Late in 2007, a courageous Christian dropped a handful of one of our tracts (“The Atheist Test”) at a gathering of atheists, who meet once a month at the local IHOP at the John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California. The atheists then invited me to join them for dinner on January 8th, 2008. They requested that I get there an hour early to “set a baseline,” because some of their members "do get a bit hot headed when discussing religion.” I accepted their invitation and decided to take my manager with me (Mark Spence is the Dean of the "School of Biblical Evangelism"). Before we went I got permission to also take a handheld HD camera. I was determined not to go there to win an argument, but to simply show that I deeply cared for them as people, as most atheists seem to have the impression that Christians don’t like them. We arrived about five minutes early, shook hands and sat down. After the orders were taken, I quietly approached the waiter and told him to give me the bill for the entire party. When he brought it to me I was almost shaking with excitement. If someone had tried to take it off me I would have physically fought them. I felt like I used to feel with my kids early on Christmas morning. When they found out that I had personally paid the tab they were very grateful, polite, pleasant, kind, and extremely thankful (see 1 Peter 2:15). The experience was a highlight of my life. Then about ten of us huddled around a table and talked about the things of God for about an hour. It was up close and personal. Mark answered every question and objection they had, calmly and eloquently. It’s all on film and we hope to be able to make it available through the ministry (to them and you) in a month or so. I took copies of my new book, How to Know God Exists, and all the folks at our table wanted one (it’s a strange feeling signing books for atheists). Then we posed for pictures and left, almost bursting with joy after such a wonderful opportunity to meet and talk with these dear people. Maybe the next time they meet for dinner (at the International House of Prayer) hundreds will show up saying “We heard that this is the atheist group where you get a free meal.” Seriously though, please pray for the “Orange County Atheists.”
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Dinner With 40 Atheists
Posted by
Ray Comfort
on
1/09/2008 08:29:00 AM

225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»-
A Voice of One Crying in the Desert
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 8:40 AM
-
Ryan Sinclair
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 8:54 AM
-
AllFiredUp
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 8:58 AM
-
Doc
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 9:13 AM
-
Robin Bayne
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 9:40 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 9:58 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 10:00 AM
-
dasmith
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 10:29 AM
-
NYC
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 10:31 AM
-
KD
said...
-
This post has been removed by the author.
-
January 9, 2008 10:41 AM
-
Aduladi'
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 10:53 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:08 AM
-
Andrea Emerson
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:10 AM
-
camport
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:21 AM
-
WayneDawg
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:31 AM
-
George
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:43 AM
-
stacy
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:44 AM
-
Ray Comfort
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 11:53 AM
-
Tony Miano
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 12:02 PM
-
Lance Farina
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 12:13 PM
-
Lance Farina
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 12:22 PM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 12:53 PM
-
Pure*Girl
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 1:04 PM
-
PatAnderson
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 1:08 PM
-
Scott Moore
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 1:13 PM
-
Antme
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 1:23 PM
-
wolf6t4
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 1:44 PM
-
Anthony
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 2:07 PM
-
Ted Slater
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 2:18 PM
-
Frank
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 2:20 PM
-
JOSHUA S BLACK
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 2:49 PM
-
Dan Marvin
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 2:53 PM
-
Ted Slater
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 3:17 PM
-
speaking_as
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 3:21 PM
-
MissingLink
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 4:06 PM
-
Adam and Hayley
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 4:46 PM
-
Michael
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 5:04 PM
-
chrisclark
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 5:06 PM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 5:09 PM
-
Ray Comfort
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 5:19 PM
-
Munjaros
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 5:42 PM
-
camport
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 7:06 PM
-
Heina
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 7:22 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 7:29 PM
-
Warren
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 7:44 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 7:51 PM
-
taylor
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 8:36 PM
-
JTSubconscious8
said...
-
-
January 9, 2008 9:30 PM
-
kprince
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 1:03 AM
-
Matthew Wooller
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 2:31 AM
-
Ray Comfort
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 2:41 AM
-
Matthew Wooller
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 5:00 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 6:47 AM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 7:35 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 7:47 AM
-
Adam and Hayley
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 8:15 AM
-
Ted Slater
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 8:52 AM
-
Rando
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 9:34 AM
-
Joe
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 10:46 AM
-
chrisclark
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 10:56 AM
-
chrisclark
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 11:00 AM
-
KD
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 3:48 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 4:25 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 4:33 PM
-
Kallahar
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 4:34 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 4:39 PM
-
Michael
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 4:54 PM
-
Michael
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 5:04 PM
-
Rando
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 5:21 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 10, 2008 5:56 PM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 10:14 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 12:14 PM
-
Foosh
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 2:17 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 3:21 PM
-
Munjaros
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 5:45 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 7:18 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 7:36 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 11, 2008 11:03 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 12, 2008 6:31 AM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 12, 2008 8:28 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 12, 2008 9:41 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 13, 2008 4:56 AM
-
The Happy Atheist
said...
