Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Codifying my secular worldview

This is similar to Objectivism, insofar as I've only codified the general deductions, so it should please most people here. Nothing too controversial, just showing how everything is derived. This relates very much to presuppositionalism as well, as their only "argument" is to assert that we don't have a coherent worldview. So this is the reply. It's "Francois Tremblay's worldview", and perhaps that of some other people as well.

I would welcome any additions I should make, any errors I made, any clarifications I need to make, etc.


-- metaphysics

(M1) I exist. (Axiomatically observed)
(M2) Other things exist. (Axiomatically observed)
(M3) I am conscious. (Axiomatically observed)
(M4) I exist in a definite way. (Axiomatically observed)
(M5) Other things exist in a definite way. (Axiomatically observed)

(M5 expanded) = (M6) Things are what they are. A is A.
(M6 expanded) = (ML) System of basic logic (founded on the law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle)

(M1) + (M3) = (M7) My consciousness is a thing that exists.
(ML) => (M8) Either the primacy of existence is true, or the primacy of consciousness is true.
(M7) + (M8) = (M9) The primacy of existence is true.

Another way to derive :
(M5) + (ML) + "if the primacy of consciousness is true, then things may have an indefinite nature" = (M9)

(ML) => (M10) Either reality is objective, or reality is subjective.
(M9) + (M10) = (M11) Reality is objective.

Another way to derive is through (ML) and the fallacy of stolen concept. Same for (M9).

(M5) + (M11) = (M12) All existents have a definite nature.

-- epistemology

(M3) + any proposition = (E1) I can direct my attention (causal free will)

(M2) + (M3) = (E2) I perceive. I perceive other things that have a specific nature.
Induction on (E2) = (E3) I conceptualize.

(M2) + (M3) + (E2) = (E4) I observe that there are introspective and extrospective methods. Define the latter as "reason".
(M11) + (E4) = (E5) Only extrospective methods can give us knowledge.
(E4) + (E5) = (E6) Only reason can give us knowledge. Reason is defined as the necessarily concurrent operation of (ML), (E2) and (E3), through (E1).
(E6 expanded) = (E7) Knowledge is defined as that which is supported by sufficient rational evidence.

(E1 expanded) = (E8) Change exists. Time exists.
(There are probably other ways to get (E8), but this seems to be the simplest)
(M12) + (E8) = (E9) All existents change according to their nature (law of causality)

(E7 expanded) = (E10) Knowledge is hierarchical. More specifically : knowledge is a structure based on perceptual awareness of reality through successive logical integrations.
(E10 expanded) = (E11) Knowledge is contextual. More specifically : the justification of knowledge is tied to our previous logical integrations.
(E11 expanded) = (E12) Knowledge is relative, insofar as context is relative.

(E11 expanded) = (E13) We need to ensure that our knowledge holds in all relevant, available contexts.
(E14) Define falsification as the method to ensure that our knowledge holds in all relevant contexts (predictive tests).
(E13) + (E14) = (E15) Falsification is an important rational method.

(E6) + (E15) = (ES) Foundations of the scientific method. Still missing peer review, numerical accuracy and error bars, clinical trials, and so on, but it's a good start. One can derive these from (ES) or ontological results of (ES).

(E16) Define principles as abstractions that integrate conceptual knowledge within a given domain.
(E16 expanded) = (E17) Principles are one's only means of using conceptual knowledge efficiently.

(E18) Define induction as the generalization of a concept or principle from individual observations.
(E6) + (E17) = (E19) We must use induction in order to subsume our empirical data efficiently using concepts and principles.

(E6 narrowed) = (E20) We can only know that which is observable.
(E20 expanded) = (E21) There is only one fundamental mode of existence, that which is observable. Define this mode of existence as "matter" or "materialism".
(E9 expanded) + (E21) = (E22) The state of existents today follow the state of existents yesterday according to the laws of causality.
(this is a primitive form of O6-O10)
(E22 expanded) = (E23) Justification of induction. I can trust that past experiences will reflect future experiences in accordance with the laws of causality.


