The theist’s first principle, aka his answer to ultimate questions, is “God did it.”  That is my position.

Little Pig’s first principle, aka hi answer to ultimate questions, is “That’s just the way it is.”

So, the only relevant issue is to determine which of these is the more logically defensible.

Although, due to the misconceptions inherent in Little Pig’s casting of the theistic worldview, providing a blow-by-blow response would divert us from the topic at issue, I do want to make specific reference to Little Pig’s 1A.Cons, in which he claims that the theist view “[r]uns into the logical problem of infinite regression.”

This is precisely and exactly the opposite of the truth.  Even if one does not believe in God, it remains nonetheless true that asserting the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, who created literally everything, is not subject to this particular objection.  As matter of fact, Little Pig has mislabeled one of the theistic worldviews greatest STRENGTH’S as a weakness. 

The problem of infinite regression, as understood in both philosophy and science, is precisely the problem of “first principles” or “answers to ultimate questions” that we’ve been talking about all along. A system or method that suffers from infinite regression is one in which the starting point for an inquiry keeps changing, where each foundational presupposition requires another, and another, and another, ad infinitum.

This is precisely the case for “that’s just the way it is,” for any number of reasons. First, who’s to say that things are this way or that way? Light waves vs. light beams. Gravity vs. relativity. Second, “that’s just the way it is” is what is called an “empty conception.” There is not “there” there. It is a sufficiently vacuous statement as to have inspired a popular song that I used to listen to on construction sites in upstate New York (“That’s just the way it is.” FILL IN). 

Lest this appear to be some sort of ad hominem or straw man argument, allow me to stress the more substantive point that because “that’s just the way it is” is explicitly and necessarily devoid of content (no matter how strongly Little Pig may wish it were otherwise) it’s a cosmological Rorschach Test; it validates every viewpoint, and hence none.  It is thus fundamentally at odds with inquiry of any sort.  It may sound appealing in its ecumenical pragmatism, but like a sports car with a Yugo engine, it’s not going to do much once the proverbial rubber hits the road.

Furthermore, it is the “that’s just the way it is” view that suffers from infinite regression.  “That’s just the way it is” will always unavoidably base its inquiries on the latest bit of information or (hopefully informed) opinion, be it scientific, moral, aesthetic, or what have you.  There is no way around this. No matter how sophisticated the latest, greatest starting point may seem, it will remain precisely the “latest, greatest” thing. Does this make it right? Hardly. “Moving target” would be more like it.

So what is it that give this “moving target” substance?  Why does the non-theist even believe in the reality of his own inquiries?  Why does he assume that he is living in a real world, rather than in a dream? How does he know that he is not, in Hilary Putnam’s famous Cartesian one-liner, “a brain in a vat” (think “The Matrix” except the pods have only brains in them, rather than comatose bodies).

Why does the non-theist bother to study natural phenomena, such as light and sound, without any assurance that they will not change?  Even my favorite atheist philosopher, David Hume, claimed that reason could provide nothing like assurance in such questions, and that the belief—e.g.—that the sun would rise tomorrow is simply a habit, derived from experience.  There is no rational basis for the belief at all.

Thus, I submit that the reason is that the non-theist piggybacks (speaking of turtles) on the theist’s worldview.  

The non-theist cannot explain the consistency and uniformity of the world, yet uses it as a presupposition.  This is an illegitimate inference born of an illicit assumption. The illicit assumption is that the future will resemble the past, and illegitimate inference which issues from it is that simply accepting the world as it appears (aka “that’s just the way it is”).

To sum up, “that’s just the way it is” suffers from both infinite regression and its illicit assumption that the future will resemble the past.  The former invalidates it as a suitable starting point, and the latter reveals the non-theist’s reliance on the assumptions of a theistic worldview. To put this another way, God is the condition for the possibility of knowledge. To put it still another way, “that’s just the way it is” is a good 20-30 “turtles” up the pile from the ultimate turtle on which it stands.

That ultimate turtle (may He forgive me to saying so!) is, of course, God. The non-theistic turtle stands on a turtle who stands on a turtle who stands on a turtle . . . who stands on God.

Norman's objections to my objection #1: "My Turtle Can Beat Up Your Turtle" or "The Unsatisfying Ultimate Answer"

~ Norman ~
"So, my summary reply to Objection One is that the non-theist's "that's just how it is" is profoundly unsatisfying as either a basis of inquiry, or as an answer to ultimate questions.  Furthermore, the non-theist surrepticiously (and often unconsciously) borrows from the theist's worldview, without acknowledging the debt."

That's a pretty broad judgment, and I think much of it comes down to a subjective, almost aesthetic evalutation.  But let's take a look at each of those parts a bit closer.  I'll start with the unsatisfying ultimate answer and then go to the basis of inquiry.  The 'debt to theists' objection seems to really belong to the next big objection on abstractions which I'll try and deal with further down.

For starters, when I say 'that's just how it is,' I don't mean to be simplistic and dismissive of the ultimate questions.  But at some point there seems to be a need for a final turtle, and whichever one it is, well that's just how it is, whether that be material or God or whatever.  At some point something requires no further 'explanation' (mapping of causes).  Something IS, and that's that.  It is also possible that EVERYTHING IS (all possible scenarios somewhere), and that's that.  And that's just how it is.  IMO anyway.

So let's start comparing these turtles and see how they stack up.