-
-
January 13, 2008 12:35 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 13, 2008 4:44 PM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 13, 2008 8:50 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 14, 2008 3:39 PM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 15, 2008 9:13 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 15, 2008 5:42 PM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 15, 2008 8:30 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 16, 2008 1:15 PM
-
Pvblivs
said...
-
-
January 16, 2008 8:04 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 17, 2008 5:07 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 17, 2008 7:41 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 17, 2008 8:27 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 17, 2008 10:11 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 17, 2008 1:33 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 18, 2008 5:42 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 18, 2008 5:55 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 18, 2008 6:31 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 18, 2008 9:09 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 19, 2008 9:23 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 19, 2008 7:59 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 20, 2008 9:20 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 20, 2008 4:09 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 20, 2008 5:56 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 20, 2008 10:07 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 21, 2008 8:31 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 21, 2008 9:29 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 21, 2008 7:46 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 22, 2008 7:02 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 22, 2008 7:38 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 22, 2008 9:22 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 23, 2008 5:32 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
January 23, 2008 9:12 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 23, 2008 1:41 PM
-
Michael Doss
said...
-
-
January 23, 2008 5:08 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 23, 2008 7:04 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 23, 2008 11:48 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 24, 2008 3:35 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 24, 2008 6:00 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 24, 2008 8:03 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 25, 2008 8:28 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 25, 2008 4:30 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 25, 2008 6:05 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 26, 2008 9:03 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 26, 2008 10:14 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 26, 2008 3:17 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
January 26, 2008 4:33 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 27, 2008 8:45 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 27, 2008 9:55 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 27, 2008 11:33 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 27, 2008 10:05 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 28, 2008 7:23 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 28, 2008 8:54 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 28, 2008 10:13 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 29, 2008 8:16 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 29, 2008 7:07 PM
-
Rando
said...
-
-
January 29, 2008 7:28 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 29, 2008 9:19 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 30, 2008 8:40 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 31, 2008 4:23 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
January 31, 2008 4:30 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
January 31, 2008 9:53 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 1, 2008 8:01 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 1, 2008 6:20 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 1, 2008 6:48 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 1, 2008 8:10 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 1, 2008 9:32 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 1, 2008 10:26 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 2, 2008 7:00 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 2, 2008 3:48 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 2, 2008 7:23 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 2, 2008 11:21 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 6:11 AM
-
Munjaros
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 6:30 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 7:31 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 11:31 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 12:07 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 4:55 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 3, 2008 10:17 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 4, 2008 2:10 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 4, 2008 6:23 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 4, 2008 7:19 PM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 3:04 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 1:20 PM
-
Munjaros
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 1:24 PM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 7:16 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 7:21 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 7:58 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 8:11 PM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 5, 2008 9:05 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 7:08 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 8:51 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 11:02 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 2:30 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 2:33 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 6:19 PM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
February 6, 2008 6:30 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 7, 2008 8:10 AM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 7, 2008 9:09 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 7, 2008 12:47 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 7, 2008 7:58 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 8, 2008 8:29 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 8, 2008 10:31 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 8, 2008 2:27 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 8, 2008 2:35 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 9, 2008 9:21 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 9, 2008 10:52 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 9, 2008 11:43 AM
-
Ray Comfort
said...
-
-
February 9, 2008 12:18 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 9, 2008 8:21 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 10, 2008 8:15 AM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 10, 2008 8:43 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
February 10, 2008 9:41 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 11, 2008 2:48 PM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 11, 2008 2:55 PM
-
Jœl
said...
-
-
February 12, 2008 7:58 AM
-
witnesser
said...
-
-
February 12, 2008 8:49 AM
-
Sye TenB
said...
-
-
February 12, 2008 4:37 PM
-
Hans
said...
-
-
February 12, 2008 9:56 PM
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»That is awesome! I wish I could dine with Pastor Comfort :-(..lol
Praise the LORD Ray!
I can't tell you Ray how incredible it is to hear this story and witnessing opportunity!
Ray:
What a wonderful testimony and kind thing to do. (and courageous) May God bless you and your family always and may He continue to bless your ministry and through it, bring as many as we can to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ before it is too late.
Until the whole world hears, Ray. Until the whole world hears.
That is wonderful : )
To God be the Glory!
Atheists, do you know how it makes our hearts sing to see God providing that for you? It's better than a new car, vacation, home or anything for us as Christians. Those things count for nothing compared to your souls. Can you see, can you see, can you see?