-- ontology
From this point on, all separate observations are validated by sense perception through reason.

(E9) = (O1) All existents are subject to causality. That includes ontological causation (O-cause).
(M12) = (O2) Reality is made of stuff that has a definite nature.
(E21) + (O1) + (O2) = (O3) Properties of the nature of stuff must be O-caused. Properties of the nature of stuff can only be O-caused by lower levels of structures of matter.
(O3 narrowed) = (O4) Reality is made of many co-existing levels of structures of matter, that each have a different sort of identity.
(O3 expanded) = (O5) All properties are strictly O-caused by lower levels of structures of matter. Reductionism.

(O6) Define the universe is the sum of all existents.
(O7) Define one of the properties of causality as temporal succession. (from Hume)
(O1 expanded) = (O8) The sum of all existents is subject to causality.
(O7) + (O8 expanded) = (O9) A state of the sum of all existents is caused by the previous state of the sum of all existents.
(O6) + (O9) = (O10) A state of the universe is caused by the previous state of the universe (determinism).

Some ways to derive atheism :
(M9 expanded) = No primary consciousness can exist. (primacy of existence)
(E6 narrowed) = No being that demands the abandon of (E3) can be known to exist. (theological noncognitivism)
(E21 expanded) = There are no supernatural beings. (materialism)
(O3 expanded) = There is no supernatural causation. (naturalism)

-- ethics (value-based)

(M3 expanded) = (V1) I am alive. I survive (sustainment of life) and flourish (fulfillment of value). (expanded moral definition of life)
Observation + (E1) = (V2) Life can and must be sustained by directed action.

(axiomicity of M3) = (V3) A moral agent is necessarily alive.
(V2) + (V3) = (V4) A moral agent necessarily acts. People who are alive are necessarily moral agents.
(V1) + (V4) = (V5) Everyone necessarily acts.

(V2 expanded) = (V6) Some actions sustain life, and some hinder it.
(E9) + (V6) = (V7) Some actions sustain life, and some hinder it, in accordance with the laws of causality. (causality applied to action)

Observation = (V8) There are other people like me.

(V9) Define a need as a rationally desired object in order to pursue life.
Observation = (V10) I have material needs, such as the need for health and food, which contribute directly to my survival.
Observation = (V11) I have mental needs, such as the need for conceptual knowledge, education and art, which contribute to my life by ensuring proper knowledge-acquisition.
Observation = (V12) I have social needs, such as the need for trade, communication, friendship and love, which contribute to the fulfillment of my material and mental needs.
Observation = (V13) I have political needs, such as the need for freedom and objective law, which provide the context for the fulfillment of all my other needs.

(V15) Define a value as an object which sustained possession fulfills a need. Equivalency of need and value.
(V14) + (V15) = (V16) There is a hierarchy of values. Some values are short-range and some values are long-range.

(V17) Define a virtue as a principle of mental habit conductive to moral action (fulfilling values).

Observation = (V18) Long-range consequences can only be grasped abstractly.
(E16) + (V18) = (V20) Principles are one's only means of identifying long-range consequences.
(V16) + (V20) = (V21) One needs a commitment to acting in accordance with principles in pursuit of long-range values.
(V17) + (V21) = (V22) We need virtues.

Justifying some virtues :

(E6 narrowed) = (V23) To act in accordance with moral knowledge demands the volitional adherence to reason.
(V23) = (V24) Rationality is a prime virtue.

(E6 narrowed) = (V25) To act in accordance with moral knowledge demands a commitment to face the results of rational processes.
(V25) = (V26) Honesty is a virtue.

Observation + (V8) = (V27) Other people can be sources of great values and great threats.
(V26) + (V27) = (V28) Justice is a virtue.

Observation = (V29) Cooperation is the best way to fulfill my values.
Observation = (V30) Violence breaks the virtue of rationality.
(V29) + (V30) = (V31) Non-coercion is a virtue.