As I see it, in the context of this discussion, there is a simple matrix of ultimate answers to the ultimate cosmological question of where IT all came from.  One dimension would be the actual source (God/Spirit/Mind vs Material) and the other dimension would be the chronology (eternal vs temporal).  And each answer can come in a variety of sub-flavors with ample support for turtles of all kinds.  There are probably more complete ways of representing all the options available, but I think focusing on these two aspects of possible scenarios and not others is useful for the purpose of theism vs non-theism.

1A. God/s (spirit/mind?) has always been and created everything.
This would be the traditional theist position.  Typically the god in question is defined in a very anthropomorphic way and is at least as complicated in nature as a human, but in most scenarios seems to be of such vast intellect, wisdom, power, etc. as to make it unimaginably complex.

PROS
Provides a causative label that can be applied to everything (material AND abstractions). 
CONS
Runs into the logical problem of infinite regression.  This causes God to act as container idea for another turtle problem, but one that would seem to forever trap God in the past due to the impossible (?) task of completing an infinite series of past 'moments.'  Sometimes this idea is camoflouged by the attempt to claim that God exists 'outside' of Time, but that is a very problematic notion in its own right.


1B. God/s (spirit/mind?) came into being (no prior cause) and created everything.

PROS
Provides a causative label that can be applied to everything (material AND abstractions).  It also avoids the infinite regression problem.
CONS
The intuitive discomfort around something coming from nothing only increases as the 'something' becomes more complex.  The jump from 'nothing' becomes a bigger one, and the jump from 'nothing' to something of infinite(?) complexity feels like a yawning chasm.


2A. Something (material) has always been and is the source of all that now is.

PROS
Provides a causative label that can be applied to everything (material - the source of abstractions).
CONS
Runs into the same logical problem of infinite regression that God does.  However, it is much easier to contrive 'out-of-Time' solutions to this problem than with a God whose anthropomorphic nature seems to forbid an exit from serial infinity.


2B. Something (material) came into being (no prior cause) and is the source of all that now is.

PROS
Provides a causative label that can be applied to everything (material - the source of abstractions).  It avoids the infinite regression problem.
CONS
Something coming from nothing will always give us a tingle of discomfort, no matter how small the 'something.'  But the something in question here (energy, maybe taking 'shape' as 'strings' with a few variable attributes allowing near infinite recombinations leading to humongous amounts of complexity all by its lonesome) is quite small, almost invisibly so, compared to the ginormously complex something called 'God.'  And there is no Law that I know of that would preclude something ULTIMATELY coming 'from' nothing.  It is simply an idea that feels very...weird.  But, as physics continues to suggest, weird is not necessarily wrong.


If I had to rank the turtles at this point, my favorite is 2A (with a little 'finagling,' all turtle discomfort can be avoided), then 2B (only a small amount of weirdness), followed by 1B (weirdness to the power of 'infinity'), and 1A bringing up the rear (illogical, Captain...).

So let's move on to the 'unsatisfying as a basis of inquiry' objection.  Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what is meant by that statement.  Rather than address the wrong objection in a case of mistaken strawman identity, I figure the best way to proceed is to answer some of your other related statements in a 'scattergun' approach.

~ Norman ~
"This position has overarching cosmological implications; it explains life, the universe, and everything in one fell swoop (or "one swell foop" as Dr. Spooner would say).  The existence of an omnipotent God makes everything fall into place from the scientific perspective.  It does not preclude rational discussion, but rather provides the best possible framework for it, since it provides a common point of reference, an entire 'worldview.'"

As noted before, the proposition of God does not so much 'explain' (map the causes of) the origin of the universe as it assigns a causative label to it.  For example, you could ask how life came to be.  A darwinist could say, 'It evolved.'  If that statement is the extent of his evolutionary theory, with no more detail than that, then no satisfying explanation has been given because there would seem to be many sub-level steps/causes involved.  Similarly, to explain the origin of 'all that is' simply by saying God created it is not to supply an explanation.  That is simply supplying a causative label.  We leave the conversation no wiser as to how any of this was done or how the 'supernatural' (whatever that is really supposed to mean) interacts with the 'natural.'

I'm not sure how God is supposed to provide a framework for the scientific perspective.  If that is a reference to the problem of abstractions, I'll get to that later.  If a fully fleshed out worldview is needed for scientific investigation, I think we may all be in trouble.  All our worldviews are incomplete, and I don't see how choosing one turtle over another will make any difference as to what 'laws' of nature we perceive.  And I don't see how a theistic position would alter or enhance any of our current science.  In the Christian version of theism, the Bible is regularly defended as a NON-scientific text.  And theism is regularly combined with Evolution without altering the Evolution side whatsoever.  In that scenario, God isn't always even directly necessary for Life.  If there is anything Christianity would change about science, it would be that there is another class of phenomena called 'miracles' or 'the supernatural' which have a relationship with natural phenomena that is not yet understood.  And I don't see anyone pursuing that angle with any seriousness.

The scientific method seems to be a good approach to discovering truths of limited scope about the universe.  These truths can be expanded as our ability to examine ever larger contexts improves.  Although knowing that ultimate turtle would give us the biggest context of all, giving that turtle a name and, at most, a vague description doesn't seem to affect what scientists do or what they find.

~ Norman ~
Conversely, the claim that "that's just how it is" is NOT a cosmological one.  Not only does it not provide an overarching framework, it indeed leaves anyone inquiring into the nature of things at an impasse.  If one is content with the proposition "things just are the way they are," one has already adopted a radically "pragmatic" standpoint, inherently antithetical (and perhaps even antipathetical) to theory of any sort.

