On the Debunking Christianity site (John Loftus webpage) much consternation is being espoused concerning Turek’s “Stealing From God” thesis… one of the main rejoinders to the Turek thesis is offered by Franz Kiekeben.
Kiekeben’s main point is this statement:
“There is nothing incoherent in the idea that the world just is law-like, so that whenever conditions C are present, effect E occurs. It doesn’t follow that the effects must in that case be “aimed at” by anything, or be the “purpose” of the cause in question. Hence, it doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.”
I shall give you a technically sweet rejoinder to his argument against intentionality in the universe for your own use, i.e. if you wish just build upon the ideas for your next debates.
ASSERTION:
“There is nothing incoherent in the idea that the world just is law-like, so that whenever conditions C are present, effect E occurs. It doesn’t follow that the effects must in that case be “aimed at” by anything, or be the “purpose” of the cause in question. Hence, it doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.”
We can locate and identify intentionality, i.e. “aboutness” with your clause: “the world just is law-like”.
The proposition “the world just is law-like” is referentially opaque.
We can use a semantic approach to capture the intentionality in the statement.
1/ The world just is law-like.
2/ The world just is information-like.
Here, “law” and “information” are two words for the same thing; meaning that one can freely substitute one for the other without affecting the truth of the whole sentence (although one may change its effectiveness or style).
This demonstrates that:
“There is nothing incoherent in the idea that the world just is law-like, so that whenever conditions C are present, effect E occurs. It doesn’t follow that the effects must in that case be “aimed at” by anything, or be the “purpose” of the cause in question. Hence, it doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.”
Is a statement concerning intentionality, i.e. a statement “about” the world.
The fact that the entire statement is referentially opaque follows from mirroring your concluding sentence:
1/ It does follow that someone must have aimed them. (REFERENTIALLY OPAQUE)
MIRROR
2/ It doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them. (REFERENTIALLY OPAQUE)
An atheist would call “the world just is law-like” a “brute-fact”, however calling the statement “opaque” does not affect the truth of your statement; demonstrating that your statement, “the world just is law-like” is intentional and referentially opaque (i.e. a brute-fact).
Now, the fundamental intentionality (i.e. intelligibility) difference between:
1/ It does follow that someone must have aimed them.
MIRROR
2/ It doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.
Is:
1/ The form of thought through information dictates that of the world.
MIRROR
2/ The form of the world through information dictates that of thought.
We can equate the above theistic and naturalist positions succinctly:
1/ God created the world.
MIRROR
2/ Universal Darwinism created the world.
Again, propositions 1/ and 2/ are referentially opaque. Proposition 2/ is opaque because for example, an exposed cliff -face might be said by a geologist to store “information” about the Triassic Period but that is all.
However, both propositions suggest that the concept of “information” underlies all phenomena and perhaps serves to unify mind, matter and meaning in a single theory.
Propositions 1/ and 2/ each offer a single theory, i.e. God and Universal Darwinism respectively.
So, does this quick analysis answer the question whether atheists steal from God to buttress Naturalism?
No.
However, if we modify the theistic proposition into a Christian proposition we can maintain its truth without losing its meaning, something most interesting emerges:
1/ Jesus Christ created the world.
MIRROR
2/ Universal Darwinism created the world.
In the Gospel of John, Christ is equated with Logos, the Word, i.e. “information”. Interestingly, Psalm 8 espouses intentionality in the sense that the Psalm can be interpreted as being “about” Jesus Christ and knowledge, i.e. information was the first thing created without affecting its truth.
Therefore, in the Christian conception of the universe, information, knowledge pre-existed the creation of the universe. This suggests that if atheism uses an information theory to explain the origin of reality it does in fact steal the concept from Christianity.
So, Turek is correct.
The thing that I learned from John Loftus is that atheism is not a faith position, but atheism supported by the theory of evolution is in fact a faith position, i.e. atheists rely on evolution to support their world-view.