(E11 narrowed) = (V32) Moral knowledge is contextual.

Observation = (V33) "I" am a separate moral agent from all other individuals. "I" live in a different context than anyone else. Structural Individualism.
(V32) + (V33) = (V34) Moral knowledge cannot be made absolute or collectivized. The expression of values is necessarily individualist.

-- politics

(P1) Define society as the interacting set of individuals living on a given territory, as well as the institutions they form.
(V13) + (P1) = (P2) I have the need to live in a society that permits the expression of individual values.
(P1) + (P2) = (P3) I have the need to live in a society containing institutions that protect the expression of individual values. The set of said institutions is roughly called "government".

(P4) Define a right as a principle defining the freedom of expression of individual values in a social context.

(P5) Some examples :
* I have the political need for objective law, therefore I have the right of an objective judiciary.
* I have the political need to be able to work, therefore I have the right of employment.
* I have the political need to speak my mind and communicate with others in order to judge truth, therefore I have the right of free speech.
* I have the political need to own property in order to use it to fulfill my values, therefore I have the right of property.
* I have the political need for my life to be protected in order to act, therefore I have the right of life.
In general : I have the right of protection from force or fraud.

(P5 expanded) = (P6) Government should not initiate the use of force.

Post a Comment


23 Comments:

At 9/11/2005 10:33 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

The second I posted it, I realized I forgot to codify the Stolen Concept fallacy. Here is the idea of how to do it : the SCF entails a contradiction, breaking (ML), because of the axiomicity of the proposition that one attempts to deny. So the whole argument, ending with, say, "I do not exist", contradicts itself because every single of its propositions can only exist (and therefore be true) if "I exist" is true.

 
At 9/12/2005 10:17 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

What about the Manata Refutation?

If p then q
~p
.: ~q

Trump that, Franc!

 
At 9/12/2005 11:08 AM, Blogger hashishan prophet declaimed...

Manata Manata - I will have that vicious slut! He hath sold himself willing to the JESUS CHRIST of FOOLS and cacodemons -- They must be warned, the little lambs of the Christ -- HE is a vicious and a naughty Christ and will defile their delicate pees and quoos.

 
At 9/12/2005 12:34 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Uh oh... the hashman is back.

Yea, did anyone see Manata's post recently saying that there are no atheists? I am considering writing a critical review of it and destroying it with the truth of FSM!

Seriously though, can a Christian even come up with a similar list as Francs? What would it look like?

Manata, why dont you give it a shot? Mr. logic, right? "my worldview is the only one with logic! you dont exist because my bible says so!" LOL!

 
At 9/12/2005 2:56 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

I'm dissapointed there are no serious comments... !

What if a Christian tried to do the same ? Well...

(M1) God exists and inspired the Bible infallibly.
Observation + (M1) = (E1) The Bible says God did it.
(E2) I believe it.
(E1) + (E2) = (E3) That settles it.
(E3 expanded) = Everything I want to prove is true because God did it. Everything I want to disprove is false because God didn't do it.

 
At 9/12/2005 5:39 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/04/ive-had-moore-than-enough_06.html


http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-moore-on.html

 
At 9/13/2005 12:00 AM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Looks like the clown-prince has shown his ugly mug again!

Way to spell 'petry' Paul in your latest blog, all the while complaining about how sin makes people stupid. LOL!!!!

Also very christ-like of you to belittle a major accomplishment in the 'real world' by someone while pretending that your make believe world is oh so important and impressive.

Here's a little tip for you:

P-E-T-R-I

moron

 
At 9/13/2005 7:02 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

NR wrote: "Way to spell 'petry' Paul in your latest blog, all the while complaining about how sin makes people stupid. LOL!!!!"