Actually "that's just how it is" is not meant to be the actual turtle, only the floor that the final turtle stands on.  Although we would all like to know what that final turtle is, it doesn't make sense (IMO) to claim it is one thing or another without some observation/experience that requires such a claim.  IMO there are many possibilities.  I have some favorites, but I don't have to place faith in any one in particular to continue a cosmological investigation.  However, we may indeed be at an impasse on that last turtle.  I personally think we always will be at an impasse because all our tools of observation and measurement require something which may prevent us from poking our heads out of some particular turtle in the stack: Time.  This may indeed be a pragmatic observation, but it does not seem 'inherently antithetical (and perhaps even antipathetical) to theory of any sort.'  Arbitrarily inventing a final turtle without any good reason seems, if anything, 'antipathetical to theory' since it establishes a turtle as truth without verification or support of any kind.

~ Norman ~
Perhaps I am over-stating things, though.  Perhaps the intent is for "that's just how it is" to be a reply only to "ultimate" questions such as "Why is there morality?" or "What is the source of the laws of logic?"  Indeed, that is probably a better (and certainly more charitable) way of reading it.  Even then, this is ultimately unworkable because, as already noted, it provides no grand framework, no means of unifying diverse disciplines under anything like "universal" knowledge.  Indeed, the "crisis of reason" that Western intellectuals have been discussing for over a century coincides almost precisely with the collapse of widespread religious belief among the intelligensia.  God is, among other things (indeed, EVERYthing) the source of reason, so this should come as no surprise.

I don't see how God makes diverse disciplines any more unified than they would be without God.  If the material universe is unified/harmonious in its composition, that in itself would be a source of unity in the disciplines that study it.  And placing God in one's worldview doesn't seem to help us out of whatever epistemological pit that perceptually limited subjectivity creates for us.  Many leaps of faith must be launched to land on the shore of Christian theism even after one accepts a god into their worldview.  And once that landing is made, the view of the heavens is only further clouded by many mysterious wings of angels and other personalities.  Christianity thrives more on mystery than explanation, more on fog than clarity (IMO, of course).

~ Norman ~
Additionally, I don't think that any scientist actually thinks this way (although, as a non-scientist, I may be wrong about that).  Scientists are always looking for the next "turtle" on which the one they already know about is "standing."

Exaclty.  And I don't think they find that next turtle by choosing what it will be before they have any clue what it is.  The closest they come to that is through modeling complex systems, a process similar to your presuppositional apologetics where 'best fit' is meant to win.

~ Norman ~
There is nothing objectionable about this, of course, and one of the creation myths I've ever read is "The Big Bang."  It may be true, but even The Big Bang is nothing more than the ultimate "turtle," one that can stand on itself.  Here again, the non-theist view fails cosmologically, as it cannot give any further answer, other than "that's just how it is."  It seems quite pragmatic, but is not an effective foundation for anything.

There's no reason to think the Big Bang is the last turtle.  There has actually been some suggestion that we may be able to 'look' at conditions that led up to it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm

The ultimate explanation does not serve as the foundation for science.  Empirical observation is that foundation, as I believe it is for all human understanding, even all the subjective claims of 'relationships' with God.  When it comes to God, theists can give no further answer because God is 'just how it is.'  The last turtle is where the buck stops, and it serves as the ultimate explanation (assuming we understand it or have enough information to actually understand something).  Nothing more is necessary.  But science starts at the other end and works its way out toward that ultimate turtle.  It doesn't start with the ultimate turtle and come back around full circle.

~ Norman ~
But there's a lot more to it than just that.  The Christian understanding of these fields also permits an explanation for the regularity and predictability of each of them.  I have yet to hear a thorough, persuasive, non-theistic explanation for why laws of logic and mathematics exhibit such amazing precision and regularity.  Saying "that's just how it is" may seem good enough to explain today, but what about tomorrow, or yesterday?  Why do these laws not change?  After all, just about everything else does.  Apply this to the laws of physics.  Why should we not have "heavy" gravity days--when even a walk to the corner store is an ordeal--and "light" days--when we all feel like Carl Lewis (showing my age there, eh?)?  Some days are rainy, and some are sunny.  The weather changes.  Why not gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics?

I have yet to hear a thorough, persuasive, THEISTIC explanation for why laws of logic and mathematics exhibit such amazing precision and regularity. I don't see a connection between these and the Christian God other than a claimed connection.  If anything, the universe seems to be founded upon a different logic than that of the proposed God who can either have an infinite past or act while 'frozen' in a time-less state, both of which seem to defy our logic.  I'll go into detail more on the abstraction objection below.

Why do our laws do not change on a regular basis?  Well, if things behave the way they do (follow such-and-such law) because of WHAT they are, then doing something different or random would require that the object in question change into something different or constantly change in a random fashion.  In a causal system, this would require a great many more causes than not changing at all which would essentially require no cause.  I don't think it requires a God to keep things from changing randomly all by themselves.  Now maybe if we lived in a universe created by a God who brought itself into existence or suddenly started its own Time clock or continued to change itself randomly, we would expect the universe it created to go around changing itself since theists correlate the characteristics of this universe with those of the creator.  This question assumes that effects regularly cause themselves in this universe (which is contrary to experience).  If such is the case, it might be that no god is needed to explain this material effect we see today.

