Is the existence of God axiomatic?

[McCulloch]

All too often the secularist or non-theist here challenges the Christian (or member of another religion) to offer evidence and proof for _______. This is an understandable request, but I have argued extensively on several threads here that God is trusted through faith and that particular notions of God are accepted as axioms (presuppositions, a priori truths, assumptions, etc.). If this is true, evidence cannot be offered for many of the words that fill in the above blank. This is the nature of an axiom. Many of the Christian perspectives on life are built on these axioms.

Question for debate: Is the existence of God axiomatic? Why or why not? How should one determine one's axioms?

[EduChris]

...Why is materialism a self-defeating axiom? It's either an apt descriptor of reality, or it isn't...

I agree that it is either an apt descriptor of reality, or it isn't. But if it is an apt descriptor, then logic necessarily loses any special force, which in turn demonstrates that the axiom is self-defeating (in terms of logic).

Given determinism, "logic" simply becomes one of the many external and impersonal forces--deterministic, random, or both--which enslave us. Given materialism, we cannot "accept" or "reject" logic or anything else; we can only acquiesce to the sum total of impersonal external forces which ineluctably compel us toward ultimately pointless responses for which we have no meaningful alternative.

[Woland]

...Why is materialism a self-defeating axiom? It's either an apt descriptor of reality, or it isn't...

I agree that it is either an apt descriptor of reality, or it isn't. But if it is an apt descriptor, then logic necessarily loses any special force, which in turn demonstrates that the axiom is self-defeating (in terms of logic).

What "special force" could you even possibly talking about? I can't even fathom how you think that you've shown that materialism is self-defeating. How is the tool of logic invalidated by a purely material reality? Isn't this what you were implying?

Given determinism, "logic" simply becomes one of the many external and impersonal forces--deterministic, random, or both--which enslave us. Given materialism, we cannot "accept" or "reject" logic or anything else; we can only acquiesce to the sum total of impersonal external forces which ineluctably compel us toward ultimately pointless responses for which we have no meaningful alternative.

If you somehow manage to define "meaning" as being only compatible with "personal god theism", then I agree. This still doesn't change anything to the notion that humans find and will always find subjective meaning in all sorts of things, as sentient beings that are the product of a long evolutionary process.

And still doesn't show, in the slightest, how it's "logically necessary" to reject materialism. Your appeal to consequences is totally irrelevant to the reality of things.

I'm still curious as to whether or not you are maintaining that "Either there is "free will" or there is no such thing as a fallacy", and whether or not we could extend this to "either there is a God or there are no logical fallacies" (since presumably you believe that only a God can endow us with "free will").

I'm also still curious about your use of "rendered". I really can't see what you could possibly have meant with the expression "By accepting determinism, we are logically rendered impervious to anything other than deterministic (or random) influences." Is it not so that we are either impervious, or we aren't? How does accepting or rejecting a concept have any impact on any of this?

-Woland

[McCulloch]

Of course logic is external and impersonal. Is anyone under the impression that logic is optional, non-binding or otherwise a personal choice?

[EduChris]

...How is the tool of logic invalidated by a purely material reality?...

Logic may be a "tool," but if we are not volitional agents we cannot "employ" the "tool" of logic because we do not actually "employ" anything. We can only succumb to the sum total of all external impersonal forces which deterministically/randomly compel us. We have no choice in what we do or think or believe.

It's like an airplane pilot. All during his career he's been assuming that he is actually flying the plane. But then he is told that he is only part of the equipment--the plane is on autopilot and he is simply programmed to do what he does in concert with everything else that is happening to the plane.

[Board]

...How is the tool of logic invalidated by a purely material reality?...

Logic may be a "tool," but if we are not volitional agents we cannot "employ" the "tool" of logic because we do not actually "employ" anything. We can only succumb to the sum total of all external impersonal forces which deterministically/randomly compel us. We have no choice in what we do or think or believe.

