for a couple of days. Alan Roebuck however has just sent me a long comment he’s posted in that thread in which he flails three of his interlocutors. I also see that VFR commenter Hannon has been quite active in the discussion. Also, Bill of MD, who is on the Darwinian side, is presumably VFR commenter Bill of Maryland, with whom I’ve had a long exchange at VFR on the same subject.
Daniel Dare,
I asserted that mathematics was not defined into existence, but has a form of existence that is independent of any mind (subjective or otherwise.) In response, you point to non-Euclidian geometries: Apparently, then mathematics COULD be something other than what it is defined to be, and my argument (apparently) collapses.
In fact, the word “objective” means (at least in this context) “independent of person,” not “independent of circumstances.” Euclidian geometry could not be other than what is and still be faithful to non-astronomical reality. And the various non-Euclidian geometries have their own structural integrities, some of which faithfully reflect reality on astronomical scales of distance.
Furthermore, ALL of mathematics would have to be redefinable in order to invalidate my point. If there remains even one part of mathematics that could not be anything other than what it is, then my point is sustained: something nonphysical and objective exists, i.e., something independent of the material world, and that man does not define.
The relevance of this observation for theism, I discuss below in my response to Kevembuangga.
Also, regarding my argument that consciousness is impossible under Darwinism, both you and Bill of MD apparently missed the essential point: You said, “I categorically do not accept that consciousness is non-physical.” But consciousness is non-physical BY DEFINITION. That is, its being, what it is, is non-physical. You may think that it has non-physical causes, but the cause of something is not identical to that thing’s being, its nature. The only way out of this dilemma for a materialist is to deny that consciousness per se has any being, and to affirm that consciousness simply is some sort of matter in motion. But this is absurd: my subjective consciousness exists, and I presume yours does too.
And please note that this is not just one of those unfinished details of an otherwise-successful Darwinian theory. Since it is impossible for consciousness to occur if Darwinism is true, Darwinism is false, at least as a comprehensive explanation. (It may still be able to explain some things.)
Trevor,
You said:
“As for the mystery of consciousness, there is none. Consciousness is your brain seeing what it sees, hearing what it hears, and knowing what’s stored in its neurons. To say you are aware of something simply means the sensation reached your brain. To say you know something merely means that you can retrieve a memory about it … “
This is obviously false. Your consciousness has a subjective aspect to it that is obviously not just “your brain seeing what it sees.” No, YOU see what you see.
Since materialistic atheism leads one to reject the blindingly obvious, it must be false. The only reason one would prefer the absurd is if it is the best defense against something one hates. But this is to think emotionally, not rationally.
Kevembuangga,
I’ll make you a deal. If you stop calling me a “delusional,” and all other ad-hominem terms, then I will refrain from calling you a self-deluded godless fool, and all other ad hominem terms.
You say that mathematics is nothing but a formal system; a set of rules. But where do the rules come from? Logically, there are three possible answers:
1) The rules are purely arbitrary. We can make them to be whatever our whims desire, subject only to the restriction that they not be self-contradictory (and maybe not even subject to that restriction.)
2) The rules are not purely arbitrary, that is, we cannot choose them to be whatever our whims desire, but there is no reason why they are the way they are. They just are, for reason.
3) They are not arbitrary, and some entity or cause other than man makes them to be what they are.
Option 1 means that mathematics is essentially nonexistent, because something that could be anything is not actually anything, that is, it is nothing. And # 2 exists as a bare possibility, but this is not the way thinking proceeds on non-ultimate questions. It is far more reasonable to assume that there is some sort of cause. That leaves # 3 as the best explanation.
At this point, atheists typically respond, “Then what is the cause of God?” Well, all systems of thought must accept something as the ultimate reality that is not caused. That’s why you atheists take the physical cosmos and the concepts in human minds as the ultimate givens, requiring no cause. The buck has to stop somewhere.
So there are essentially two competing views of ultimate reality: The (mono-)theistic view, in which God is the ultimately unifying Factor of reality, or the atheistic view, in which reality contains many unconnected (juxtaposed, but not connected) and purely ad hoc givens: consciousness, matter and its properties, logic, morality, beauty, possibly many universes, etc.
Despite what some say, there is no logical impossibility in the concept of God. (If the concept is formulated correctly, that is), so we cannot rule it out on logical grounds. Atheists famously say “there is no evidence for God,” but that is because they (usually unknowingly) interpret all evidence with a presupposition of materialism. Viewing life through atheist-colored glasses, they see theism nowhere. They are reasoning in a circle.
I think that God is an objective reality, because if you interpret reality according to the correct worldview, you do see good evidence for God: much of it objective, some of it subjective. But since man is not an entirely rational animal, this is also an aesthetic issue: You atheists find the idea of God to be repulsive, and so you prefer your atheistic worldview.
Don’t get me wrong: good answers do exist to all atheistic objections. But life is short, and if you hate the idea of God, you can always generate both real and pseudo objections. My main goal here has been to show that we theists can defend ourselves, and to influence any readers who are not 100 percent committed to atheism.
[end of Roebuck comment.]