That is:

if (no God = anti-persistence [not to be confused with anti-perspirant])
and if (anti-persistence = auto-causation [and these admittedly may not be fully equivalent terms])
then (no God = viable and most elegant turtle of all)

~ Norman ~
The point is that the theist has a basis not merely for explaining why the world is the way it is; he can also has a basis for projecting his knowledge into the future.  Since the laws of logic, mathematics, and physics--among others--have their basis in God's very nature, the theist's knowledge of God's unchanging nature explains why these laws are immutable.  The non-theist can really use these laws, but when he assumes that they will be the same tomorrow as they are today, he is at best projecting from past (limited) human experience into the future.  In so doing, he is borrowing from the theist's worldview, and in this case from the Christian worldview specifically.

Claiming that the universe has the characteristics it has because God has those same characteristics seems something of a non sequitur.  However, claiming that God chose to create the universe that way for whatever reason would not be.  However, it would merely be a claim.  I think the theist should be careful about claiming that God could not have created the universe in any other way because that impacts later discussions of Free Will, and it almost reduces God to 'nature.'  If anything the Christian God seems anti-mathematical (a 3-person godhead = 1 God and is a monotheistic concept), anti-logical (already addressed), and anti-physical in its supernatural nature, whatever that is.  So holding to a concept of God seems to be of no help in these disciplines that non-theists supposedly can't practice on their own.

~ Norman ~
There has never been a society of non-theists.  There is a good reason for this.  Human beings are cosmological by nature, which is to say that we want, indeed NEED, answers to ultimate questions.  We need to know who we are, where we came from, and why we are.  No society will long endure without a sense of self born of a common identity.  Everyone has a "god," or perhaps "totem" is a better word.  A person who does not worship God will worship something else, most often himself in one form or another.  As science fragments into innumerable sub-disciplines, under the pressure of both specialization and the ongoing crisis of reason, there is less and less binding knowledge together.  Knowledge is sought for the sake of knowledge, and ultimately becomes a game--a species of "turf protection." ....

There is more that follows, but it didn't seem to be an argument I needed to address.  I half expect you aren't really meaning what this argument sounds like.  What we emotionally NEED as humans is hardly a good way to determine what that last turtle is.  Humans have historically shown some poor tendencies in their thinking, and that's why we struggle to master rule systems (logic) to clean up our thinking.  We are terribly prone to magical thinking, and I suspect that sort of sloppy cause-effect connecting has led to the creation of many superstitions.  This also happens in animals who, like us, will tend to associate things by chronological immediacy rather than reasoned causality.  Human beings also tend to explain things based on what they already know.  This is something that artists do all the time when they use metaphors.  In the attempt to satisfy our curiosity about the world and establish a narrative and context for our lives, we have created many interesting and obviously metaphorical explanations based on what we know best, ourselves.  I suspect that is why we anthropomorphize everything, and it might be why our gods are all 'people' or 'animal-people.'

So my summary reply to your objections toward non-theist turtles is that you are claiming answers to unnecessary questions and not properly evaluating real isues surrounding the theist turtle.  In some circles this might be called 'padding your resume.'

Norman's objections to my objection #2: "But for the will of God, turtles would be hares, dogs and cats would be living together... mass hysteria!" or "Without God, Chaos would reign." or something like that...

~ Norman ~
It is true that "law" is a name applied to observed phenomenon, but I think that this is more a linguistic squabble than a substantive one.  One can easily reframe the issue to ask how it is that a non-theist can explain why light, e.g., behaves in a certain way, or why the denial of a false proposition is always true (law of the excluded middle).  As noted in the previous objection, the non-theist can also not explain why these laws persist, rather than changing (like the weather or the seasons).

I did say it was a subtle argument, and I think it is much more than linguistic.  But now you aren't requiring an explanation for the existence of Laws and abstractions.  You are asking for an explanation of consistency in 'that which is' from one moment to the next (persistence).  We have switched the question from why ALL light behaves similarly to why all light CONTINUES to behave similarly.  I've already addressed this basic question above with the solution that 'inconsistency' requires more causality and 'consistency' requires no causality.

~ Norman ~
I actually agree with Little Pig's claim that 'stuff' and 'law' in this case mean very much the same thing.  Consequently, I believe that this objection falls short for the same reason as the first objection, viz. that the non-theist can give a best a descriptive, rather than a normative, account for the things that are.  Heck, the non-theist doesn't even have any theoretical basis to trust his senses.  How can the non-theist know that he is really seeing what he is seeing?  What reason does he have to believe that the world around him has any basis in "reality' at all?  For that matter, what is "reality"?

As noted above, the theist causative label does not give a better normative account than non-theist labels.  Attributing the characteristics of this universe to the Christian God is, at best, a non sequitur and, at worst, contradictory.

And non-theists do have a 'theoretical' basis for trusting their senses, for the most part anyway.  There are theories that explain the non-supernatural workings of our senses and how they relate to the physical world around us.  Of course, trusting our senses and empirical observation in general is axiomatic and beyond full substantiation for everyone. This is another turtle game for everybody, theists included. I have often heard theists claim that this 'world' is not real, or at least as real as God's reality.  This would seem to suggest that some theists very much believe they cannot trust their senses, at least not when it contradicts dogma.

I promised to address abstractions a bit more, so I'll try and do that here. 