If Christians are "thinking God's thoughts after Him," how is it that they make so many mistakes like this? It seems that, if Christians were regurgitating the thoughts of an omniscient and infallible being, we would marvel at their intellectual prowess. But quite the opposite is continually the case: their petty and deceitful minds have no intellectual prowess whatsoever.

 
At 9/13/2005 8:08 AM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

BB said:

"If Christians are "thinking God's thoughts after Him," how is it that they make so many mistakes like this? It seems that, if Christians were regurgitating the thoughts of an omniscient and infallible being, we would marvel at their intellectual prowess. But quite the opposite is continually the case: their petty and deceitful minds have no intellectual prowess whatsoever"

The Christian may respond that they also have a 'fallen mind' and therefore are not always exactly 'thinking/interpreting' God's thoughts.' However...this is good enough reason for me to discount the general wackiness that spews from their mouths...as they themselves admit they have 'broken brains' and aren't really 'thinking God's thoughts.'

Franc...I enjoyed your post...sorry to hijack it with Manata stuff...since he is a coward, he won't let people comment on his blog, although he enjoys denegrating other people on their blogs.

 
At 9/13/2005 9:44 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

NR: "The Christian may respond that they also have a 'fallen mind' and therefore are not always exactly 'thinking/interpreting' God's thoughts.' However...this is good enough reason for me to discount the general wackiness that spews from their mouths...as they themselves admit they have 'broken brains' and aren't really 'thinking God's thoughts.'"

Good points, NR. Indeed, if the believer who spouts nonsense like "thinking God's thoughts after Him" turns around and explains his own errors by saying he has a "fallen mind," what are we to make of the whole notion that believers have been "regenerated"? II Cor. 5:17 tells us "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." So any testimony about still being burdened with a "fallen mind" doesn't cohere with views expressed in the bible itself. And how would someone even know whether or not he's thinking someone else's thoughts to begin with? How does the believer distinguish between the alleged thoughts of an invisible magic being and his own imagination? Well, we're not supposed to ask questions like this - we're supposed to just accept the slogans we're given as if they somehow sealed the topic. Again, we have an idle phrase which serves as a plastic goo that can be jammed into place to make it "look" like they have answers to the problems Christianity invites on itself. But even those "answers" turn out to be empty silliness. They claim to worship the god of the New Testament, but in actuality they worship the goo of nonsense.

NR: "Franc...I enjoyed your post...sorry to hijack it with Manata stuff...since he is a coward, he won't let people comment on his blog, although he enjoys denegrating other people on their blogs."

This is a very important point, and I'm glad you stated it, NR. Manata turned off his comments long ago because he couldn't take the heat. But he prances merrily along on other blogs dumping his incoherent debris. Must be a pretty miserable person.

 
At 9/13/2005 12:38 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

it is fallacious to simply make fun of someone without addressing their argument. *Nothing* anyone said had *anything* to do with the refutation and embarrassment of the un-named moron. In case you guys ever care to interact with the *substance* of my arguments I'll be here. Until then, keep shifting the focus of the debate and pat yourselves on the back while the real world notices you've said squat.

btw, anyone can start a blog and comment on any one of my posts.

Bob Bethrick said: "since he is a coward, he won't let people comment on his blog, although he enjoys denegrating other people on their blogs."

So, he "denigrates" me and then complains that I "denigrate" people. More evidence of how sin makes people stupid. Also, the above is fallacious. It only gives one option while there are others. If Bob thinks he can back up his assertion, like a man, then let him do so.

Challenge: Prove that I do not allow comments on my blog because I'm a coward.

If not, I take it that this is yet another objectivist assertion. At any rate, this serves as a testimony against Dawson: Stop playing with adults, Bob.

 
At 9/13/2005 1:57 PM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Paul,

Did the little guy get all angry? :)

Your "thinking God's thoughts" messed up again...it was "I" who was pointing out that you are a coward, not "Bob."

You really need to fix that fallen nature of yours...so confusing to know which are "God's thoughts" and which are "clown prince's" thoughts.