It's like an airplane pilot. All during his career he's been assuming that he is actually flying the plane. But then he is told that he is only part of the equipment--the plane is on autopilot and he is simply programmed to do what he does in concert with everything else that is happening to the plane.

I am by no means an expert in Determinism but I feel like your view of it is a little skewed.

It does not make us mindless robots with no purpose. It is a means to explain how and why things are. We have developed an intellect that can understand concepts like determinism. We can then use this understanding that we are products of our environment to first understand why we do things and to then understand how we can change and more importantly why we should change.

Even under determinism we have the ability to shape our future. We understand the cause and effects of doing things and by knowing the predicted outcome we can plan accordingly.

[EduChris]

...Determinism...does not make us mindless robots with no purpose...

Given determinism, we humans are but tiny specks in a meaningless web of deterministic and/or random forces.

...It is a means to explain how and why things are...

It is but one of many theories which impinge upon us in the same way that all forces impinge upon us--deterministically and/or randomly.

...We have developed an intellect that can understand concepts like determinism. We can then use this understanding that we are products of our environment to first understand why we do things and to then understand how we can change and more importantly why we should change.

Even under determinism we have the ability to shape our future. We understand the cause and effects of doing things and by knowing the predicted outcome we can plan accordingly.

[EduChris]

...not...mindless robots with no purpose...We have developed an intellect that can understand concepts like determinism. We can then...understand why we do things and...how...and...why we should change...we have the ability to shape our future. We understand the cause and effects...and...can plan accordingly.

I agree with what I have snipped from your post. What isn't clear to me, though, is how any of this is even the least bit plausible under strictly materialistic determinism. The question is, can conglomerations of particles, all operating strictly according to the sum total of deterministic and/or random influences, actually think, understand, plan, choose, etc.? This is the case which has not been made; simply asserting that it is so--or waving the magic wand of "emergence" at it--is not the same thing as actually demonstrating it. What needs to be done is to show how, at least in principle, a strictly deterministic materialism could account for the reality (as opposed to the mere illusion) of our common human experience.

To me, the "whole" must be greater than "the sum of its parts." Find the remainder between the "whole" and the "sum of the parts" and you will have found the "soul." On the other hand, if the "whole" is exactly "the sum of the parts," without remainder, then we lose any objective substance to our illusory claims of being able to actually think, understand, plan, choose, and all of the other things we think we do. In that case, "logic" and "reason" become every bit as illusory as everthing else we vainly imagine to be real.

[theopoesis]

It (theopoesis edit: Board is referring to determinism here) does not make us mindless robots with no purpose. It is a means to explain how and why things are. We have developed an intellect that can understand concepts like determinism. We can then use this understanding that we are products of our environment to first understand why we do things and to then understand how we can change and more importantly why we should change.

Even under determinism we have the ability to shape our future. We understand the cause and effects of doing things and by knowing the predicted outcome we can plan accordingly.

Are our plans about the future dependent only upon what we learn about cause and effect? Or are they also bound by other causal chains outside of our control and learning? Can we assume there is a link between our experiences and learning about cause and effect and the causes which direct our plans and actions?

Does determinism allow for "change"? What is change if not an intentional, pre-meditated, or willful deviation of course? Can continuance along the same causal chain be considered change?

Does determinism allow for a "why"? Why might be answered in terms of what cause brought about which effect, but can there be a "why" in terms of a motivation for change?

If we are products of our environment, is our intellect and logic also a product of the environment? If so, can we trust this environment to have produced an intellect that can answer higher order questions about things such as "determinism" accurately?

[theopoesis]

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. ¹ According to EduChris, we should reject materialism and accept the existence of God axiomatically, because not to do so would challenge our own cherished notion of genuine human volition. EduChris along with many other defenders of free will, seem to mistakenly feel that by accepting determinism, one is somehow rendered impervious to logic and reason.