Philip Rand
Dr Spiegel
On the Debunking Christianity site (John Loftus webpage) much consternation is being espoused concerning Turek’s “Stealing From God” thesis… one of the main rejoinders to the Turek thesis is offered by Franz Kiekeben.
Kiekeben’s main point is this statement:
“There is nothing incoherent in the idea that the world just is law-like, so that whenever conditions C are present, effect E occurs. It doesn’t follow that the effects must in that case be “aimed at” by anything, or be the “purpose” of the cause in question. Hence, it doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.”
I shall give you a technically sweet rejoinder to his argument against intentionality in the universe for your own use, i.e. if you wish just build upon the ideas for your next debates.
ASSERTION:
“There is nothing incoherent in the idea that the world just is law-like, so that whenever conditions C are present, effect E occurs. It doesn’t follow that the effects must in that case be “aimed at” by anything, or be the “purpose” of the cause in question. Hence, it doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.”
We can locate and identify intentionality, i.e. “aboutness” with your clause: “the world just is law-like”.
The proposition “the world just is law-like” is referentially opaque.
We can use a semantic approach to capture the intentionality in the statement.
1/ The world just is law-like.
2/ The world just is information-like.
Here, “law” and “information” are two words for the same thing; meaning that one can freely substitute one for the other without affecting the truth of the whole sentence (although one may change its effectiveness or style).
This demonstrates that:
“There is nothing incoherent in the idea that the world just is law-like, so that whenever conditions C are present, effect E occurs. It doesn’t follow that the effects must in that case be “aimed at” by anything, or be the “purpose” of the cause in question. Hence, it doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.”
Is a statement concerning intentionality, i.e. a statement “about” the world.
The fact that the entire statement is referentially opaque follows from mirroring your concluding sentence:
1/ It does follow that someone must have aimed them. (REFERENTIALLY OPAQUE)
MIRROR
2/ It doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them. (REFERENTIALLY OPAQUE)
An atheist would call “the world just is law-like” a “brute-fact”, however calling the statement “opaque” does not affect the truth of your statement; demonstrating that your statement, “the world just is law-like” is intentional and referentially opaque (i.e. a brute-fact).
Now, the fundamental intentionality (i.e. intelligibility) difference between:
1/ It does follow that someone must have aimed them.
MIRROR
2/ It doesn’t follow that someone must have aimed them.
Is:
1/ The form of thought through information dictates that of the world.
MIRROR
2/ The form of the world through information dictates that of thought.
We can equate the above theistic and naturalist positions succinctly:
1/ God created the world.
MIRROR
2/ Universal Darwinism created the world.
Again, propositions 1/ and 2/ are referentially opaque. Proposition 2/ is opaque because for example, an exposed cliff -face might be said by a geologist to store “information” about the Triassic Period but that is all.
However, both propositions suggest that the concept of “information” underlies all phenomena and perhaps serves to unify mind, matter and meaning in a single theory.
Propositions 1/ and 2/ each offer a single theory, i.e. God and Universal Darwinism respectively.
So, does this quick analysis answer the question whether atheists steal from God to buttress Naturalism?
No.
However, if we modify the theistic proposition into a Christian proposition we can maintain its truth without losing its meaning, something most interesting emerges:
1/ Jesus Christ created the world.
MIRROR
2/ Universal Darwinism created the world.
In the Gospel of John, Christ is equated with Logos, the Word, i.e. “information”. Interestingly, Psalm 8 espouses intentionality in the sense that the Psalm can be interpreted as being “about” Jesus Christ and knowledge, i.e. information was the first thing created without affecting its truth.
Therefore, in the Christian conception of the universe, information, knowledge pre-existed the creation of the universe. This suggests that if atheism uses an information theory to explain the origin of reality it does in fact steal the concept from Christianity.
So, Turek is correct.
The thing that I learned from John Loftus is that atheism is not a faith position, but atheism supported by the theory of evolution is in fact a faith position, i.e. atheists rely on evolution to support their world-view.