 
At 9/13/2005 2:02 PM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Paul...

very cute that you fixed your spelling of "petri." You're welcome for the tip!

You're "thinking 'Not-reformed's' thoughts now! LOL!

 
At 9/13/2005 2:14 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul, some points for you to consider.

1. The purpose of the comments section on Goose the Antithesis is not to discuss your blog entries.

2. No one needs to create a blog devoted to responding to your blog entries (they certainly don't warrant that kind of attention, and since I found the blog entries of yours that I read rather boring, I tend not to read them at all any more).

3. If you want people to discuss them, you might want to turn your comments back on. I'm supposing you won't do this.

4. The quote that you attribute to "Bob Bethrick" was actually made by Not Reformed. But at least this time you managed to spell my surname correctly. So it's good to see you're teachable on this (unless you spelled it correctly on accident).

5. You say "sin makes people stupid," and though I've never read this statement in the bible (perhaps you can hermeneutically pull it out of a hat?), what's obvious is that you remain quite prone to error in spite of "thinking God's thoughts after Him." Quite simply, your god-belief seems utterly irrelevant when it comes to smarts.

6. You issued a challenge that someone present a proof to the effect that you closed your comments due to your cowardice. To whom is this supposed to be proved? To a coward? It's self-evident to me, and probably to others. Perhaps you can busy yourself with assembling a proof to the effect that you didn't close your comments due to your cowardice (which your god-belief hasn't enabled you to overcome). I suppose you'll complain about this suggestion.

 
At 9/13/2005 6:40 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

1. The purpose of "Goose The Antithesis" was to devote a blog to refuting my blog entries 9read the first post here).

2. GTA did LOL. Anyway, the point was that if someone wanted to comment so bad, they have the ability to do so.

3. I don't. Where did you get the idea that I did?

4. *yawn*

5. Explain the phrase, "thinking God's thoughts after Him." If you can't, then this is yet another example of how you have to beat up misrepresented positions just to make yourself look smart.

6. The challenge was issued to the asserter. I have no burden to show why I closed it, especially since I have explained it numerous times. So, now there's another assertion: paul is lying. So, now you have two things to prove. get busy.

A: How come you always get embarrassed by me? Is my constant refutations the cause of your obsession with me? Leave it alone, Bob Bithrack [sic]

 
At 9/13/2005 7:59 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul: "1. The purpose of "Goose The Antithesis" was to devote a blog to refuting my blog entries 9read the first post here)."

Do you know how to post a bloody link? Anyway, the purpose of the blog seems to be clear at the top of every page:

"The 'antithesis' refers to the seperation between theists and atheists. This blog exists as a commentary and counterpart to those theists who seek to advance their agenda and ideals at the expense of reason."

I see no reference to your blog in this "mission statement".

Paul: "2. GTA did LOL. Anyway, the point was that if someone wanted to comment so bad, they have the ability to do so."

Yes, GTA did, as a gratuity, not in obedience to some imaginary obligation. In fact, my point is that no one has an obligation to devote a blog to critiquing your articles. Do you disagree with me?

Paul: "3. I don't. Where did you get the idea that I did?"

From your own statements.

Paul: "4. *yawn*"

Go back to sleep, Paul. You obviously cannot handle reality while you're awake.

Paul: "5. Explain the phrase, 'thinking God's thoughts after Him'."

I did explain it, in these comments in fact. Scroll up. Or read my final summary again:

Again, we have an idle phrase which serves as a plastic goo that can be jammed into place to make it "look" like they have answers to the problems Christianity invites on itself. But even those "answers" turn out to be empty silliness. They claim to worship the god of the New Testament, but in actuality they worship the goo of nonsense.

You're welcome to offer your own explanation if you find this one somehow lacking.

Paul: "6. The challenge was issued to the asserter. I have no burden to show why I closed it, especially since I have explained it numerous times. So, now there's another assertion: paul is lying. So, now you have two things to prove. get busy."