Math.  I hate math.  But it's awfully useful because it helps us to understand our universe. It helps us because it describes the relationships of quantities, i.e. abstractions (rules) about abstractions (groups/sets) that correspond to many facets of the interaction of multiple, discrete objects in our universe.  Like other laws and abstractions, math flows from objects themselves.  If there was no apparent discreteness at some level of our reality, would we have discovered the math that we now have?  Is a god required for us to have math?  Well, not unless a god is required for the existence of 'stuff.'  Math, like logic, is constructed from axioms that cannot be proven.  We have axioms because they are 'observed' empirically.  a=b, b=c, a=c. A cannot be A and not-A. From axioms come theorems.  We can change the axioms and build self-consistent systems of theorems, but when the axioms no longer match observation, I think the theorems also get out of whack.

So laws, abstractions, math, logic, physics, etc. are actually our efforts to describe things and their interactions.  They do not exist in and of themselves and require no extra explanation.  What requires explanation is 'stuff.'

Norman's objections to my objection #3: "Romancing the Infinity" or "Humans are only able to perceive infinity because God made it to be so."

~ Norman ~
Infinity is a tough one.  It's possible that man got the idea of infinity from staring at the ocean, but I don't think so.  Animals stare at the ocean, too, but when they do so, they're usually looking for food.  Why do WE look at the ocean differently?  I believe that the most reasonable explanation is that our longing for infinity comes from our innate intuition of divinity.

That may be so, but I'm not sure how you arrive at that particular conclusion or why you would preclude the possibility that humans, when looking at something inconceivably vast (i.e. the ocean, sands on the seashore, the stars) could develop a concept of something uncountable, unlimited, beyond the imagination.  That seems a very reasonable explanation needing nothing supernatural.  You imply that there is some significance in the difference between our own imaginations and that of other animals.  I agree that our imaginations are much more powerful than other animals and that we use abstractions in a much more complicated way, but I don't see how that means we intuit divinity.

Personally, I don't even 'believe' in infinities.  It is a concept useful in math, but I think that infinity represents unbounded POTENTIAL and not the ACTUAL.  'Everything that is' (IMO) is actually finite.  If any THING in our universe was infinite, it would infinitely overwhelm all of that which is finite when interacting with it.  Infinities are just too infinite to play nice.

~ Norman ~
Here the case is not nearly as strong as in the first two cases, but only because the evidence there was more objective.  Here, some subjectivity in required, as this question touches the very essence of what it means to be a human being.  What is the source of the "tingle" we feel when we stare at the heavens on a cloudless night, far the lights and bustle of the madding crowd.  Why do we yearn (for what, though?  we know not) when staring at the vastness of the sea?  Is it Darwin calling us back to our "home"?  Perhaps.  Is that what it FEELS like, though?  Or does it feel like you're faced with something, an apparent--though not actual--infinity, that reminds you of something you can't quite place, the vaguest sort of deja vu, where not only are you not sure you're seen it before--you're not even sure what it is that you're seeing.

I'm going to pass on trying to 'divine' what turtles may exist based on tingles inspired by the ocean.  We feel many things for many reasons, most of which are probably unexamined and poorly understood.

~ Norman ~
Immanuel Kant tried to wrap his very respectable, very decent, very atheistic, and very Prussian head around this very question in the 18th century.  In what is probably the best known portion of his third masterwork, The Critique of Judgment, tried to explain our intuition of infinity as related to our aethetic reaction to something--like the seemingly limitless ocean--that does violence to the imagination by exceeding its grandest limits.  Even this brilliant "analytic of the sublime" fails to get to the heart of things, though.  WHY do we have this reaction?  Even Kant was forced to conclude, in effect, that "that's just the way it is" or, to put the same thought somewhat differently, "it's turtles all the way down."

Actually, my intuition and reason tell me it's not turtles all the way down.  The notion of infinity is indeed mind-blowing.  It doesn't take much to put a hurt on the head.  But a million of anything also hurts my head, and a million is 'nothing' compared to infinity.  I think the feeling of the sublime is the same feeling that 'a million' has (if a number could have feelings) when it compares itself to infinity, or even 963 billion.  It is the feeling of being as nothing, of being absolutely dwarfed.  It is the vertigo of being on the small end of magnitudes and scale.

Thanks for the interesting thoughts, Norman.  As you can see, they inspired me to try and put a lot of my own into somewhat clear words.  Philosophers and infinities work together to maintain a price floor on Tylenol.

- L.Pig

So with that kind of encouragement at my back, it’s a joy to continue what I started last time.

I had hoped that “lonestarblues” (hereafter “LSB”) would accept my invitation to debate me here, but so far he has declined. So, rather than try to return my own serve by pretending to be on both sides of the issue, I will simply do my best to make the presuppositional case for the reasonableness of the theistic worldview.

As a brief opening comment, I want to mention that there is of course a considerable difference between the general theistic worldview and the more specific Christian worldview. The Christian worldview is a type of theistic worldview. I am an apologist (in the sense of “apologetics” or “defense”) for Christianity, a religion established and blessed my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since my Lord and Savior lived as Jew—and the Christian faith has its roots deep in the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures—a Jewish apologist and I would find much to agree on. Indeed, we would most likely differ seriously only the question of the divinity of Christ, which is a central question for inter-faith dialogue, but not directly relevant to the specific question of theism. 

Similarly, a Muslim apologist making the case for the theistic worldview could use many of the same arguments that I use when making my case—although we would probably agree on little in terms of specific theological elements, except perhaps the central role of Abraham as a shared forefather of our respective faiths.

