from being a logical fallacy, a perfectly valid argument (whereas an argument containing a logical fallacy is invalid). The problem with it is that its soundness depends on A being true - thus, it not a useful statement to make.

A tautology is precisely what I said it is: a statement that is unconditionally true. "If A, then A" - a classic tautology - is true no matter what the value of A is, whereas "If A, then B" depends on the values of A and B.

Again, if you're going to use big words, at least understand what they mean.

We do not need to declare that these laws are necessarilyunchanging. GabuEx

GabuEx, if you want to justify induction and justify your belief in the uniformity of nature, you HAVE to show that the laws of LOGIC are NECESSARILY unchanging, any system which even entertains the notion that things like Modus Tollens, Modus ponens, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, or the law of the excluded middle are not necessary simply cannot stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Such a system would be self-refuting, even moreso if you want to come up with some sort of rational justification for such a system.

All we need to show is that these laws are not necessarily capable of change without the existence of an unchanging mind. GabuEx

Eh no. You, as someone who doesn't agree with TAG, need to show that without an unchanging mind, the laws of logic and the laws of nature are NECESSARILY unchanging. This is something that is necessary to justify inductive inference. Without such a foundation, there is no way of trusting inductive inference.

For an unchanging set of laws of nature to necessitate the presupposition of an unchanging mind, it must be the case that the nonexistence of this unchanging mind necessarily makes the laws of nature capable of change.GabuEx

no, they must merely be capable of changing, and without an unchanging mind, we have no rational justification for our dismissal of the idea that the laws of nature and the laws of logic will not change.

As long as there can be both unchanging laws of nature and yet no unchanging mind, then you cannot logically come to the conclusion that unchanging laws of nature necessitate the existence of this unchanging mind. GabuEx

and here we come to the question of the justification of belief in the uniformity of nature. Your foundation for belief in the uniformity of nature is: The uniformity of nature. That is what you proposed, that is what Tooltime proposed, and it is a giant example of circular reasoning. THe Theist of course doesn't have this problem: He presupposes the existence of a necessarily immutable mind as the Ontological grounding of all reality as the source for the uniformity of nature.

Thus, what I have been saying all along: you must show, in order for this argument to work, that the laws of nature are necessarily capable of changing if this unchanging mind does not exist, not that they are simply possibly capable of changing.GabuEx

GabuEx, if we can show that they are possibly capable of change, then we have no justification, other than a necessarily immutable ontological grounding of all existence (which cannot be something other than a mind because platonic conceptions of the laws of logic are causally isolated) to justify our belief in the uniformity of nature.

Here's an analogy: If there are no clouds in the sky, then it is necessarily not capable of raining. And if there are clouds in the sky, then it is possibly capable of raining. But, if it is not raining, that does not mean that there are no clouds in the sky.

Similarly, if there is an unchanging mind, then the laws of nature are necssarily not capable of changing. And if there is no unchanging mind, then the laws of nature are possibly capable of changing. But, if the laws of nature are not capable of changing, that does not mean that there is an unchanging mind.GabuEx

If the laws of nature are not capable of changing, necessarily (which is what you HAVE TO JUSTIFY IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY INDUCTIVE INFERENCE), there must be a mind. You need to show that the laws of nature are immutable, necessarily.

So: either prove that the nonexistence of an unchanging mind necessitates the ability of the laws of nature to change, or admit that this argument comes up short. As long as the laws of nature can possibly be unchanging without the existence of an unchanging mind, then that unchanging mind does not need to be presupposed at all.GabuEx

No, there has to be some cause of this immutability because the laws of nature and the laws of logic are PRESCRIPTIVE.

And, again, you don't understand the meaning of "logical fallacy". A logical fallacy is one where an argument does not sufficiently link the premises to the conclusion such that if the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily also true. Conversely, "Assume A. Therefore, A" is, far from being a logical fallacy, a perfectly valid argument (whereas an argument containing a logical fallacy is invalid). The problem with it is that its soundness depends on A being true - thus, it not a useful statement to make.

A tautology is precisely what I said it is: a statement that is unconditionally true. "If A, then A" - a classic tautology - is true no matter what the value of A is, whereas "If A, then B" depends on the values of A and B.

Again, if you're going to use big words, at least understand what they mean.

GabuEx