Paul, we all know you turned your comments off because you're not emotionally mature enough to handle criticism on your blogs. There's no need to try to prove this to a coward who is in deep denial of his own cowardice. If you want me to believe otherwise, then you have your work cut out for you. Meanwhile, we get no substance whatsoever from you, just more petty complaining. I guess that's what happens when one worships a contradiction.

 
At 9/13/2005 8:49 PM, Blogger hashishan prophet declaimed...

Paul Manata you are a servant of the monkey christ and his demonic cohorts and you are a liar and i have objective proof that you are a demented monkey servant seeking lordship over the monkey christian minions of this foolish fallacious christ I have my Holy Eye on you I AM the Lord of Israel.

You have a future in the slophouse of Magellanic Clouds (hell) if you do not repent of the Monkey Christ Satan = Jesus

 
At 9/13/2005 8:51 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul, I don't know which of GTA's blog entries you had in mind when you seemed to be under the delusion that it was set up specifically to address your blog articles, but I did look at what appears to be the initial blog entry on GTA, which is titled Introduction and Answers, by Zachary Moore, and he does make a clear statement about the purpose of GTA with regard to your blog, Press the Antithesis. Zach wrote (3/23/05):

"This is just to mock Paul Manata's weblog, isn't it? Certainly his weblog was the catalyst for the founding of this one, but there is a greater goal in mind. Although for now, comments will focus on that source material, there is plenty more out there to address than just him."

Seems pretty clear that you were in his sights at the beginning, but you were not the only loon on the radar which GTA was intended to expose.

 
At 9/14/2005 12:23 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9/14/2005 12:24 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9/14/2005 9:12 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Another award-winning foot-in-the-mouth gem for the From the Horse's Mouth files.

Paul states of himself in his blogspot profile:

"My name is Paul. I am a sinner."

Then Paul announces to the world:

"Sin makes people stupid!"

Let him speak... for himself.

 
At 9/14/2005 4:19 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Hashishan Prophet is smarter than Manata LOL

Manata says that sin makes one stupid. Thats why Manata believes that only his superstition can account for logic, while simultaneously believing in a man made from dirt and a woman made from a rib.

Manata also believes that it is "logical" to have an innocent person (Jesus) be executed for the crimes of others. Yes, with Manata, its perfectly logical to say that two wrongs DO make a right.

Hey Manata, if I were to murder someone, would it be ok for your innocent child to serve my punishment?

Manata laughs at me voting for Gore. I can reasonably assume that Manata voted for Bush. Bush, by the way, happens to be against stem cell research because he thinks its wrong to destroy innocent life in order to protect life. So much for the honorable and noble crucifiction (sic) of Jesus! I wonder where Manata stands on stem cell research. And I wonder if Manata thinks its okay to destroy innocent life in order to save life?

Yes, Manata is correct: sin makes one stupid. Manata makes the cardinal sin of reality: the sin of not thinking for oneself.

Go ahead Manata, keep letting an ancient book think for you (A book that was written when we thought that the Earth was flat and that expectant mothers determined the gender of their offspring). Keep believing that faith is logical, that inherited guilt is logical, and that punishing innocent people for the crimes of others is logical.

Regarding the comments posting, at least he DOES post on the comments here. And he cant delete this blog's comments, so everyone can see as he embarrases himself, and shows himself to be an arrogant superstitious doublethinking fundamentalist fanatic, who aims to be a premier apologetic yet cannot manage to convert one atheist. With Christians like Manata leading the charge, no wonder theism is losing the worldwide war of ideas!

 
At 9/14/2005 8:47 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Aaron: "Keep believing that faith is logical, that inherited guilt is logical, and that punishing innocent people for the crimes of others is logical."

Only someone who truly detested himself could really believe these ideas. But hey, Christianity stipulates self-hatred:

Luke 14:26 reads:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

I guess I can't be a Christian, because I don't hate myself. Paul hates himself, that's why he's such a good sinner-Christian.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home