(March 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Atheistic stances place a larger number of phenomena into the “brute facts” category. Naturalistic philosophies have a few more ‘brute facts’ that many atheists feel need no further explanation. Such phenomena include:[I numbered them for easier reference]
1) the link between efficient causes and their effects
2) the world’s apparent ability to ‘self-organize’
3) the validity of rational thought
4) the persistence of being despite change, etc.
Not really sure what you're saying about 1). How exactly do you think that naturalists hold this to be a brute fact and yet you (and other theists) do not? Further, given that philosophical discussions on the metaphysics of causation persists even to this day - and almost uniformly done by atheists and/or naturalist philosophers - I find it dubious that all of them simply relegate it to a brute fact if theists found a way to avoid such.
As for 2), again, this seems to terminate in a brute fact in your worldview as well. We have promising potential answers from physics via the phenomenon of entropy. But in your worldview it would, I presume, terminate in God's will which doesn't seem a very good answer at all.
3) This is a can of worms I didn't expect from you. :o You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?
Rational thought is valid by definition. By 'rational thought', we means a means of argumentation that follows what we consider correct structure and inference rules. The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom. One can [try and] reject it, but no one will take you seriously.
Further, if you disagree with me here, your own worldview would seem to have the same brure fact. God cannot account for the validity of logic and reason in any way, as even if I assume God exists, I don't see how that could change the grounding for these things in any sense.
4) Not sure how naturalists are any more at 'fault' here than any other worldview.
Quote:What needs explaining is not any particular fact; but rather, how they all work together harmoniously. Philosophical inquires look for common principles able to unite these disparate aspects of reality. I believe that panentheism gives a more ontologically complete picture of fundamental reality than its atheistic counterparts.
Not sure I'm following you here. Facts don't have to 'work together harmoniously'. Sure they have to be consistent (unless one thinks that actual contradictions are a metaphysical possibility) but facts don't 'work together'. I suppose you mean the framework(s) within which we interpret the facts must be harmonious, as that's the only way I can make sense of what you're saying.
Eh, I've run into panentheism before, mostly by quantum woo quacks on YouTube such as some guy calling himself "InspiringPhilosophy" (unsurprisingly, he does no such thing...), and it [panentheism] has its own share of problems which I think unearth some fundamental weaknesses in your worldview (I can unpack this if you want).
Quote:Panentheism means “within God”. As such the sensible world sits within a larger reality or God. In concept, this view is similar to Plotinus’s wherein the “All” corresponds with God and the “Many” corresponds with sensible reality. By applying reason to sensible reality anyone can deduce two fundamental principles of reality, discernable in thought, but not in actuality: primal matter and informing principle. Primal matter refers to that of which all things are made and which has the potential to be anything that could possibly be. The informing principle supplies primal matter with essential natures and lawfully constrains its potency. Together these provide a framework for uniting the disparate 'brute facts."
I have discussed both these principles at length elsewhere, but hope that the additional context will yield a more fruitful conversation.
I'll skip over the primal matter and informing principle bit, since we've already had a little back and forth on it, and it's possible I just don't understand (or have the patience to).
More interesting, I think holding to panetheism causes some real contradictions and tensions in your worldview, which I'll detail if asked (this post is getting a tad long).