Since true theism is necessarily monotheistic (a question I’d love to address at some later date, should anyone evince an interest), I should state that I explicitly limit theism to monotheistic religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In what follows, I will first make the case for a general theistic worldview, albeit from a Christian perspective and using Christian references. 

Once I have done so to the best of my ability, I will move on to make the case for a specifically Christian worldview. Today, I will limit myself to the former objective.

First of all, what is “theism”? My working definition (subject to correction should anyone find a problem with it) is “the belief in a creative, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being who takes a direct interest in the lives and activities of his creatures.”

A theist, consequently, is anyone who holds such a belief.

So, what’s so “reasonable” about being a theist? How is it a sign of intellectual maturity, or a well-developed faculty of reason, to “punt” on every single ultimate question by giving some variant of “God did it?”

On the surface, indeed, this seems to be the very essence of ignorance and superstition. Even so, the presuppositional apologist stands his ground and calmly insists—through the predictable mockery and confusion of non-theists—that “God” is the answer, in one form or another, to every ultimate question.

Let us say that the question being debated is the following: “Is Belief in God Rational?” I have learned that non-theists are getting a bit sensitive about being called “atheists” (for reasons that I’ve not quite fathomed), and also object to any suggestion that their worldview requires any “faith” at all. So, I have framed the question in as neutral a manner as I know how. 

The debate begins. The theist claims that God is the necessary condition for all standards, be they moral, spiritual, or physical. In other words, God is the Author of the laws of physics, the laws of logic, and literally everything else—including the intuitive knowledge that every normal human being has—irrespective of race or religion—of God’s will (as expressed in both the Mosaic Law, and—more completely and eloquently—in Jesus’ teaching that we are love the Lord our God with all of our heart, spirit, soul, and mind—and our neighbors as ourselves. God is also the Author of the “natural law” that non-theists are so fond of invoking, as well as of “human nature.”

Since Christian theist believes this, he has a ready answer to any ultimate question. 

Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? God. 

Why do human beings have the ability to do higher mathematics? Because God created mathematics, and made human beings sufficiently rational to understand it. 

Why is it wrong to commit murder? Because God says it is.

Etc.

The non-theist will not accept any of these answers, and will say so. The theist should preempt this objection by saying something to the effect of, “Now my opponent may not LIKE my answer to these ultimate questions, but I do HAVE an answer. Let’s see what HIS answers are. Then the question will be for the audience to decide which of us has the more reasonable presupposition(s).”

The well-prepared non-theist will have any number of good replies and challenges. Since I’m not trying to return my own serve, but rather to make the presuppositional case FOR the reasonableness of theism, I’ll mention only the retort that I have found to the most comment, viz.: “Is something moral just because God says it is, or does God say that things are moral because they already are?”

It’s one of those questions that clever high-school sophomores think is a real show-stopper, but it’s not at all hard to answer—if you avoid stepping in the middle of the bear trap. 

As with most false dilemmas, the key is not to let either of the dilemma’s “horns” skewer you, but to stand between them.

One effective answer is: “It is an intrinsic part of God’s nature to be moral. God is the standard of morality, so this is a typically obtuse ‘chicken or the egg’ question that aims to reduce a question that has challenged the greatest minds in human history to kindergarten level. God cannot do three things: He cannot sin, He cannot lie, and He cannot die. Everyone here has done the first two, and we’re all on our way toward the third. This is not true of God. Thus, God can no more sin than I can fly to the moon. It’s absolutely contrary to His nature. So, the answer to your false dilemma is the following: the things that God says are moral ARE in fact moral because God Himself is the standard of goodness and morality, who being morally perfect could never approve of anything that did not meet his perfect standards of morality.”

(You’ll likely be accused of avoiding the question, to which you may retort, “Well, if you asked me if I preferred to die my hanging or electrocution, I’d say ‘neither, I prefer to live, thank you very much.’ Present me with a false choice, and you can expect me to call you on it, as I have just done.” Don’t let anyone sucker you into answer this question as an “either/or.” It’s a dishonest, fallacious question. It commits the fallacy of “false dichotomy” aka “false choice” or “false dilemma. A well-prepared non-theist will have this one waiting for you. It’s a standard move, and depending on the audience you’ll probably lose a few “points” here. You may even get laughed at (again, depending almost entirely on the audience).  Don’t worry, though, you’ll get yours back later. Keep reading.)

So having established his presupposition, that God is the author of all things, it falls to the non-theist to do the same.

Now HE must give an account of where HE believes such things as the laws of nature, laws of logic, and the laws of mathematics come from. He can also be pressed to explain where natural law, morality, and human nature come from, but you need to be careful with this. 

A skillful non-theist can get you in a rhetorical headlock here by invoking evolutionary psychology. Whatever you think of evolution, it’s bunk to claim that evolutionary psychology (or anything like it) has been proven to be the source of anything. (There are of course standard responses to such claims, which I’ll be delighted to go into if anyone expresses an interest. This is FUN!)

If you can at least parry the non-theists thrusts on morality, natural law, human nature, and the like, you can then proceed to pummel him on the more abstract items, such as the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics.  

Here’s the key to it all: The non-theist CANNOT answer such questions, without resorting to intellectual legerdemain, because the non-theist cannot consistently appeal to any non-material standard.  This—rather than questions of morality, natural law, and the like—is the Achilles’ heel of the non-theist, so you can count on him to do almost anything to avoid giving a straight answer. 

If the non-theist says something like “the laws of mathematics are a convention, agreed to by mathematicians,” ask him how discoveries in mathematics are possible, if mathematics is essentially just the invention of a bunch of “smart apes.”