We are to pray for our enemies and those who dispitefully use us and we are to always give an answer of the hope that is in us ..... thats what I like about Ray and "The Way of the Master" God Bless you ....much prayer
This is so great! Thank you Ray and Mark for being such faithful servants.
WOW! What a great way to be able to share. I wish I had the nerve; I would have been too nervous to say anything coherent!
That's why the Lord gave YOU that gift, LOL!!
And if you and EZ were to meet them sometime on the sands of the beach in the sunshine, would they be surrounded by comfort and ease?
Hee! God Bless. Speaking of comfort and ease, please pray, Ray, I have that when I introduce my church by teaching a class in March. Please pray.
Yay, I feel the joy :-) Thanks for all you guys do, for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us, and equipping so many to be instruments in saving lives. Woohoo, go God!
My heart is literally thumping in my chest. Reading the post title I got all nervous and shaky as if it was me going to the meeting.
Praise God! After reading the post, I've actually got a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes. What's that all about? Seriously, praise the Lord!
:)
Thank you Ray for your faithfulness in witnessing. When I first saw WOTM four years ago, I was witnessing that very week after learning to overcome my fears.
I will be leading for the second time this Spring the Foundation coruse to raise up more faithful seed spreaders.
Thanks Ray
And thank the faithful Christian who dropped the tracts in the first place.
Ray, your genuine love for others really shines through your words, and is truly attractive to those who don't know Christ.
Thanks for sharing this wonderful example with us!
Kelly,
Thanks for writing. Read Psalm 51. Make it your own prayer. Then go to www.livingwaters.com and click on "Save Yourself Some Pain," top right. I will be in prayer for you and so will others.
Ray,
What a wonderful testimony. I prayed for you and Mark last night.
What??!! a preacher pickin' up the tab??!! why that's near to blasphemy! "don't muzzle the ox that plows the field" and all....ha-ha. Good for you, Ray. The world needs to see a little class with the Light...I know too many godly folk who throw dollars around like sewer plates. Praise the Lord through Whom all blessings flow.
Dear Ray,
(second blog) I can't even begin to tell you how much of a blessing this ministry has been to me and my walk with Christ. It has been used of the Lord so impactfully you have no idea. I find it entirely credible as to why you were wracked with such demonic forces in the early years of your walk (the anxiety) the enemy must've caught wind of the Truth that was to illuminate the darkness through the Law in evangelism among the many things this ministry has birthed. I even thank you for getting me hooked on Spurgeon! ha-ha, what a joy to serve the Lord with servants like you. Keep trucking forward, brother. We'll all be before the Lord in that Last Great Day soon enough, let us all not be ashamed of His Gospel and continue to walk in His Love and with shame!!!
Ray (and all those expressing joy and excitement), I must have missed something. I even read the passage from Peter 2:15 to make sure there wasn't some inside joke or something. What's the big deal about you meeting with atheists? I'm perplexed.
Let me get this straight. Atheists invite you to dinner. You accept. You show up with your friend and bring a camera. You have a pleasant meal after which you're nice enough to pick up the tab. You talk about god for a while then you hand out free books. They ask to get the books signed since you're standing right there. You shake hands and go your separate ways.
What I think I'm missing is how this innocuous meeting serves as evidence for some sort of evangelical victory. Was you paying for the dinner a testament to your moral superiority? Is the fact that they acted civilly towards you to be attributed to you rather than to their good manners? Is getting your book in their hands a proven guaranteed method for conversion? If so, I really need to read it.
Anyway, I'm just confused as to how this is such a wondrous occasion that we should all be thankful for. I think it's terrific that you're willing to personally meet with self-professed atheists. I also think you show great generosity by paying for the meal. I'm just wondering why such a thing would elicit the overjoyed response from the previous commenters. If someone could humor me with an explanation, I'd be most appreciative.
Hugs,
Joel
PRAISE GOD!!!
Ray, You and Mark are such faithful witnesses for Christ. I'm so greatful to have 'stumbled across' your website a couple of months ago. I'm greatful the Lord brought you to America as we are such a needy country! Thanks again, Ray
Love from Your Sister in Christ
Kelly,
I've never posted anything like this before, not really sure how to do it, But I want you to know I love you. I don't know you and probably will never meet you, but I care for you. Your post drew me to prayer for you immediately. I don't have a lot of words of comfort for you but I want you to know that my family and I will have you in our prayers. Just remember that all things are possible with God. Immerse yourself in Gods holy word daily.