In asking about axioms, we have a tricky position. Axioms are the foundation of logic itself, so can we use logic to determine which axioms to select? The very use of logic would assume some existing axioms. For example, the argumentam ad consequentam fallacy assumes that reason and not emotion is a proper basis for selection. I certainly share this assumption, but if we continue down the rabbit hole we always have some axiom in the equation.

Leslie Newbigin suggested that our beliefs and axioms are not selected by logic as often as they are filtered through "plausibility structures." These structures determine in an instant what seems plausible to us and what does not based on a number of variables including experience, reason, emotions, and context.

EduChris's arguments (and my own variants of his presentation) might be more valid as an explanation for the selection of an axiom if viewed not as deductive logic, but as an explanation of the application of the plausibility structure.

If I have experiences which I interpret as meaning, free will, communication, objective virtue, and beauty, but a proposed axiom would lead to conclusions that reject meaning, free will, communication, objective virtue, and beauty, I find that axiom to be implausible and thus I reject it in favor of a different axiom that allows for the existence of each of these things. In the course of things, I don't sit down and reason through the axioms (because such reasoning implies I have already selected an axiom). Instead, I look at the proposal and I say "ridiculous" and I select another axiom (Christianity). With this axiom in place, I build a system of logic which both supports my initial axiom and explains the phenomena which guided my plausibility structure.

Turning things around, we can apply them to Christianity in the same way. If I had a different plausibility structure, a different axiom would have seemed plausible. Suppose the immediate factor influencing my selection of an axiom was a particular bad experience leading to the "problem of evil." Likely, in selecting an axiom I would not have used the logical form of this argument (unless other axioms were in place on which to build logic). Instead, I would have selected a secular, non-theistic axiom as more plausible based on my thoughts/feelings surrounding a particular bad experience. I would find the particular axiom of theism ridiculous, and I would reject it. Isn't there an analogy with the problem of evil? So if God exists, he allows babies to die. Is this consequence a reason to reject God, or is it an argumentam ad consequentam? It's a blurry line, to be sure.

The ultimate factor in the selection of these two axioms is the arbitrary decision between "good" and "evil." I'm not saying atheists are evil. I am saying, given the above examples, I chose Christian axioms to maintain an objective good because of an experience of "goodness", but one could just as easily reject Christian axioms as a result of an experience of "evil" makes a "good" God implausible.

Of course there are hundreds of other examples of plausibility structures that are out there. I just mention two for illustration. At the end of the day, the question becomes: Is there a way to validate a plausibility structure if that structure is applied prior to the selection of axioms (that is prior to the development of logic)? My answer is no, and hence the ultimate primacy of faith in my opinion.

[Woland]

Hello EduChris,

I understand and acknowledge that you're conducting many debates at once with many posters in many threads, but I'd really appreciate it if you could address my questions. I am insisting on this because I honestly don't see how your appeals to consequences are relevant to anything at all. What changes if we learn or believe that determinism/randomness are all there is? Nothing. We as humans still employ tools like logic, reason, and the scientific method and come up with valid or invalid arguments, new and better models for explaining our observable reality, etc.

It's not because your personal definition of words like "choice" and "employ" would be shattered by a lack of "free will" (whatever that could even potentially mean, considering that it's well documented that chemical substances affect your thought process, your personality, and the choices you make) that materialism is inconsistent with anything else than your own personal theistic opinion.

I'm still curious as to whether or not you are maintaining that "Either there is "free will" or there is no such thing as a fallacy", and whether or not we could extend this to "either there is a God or there are no logical fallacies" (since presumably you believe that only a God can endow us with "free will").

I'm also still curious about your use of "rendered". I really can't see what you could possibly have meant with the expression "By accepting determinism, we are logically rendered impervious to anything other than deterministic (or random) influences." Is it not so that we are either impervious, or we aren't? How does accepting or rejecting a concept have any impact on any of this?

Thank you

-Woland