If the non-theist says something like “the laws of mathematics arise from man’s interaction with the natural world,” ask him to explain how the first mathematically inclined human came up with the notion of square roots.

The final kicker: Ask him where the concept of “infinity” came from? If there is nothing infinite (viz. “God”) in the universe, whence came the concept of that which is without limitation? (Don’t push this too hard, or you’ll look like you’re trying to prove something. Don’t try to PROVE anything. All you have to do is to show that your opponent cannot justify his presuppositions. That’s IT. 

That’s the “negative” end of the exposition. In other words, that’s what you have to do to show that the non-theist cannot answer basic questions about the presuppositions inherent within his own worldview.

You can then make the case for the reasonableness of the theistic worldview. Some people try to claim that they have proven not only that it is reasonable to believe in God, but also the fact of God’s existence.  That’s going out on a long limb, but I’ve seen it done with great success (albeit only against a weak non-theist). My recommendation is to limit yourself to proving BOTH that your view IS reasonable, and that your opponent’s is NOT.

By this point, you will have already successfully done the latter, so only the former remains. There are many ways to come at this. 

Historically, EVERY human society has believed in some form of deity.  ALL of the most advanced societies in history have been religious, and began to decline when they fell away from their historical, religious underpinnings.

Psychologically and sociologically, only people who have been actively weaned AWAY from religious worldviews reject them. Religiosity is the default position of human nature (you know, the one that your opponent can’t explain, but which you CAN). It is more than a little arrogant for a tiny minority of people, non-theists, to blithely dismiss a universal sentiment that has characterized human beings since our beginnings. (Again, you have to be careful not to get over-confident here, or you’ll find yourself in another headlock. Don’t present this as a proof; it’s not one. It’s just another indication of the burden of proof that the non-theist should rightly be asked to meet, and which he cannot.) 

Scientifically, theism can explain what non-theism cannot.  God created the universe, which is why laws of nature, mathematics, and logic (unter alia) are both uniform and discovered independently by human societies well before they had anything to do with each other, or even knew of each others’ existence.

Collectively, this evidence—if properly presented—can overwhelm even the best prepared, most talented non-theist.  Against a weak non-theist, it can be absolutely devastating, as in the famous “Great Debate” between the late Christian apologist, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and the atheist oceanographer, Dr. Gordon Stein.

I hope that this has been informative for the theist and non-theist alike.

Next time, “Why CHRISTIAN Theism?”

I’ll be checking the comments, and will do my best to respond ASAP.  

Thanks!

I burned up so much time over there yesterday that I haven’t got much left today (fell behind on work, in fact, and have to catch up).  Even so, I owe one poster in particular (lonestarblues) a response, and will try to do so here in such a way as to be relevant to a larger audience as well.

Presuppositional apologetics begins with the premises that, first, everyone has a worldview, and, second, every worldview embraces certain (usually unacknowledged) presuppositions.  This is equally true of both theistic and non-theistic worldviews.  While some theists are reluctant to acknowledge that their faith can be rationally challenged by honest, intelligent non-believers, it has been my experience that the people who are most threatened by an exploration of their presuppositions are non-theists.  There are many reasons for this, but most commonly it’s simply because they’ve never had to think it through—so they haven’t.  Quite natural.

Without meaning to slight in any way the several earnest—and to my mind both intellectually capable and honest—people with whom I’ve “sparred” (hopefully in a respectful manner, as I’ve tried to do), I think that my exchanges with “lonestarblues” have been the most illustrative of the value of the presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics.

The discussion has revolved around the broad question of the source of morality. That is, where does morality come from, and—concomitantly—to what moral standard can one appeal when making moral judgments?

My basic presupposition is that “Morality is what God says it is.”  This sounds terribly simple-minded to most non-theists, but there is a great deal more to this statement than meets the eye.

Lonstarblues has rested morality on natural law.  When pressed on the foundation for natural law, he claimed that natural law was based on human nature. When I pressed him to clarify the foundation of human nature, he referred me to the writings of various thinkers on the subject while, to his credit, being quite clear that he was NOT merely invoking these figures as debate-ending authority figures.

(Note to Lonestar—feel free to post to your heart’s content here, of course, particularly if you think I have misrepresented you in any way.  I have certainly tried to avoid misrepresenting you, but you can speak for yourself better than I can, of course.  I’ll do my best to respond to any posts ASAP. Tell you what: if you want, I’ll add you as an authorized “poster” to the blog, and you can respond in detail in the blog itself, rather than just in the comments section.  I think that would be a lot of fun. Really.  Please let me know if you want to do that.  Thanks.)

Here’s the problem, though, “human nature” is very nebulous starting point (or what is called in philosophy a “first principle”) for a discussion of morality.  The ultimate question is “where does morality come from”? As with all things, morality MUST have a source, whether that source is said to be human evolution, the interaction of human beings with their environment, genetics, upbringing, etc.

So, simply citing “human nature” won’t do, unless and until it is made clear what the source is for human nature.

My particular debate with lonestarblues, while valuable and stimulating, is not the main point, however.  The main point is that eventually ANYONE in any debate will have to say, “just because” or some variant of it.

In the case of my fruitful and interesting discussion with lonestarblues, I reached my “just because” stage when I made plain my presupposition that morality is what God says it is. That is not an empirical fact, and when arguing with a non-theist, appealing to the Bible is obviously “out” as a legitimate debating move.

