Meta vs Logic Lad: Part 1 of Meta's first speech
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:29 am
I am hoping my friend Logic lad will come to the boards. If he does if he wants to debate me 1x1 he's welcome. If he doesn't no shame. It's not a sign he's not smart of anything of the kind. Some people just don't like he format. so whatever he wants to do.
if he wants to debate then here we are.
I have two basic argument but I'll start with an overview:
My point is not to prove the existence of God. Since God is not given in sense data he can't be the object of empirical proof. Trying to subject God to empirical proof is like trying to demand empirical proof of the reality of experience or the laws of phsyics. Science accepts the potential existence of things that are not proved by empirical data, such as dark matter, string membranes and the like. We do expect that someday such things might be possible. Yet physicists have said string theory might be unprovable. muliverse and origin for the Bigbang might also be unprovable. no one stops talking about them. Scientists don't stop talking about it on that basis.
The atheist is trying to draw from the mystique of scinece and apply it even to matters that can't be proved. So they expect the scientific aura of truth to adhere even to matters that are unprovable by phsyics. But they refuse to accept it for religious ideas.
Therefore my goal in argument is not proof but warrant. I argue that belief in God is rationally warranted.I will demonstrate this with empirical proof. What is being proved is the warrant not the existence of God.
Warrant is basically like permission. It's saying if an idea is warranted there is a reason to believe it.
Now I will present three arguments that show rational warrant for belief. The first one is logical but is presented in abductive from. That is a scientific from of logic that makes make it into an hypothesis. It basically says what conditions would we expect to find if this state of affairs were true. The proof itself is logical.
The next two will be based upon empirical scientific evidence.
I. Argument from Transcendental Signifier.
________________________
Definitions
________________________
(1) Signifier:
The term used of written words in the linguistic theories know as "structuralism" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdinand Saussure. A signifier is a "mark," that is writing, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a physical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
(2) Signified
the reality to which a signifier points.
(3)Transcendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refers to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood. (Aka "TS").
(4) Transcendental Signified:
The corollary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Transcendental Signifiered The actual reality to which the Transcendental Signifier points.
(designated as "TSed")
________________________
Preliminary Observations:
the nature of the Christian
view of God
________________________
The Christian view of God is that of a example of the transcendental signified: The top of the metaphsyical hierarchy who not only creates the world but judges all truth, bestows all meaning and wiht it lends theological significance to the world.
________________________
If There is a God, We would expect to see:
________________________
I. Meaning would be bestowed in terms of a metaphysical hierarchy leading back to a universe sense of truth at the time and issuing a cascade of hierarchical organizing principles that bestow meaning by virtue of their authentication from the top.
II. We should see some kind of relationship between God and the TSed. or than the just the TS "God."
________________________
Argument: here's what we do see
________________________
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Transcendental Signifier, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we cannot organize the universe without a principle of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Hierarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
(5)The all pervasive nature of the TS is a good reason to assume that it's real.
6) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
7) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.
8)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.
rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.
________________________
If there is no God,
we should expect to see:
________________________
No meaning. Of cousre there would be hierarchical principles of language but the ultimate meaning would just break down, Derrida's principle of Deconstruction would work and his ultimate lat step would prove there is no ultimate meaning.
________________________
Here is what we do see:
________________________
Derrida follows the moves from Heidegger's Parmenides book. This means that both he and Heidegger affirm the inescapable nature of metaphysical hierarchies. Yes this undermines his whole project because deconstruction is an attempt to do away with metaphsyical hierarchies. Yet if they are inescapable then the project fails before it starts and there must be ultimate meaning some place. Thus we a good reason to believe that there is this all pervasive nature to Transcendental Signifiers, thus there must be a real TSed that actually does bestow meaning and theological significance.
if he wants to debate then here we are.
I have two basic argument but I'll start with an overview:
My point is not to prove the existence of God. Since God is not given in sense data he can't be the object of empirical proof. Trying to subject God to empirical proof is like trying to demand empirical proof of the reality of experience or the laws of phsyics. Science accepts the potential existence of things that are not proved by empirical data, such as dark matter, string membranes and the like. We do expect that someday such things might be possible. Yet physicists have said string theory might be unprovable. muliverse and origin for the Bigbang might also be unprovable. no one stops talking about them. Scientists don't stop talking about it on that basis.
The atheist is trying to draw from the mystique of scinece and apply it even to matters that can't be proved. So they expect the scientific aura of truth to adhere even to matters that are unprovable by phsyics. But they refuse to accept it for religious ideas.
Therefore my goal in argument is not proof but warrant. I argue that belief in God is rationally warranted.I will demonstrate this with empirical proof. What is being proved is the warrant not the existence of God.
Warrant is basically like permission. It's saying if an idea is warranted there is a reason to believe it.
Now I will present three arguments that show rational warrant for belief. The first one is logical but is presented in abductive from. That is a scientific from of logic that makes make it into an hypothesis. It basically says what conditions would we expect to find if this state of affairs were true. The proof itself is logical.
The next two will be based upon empirical scientific evidence.
I. Argument from Transcendental Signifier.
________________________
Definitions
________________________
(1) Signifier:
The term used of written words in the linguistic theories know as "structuralism" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdinand Saussure. A signifier is a "mark," that is writing, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a physical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."
(2) Signified
the reality to which a signifier points.
(3)Transcendental Signifier (TS):
The signification mark (word) which refers to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood. (Aka "TS").
(4) Transcendental Signified:
The corollary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Transcendental Signifiered The actual reality to which the Transcendental Signifier points.
(designated as "TSed")
________________________
Preliminary Observations:
the nature of the Christian
view of God
________________________
The Christian view of God is that of a example of the transcendental signified: The top of the metaphsyical hierarchy who not only creates the world but judges all truth, bestows all meaning and wiht it lends theological significance to the world.
________________________
If There is a God, We would expect to see:
________________________
I. Meaning would be bestowed in terms of a metaphysical hierarchy leading back to a universe sense of truth at the time and issuing a cascade of hierarchical organizing principles that bestow meaning by virtue of their authentication from the top.
II. We should see some kind of relationship between God and the TSed. or than the just the TS "God."
________________________
Argument: here's what we do see
________________________
(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.
(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)
(3) It is impossible to do without a Transcendental Signifier, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we cannot organize the universe without a principle of organizing.
(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Hierarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.
(5)The all pervasive nature of the TS is a good reason to assume that it's real.
6) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
7) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.
8)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.
rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.
________________________
If there is no God,
we should expect to see:
________________________
No meaning. Of cousre there would be hierarchical principles of language but the ultimate meaning would just break down, Derrida's principle of Deconstruction would work and his ultimate lat step would prove there is no ultimate meaning.
________________________
Here is what we do see:
________________________
Derrida follows the moves from Heidegger's Parmenides book. This means that both he and Heidegger affirm the inescapable nature of metaphysical hierarchies. Yes this undermines his whole project because deconstruction is an attempt to do away with metaphsyical hierarchies. Yet if they are inescapable then the project fails before it starts and there must be ultimate meaning some place. Thus we a good reason to believe that there is this all pervasive nature to Transcendental Signifiers, thus there must be a real TSed that actually does bestow meaning and theological significance.