If lonestarblues says that human nature just IS and can’t be further defined, then THAT will be his presupposition.

At that point, it will be incumbent upon each of us to defend our respective presuppositions (or first principles) in the face of rational scrutiny from the other side.  

Should each of our presuppositions pass muster, it will be reasonable for either of us to hold to our beliefs, even in the face of the other person’s disagreement.  Nothing will have been proven, exactly, EXCEPT that neither he nor I will be entitled to disparage the other’s view as irrational or unfounded.

We will still disagree, in all likelihood, but we will both have earned a seat at the table of rational discourse for both us and our respective viewpoints.

If either he or I fail to demonstrate the reasonableness of our presuppositions—or our presuppositions are found to rest surreptitiously on other, unfounded claims—whoever fails in this regard will NOT gain the aforementioned right to a seat at the table of rational discourse.

Thus, in closing, presuppositional apologetics is not so much concerned with proving the TRUTH of anything, so much as it is interested in proving that theism is REASONABLE, and indeed that it is MORE reasonable than non-theism.

That is what I believe, and that is what I hope to be able to show, DV.

All "law" has an author. I see only three possibilities, but feel free to enlighten me if I have missed something.

First, some believe that the ultimate source of law is God. This group includes serious adherents of all theistic faiths, as well as most Deists. As a Christian, this is what I believe.

Second, there is the “consensus” camp, which holds that law is simply a convention that emerges via a cultural consensus among reasonable people.

Third, law can be regarded as a kind of outgrowth of evolutionary psychology.  That is, morality and law along with human beings.

Of these three, only the first is logically tenable.  (That doesn’t mean it’s true, necessarily, but it does mean that the other two are false.)

If that’s still not clear enough, think about the moral basis on which a “consensus” person (which I’m guessing is where you fit in) would condemn the Holocaust.  Why is it wrong to kill millions of people. Seriously. Why is it wrong? The Nazis thought they were doing good. The Allies killed millions of people in WWII.  Are we the same as Nazis? After all, we were all killers.  What’s the difference?

Before you start with “Well, the victims of the Holocaust were innocent,” what about the 12-year-old German “Pfadfinder” (Boy Scouts) who were forced to fight for the Nazis at the end of the war? Weren’t they “innocent,” too?

Still another example. I’m assuming that you condemn the Islamofascists who attacked us on 9/11.  Why? Weren’t they just expressing their “voices” in protesting the decadence and evil of the American “Great Satan”? (What’s scary is that a lot of people actually believe this.  Such moral idiocy is where the consensus argument ultimately leads.)

The “evolutionary” argument falls pray to much the same criticism.  If different people evolve differently, then aren’t there different standards of morality.  In fact, the Nazis used something very much like this to justify their superiority over the Jews, Christians, homosexuals, gypsies, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, et al. whom they slaughtered during the Holocaust. So this approach also fails to explain rationally why murder is wrong.

The theist (especially the Christian) has an answer.  These things are wrong because they violate the law that God gave to us. The theist has a first principle: God. The atheist will not be satisfied with that, naturally, but it’s more than the atheist has.  The atheist must (ahem!) “borrow” from the theist, in order to justify his worldview.  This is why every officially atheist society always devolves into barbarism: there are no enforceable, universally recognized standards of conducts, so atheism inevitably becomes Hobbes’ war of all against all in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

God provides the basis for your morality, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.  That works fine as long as no one challenges you to justify what you believe, as I am doing.  So, please give it some thought. You are blessed to have a Christian wife, a union I find quite interesting and indeed emblematic in a way.  As atheists are always forced to rely on their oft-despised theist parents, friends, and neighbors for moral direction, so too does an atheist husband have an unappreciated “pipeline to divinity” in a Christian wife.  You’re lucky in that, and I pray that one of these Sundays you’ll give your wife the chance to show you something of how she sees the world from a “God’s eye” view.

Blessings to you and yours.

Best,

Norman

I'll do my best to give equally thoughtful answers, without (hopefully) being too gaseous. :-)

You ask: "Can atheist (sic) be just as moral as Christians?"

Absolutely. I have known some wonderful atheists, and some truly rotten Christians. Heck, some people think I'M a rotten Christian! :-)

As an only child in a basically secular household ("Sword of Light" is thinking "Aha, so THAT explains the 'chip'!"), I grew up surrounded by adults--some of the most decent atheists one could ever hope to meet. The key, though, is that they weren't "really" atheists, just as I suspect that you aren't "really" an atheist. (I intend no offense, and will explain my meaning.) Their conduct was guided by the standards and beliefs they internalized as children from their parents. This "moral osmosis" allowed them to lead often exemplary lives, and to be very decent people, without adopting their parents' religious worldview--or so they thought.

In fact, what they believed to be their own man-made, ethical code was essentially that of their religious parents--just without the religious part.

So far, so good. Decent people, wonderful lives. No God taking up valuable weekend hours and making them feel guilty all the time. Sounds great, no?

The trouble is that their moral code had no foundation. None. To put this in the egghead terms I used as a professor, they had the "praxis" (roughly, "habit") but had lost the "arche" (the root or basis). They knew what to do, but could not provide a rational justification for it. 

So, a person without a divinely-oriented worldview can be very decent person, but can't pass it on very well. "Dad, WHY should I refrain from cheating/work hard/not sleep around/show mercy to others/show generosity/be forgiving, etc.?" "Well, because it's the right thing to do." "Why?" "Er, um, well, I . . ."