Dear mr. Comfort or anyone that is willing to help. I would appreciate it if you could help me with this. I have started to witness to this guy via email. He isn't an atheist, but he's not a born again Christian either. I would appreciate it if you could please help me with an answer to the following email. Please read it.
the bible is all related to atrology.
everything is symbolism.
nothing is literal...it does have alot of information that science marks as true now but that was because it was mostly written by the egyptions many many years ago to help explain the movement of the solar system. They had technology the same if not greateer than ours today...not jesus was just a symbol used to explain the changing from the age of pices to the age of aquarius.he even says in the bible, follow the man holding a pichard of water into the house...this is the symbol for aquarius, go have a look.
he says this will happen at the end of the world, world is a mistranslated world, the real meaning is age.look that uo too.
the birth death and resurection is to do with the sun, not son sun.
from the nothern hemisphere, around the 22nd of december the sun reaches an all time low. and sits in front of the southern cross, they say in the olden days the sun died on a cross. it sits there for 3 days and on the 25th is born again ie starts moving up...that is the birth...the star that the three kings followed?points to the birth of the sun not the birth of the son, guess what? the three kings? they are three stars called the three kings that fall into a straight line on the 25th of dec. they "follow" the brightest star that points to the birth of the sun. see how this all comes about? the bible is a story explaining astrology that the egyptions followed. research it i talk no lies. and watch zeitgeist...it explains in great detail this which i have just told you and more...
in the bible jesus confirms reincarnation, peter asks him why isaiah or something like that hasnt returned, jesus replies that he has you only know him as john the babtist...oooo that is reincarnation.
in my own experience i have met a guy, who is actually my boss now and we both remember a life where we were brothers many many years ago.
before electricity and cars ect. we both remember in great detail events and feeling that we had...we were even tested by people who asked us the same questions when we were seperate and we proived them wrong...100% accuracy.explain that?
please help me with this. All Christians would know that these are outright lies...because we all have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and nobody can explain that away. So how do I answer this guy? Please email me at brinks@biss.co.za. It's urgent for me.
Kelly,
My name is Jeff I am 43, I was Saved at the age of 7 and up until my adult years I knew I was saved. But, the Devil started to fight, and know he only fights with those of us who are saved, I began like you to investigate other "Christian" religions. Like you I came back to the fundamental truth, I may have back slidin but, I have not lost my salvation and neither have you. What is difficult at times is to realize that we are not perfect yet and the struggle to attain perfection can at times be a bit overwhelming. I must say though that I never really doubted that I was saved, I just felt bad about not being as close to perfect as I know I could be. I was in the bus ministry, sang in the choir and gospel group, taught Sunday school,went to a bible institute, coached and played softball with the church and helped in any way possible. I did all this while having been divorced for 10 yrs or so and having had a daughter out of wed lock drinking occasionally and smoking. In time during my service I began to quit doing these things that as my mother had counseled me on "you are going to ruin your testimony" that is what helped me realize that a back slidin Christian can pull them selves up by the boot straps and began to "live" again without fear. I was so depressed before I went back to church that one night on the way back from work I wanted to put my car into the wall on the highway but, I heard a voice in my head say as I prayed "come home" I knew then I was not living my life right and needed to get back to church. After my divorce I was in an accident on the job and caught on fire I never blamed God only myself. You see when I was not living my life at all for God I felt like a "bad" child, I got spanked and that was the start of a long road back to being me.
I said all of this to let you know that you are not alone in your troubles but also to let you know that fighting Satan is a life time commitment and we all know who wins in the end. We must continue to ask God to forgive us for what we do wrong but we do not have to be Saved twice he died once that was enough. The bible says to ask Jesus to do again would bring him to an open shame.
Thank you for writing in, this is my first post. I am a huge fan of Kurt and Ray.
Remember Peter said "I die daily", you are not perfect just blessed to be saved otherwise, you would not feel "guilty" about your life nor would I mine.
May God bless you and Keep You and May his countenance shine upon you. Keep up the good work remember the reward comes in the end.
In Christian Love and Respect
I hope this helps I know it did me.
Praying that one day they will meet as "The Former Atheists Group"
Thank you, Ray, for being such an encouragement -- not only to those currently without God, but to Christians like me. May the Lord continue to bless your ministry and your family.
The Lord is kind.
Praise God for that! I can't wait to see the video. Now if only I had HD:(
Funny. No atheists have commented on this entry yet. I wonder why.
Praying for them.
Would of loved to be at that table for that one. Fortunately Ray was forward thinking and brought a camera. Anxiously anticipating that video.Post it on youtube so we all can see.
I just had a 2 hour car drive with an atheist last night, he now calls himself agnostic and is thinking in the right direction, I hope. Nothing like windshield time to get a point across. Pray for Chris everyone. Glory to God for you my friend Ray.
Dan Marvin
Fresno, CA
Joel -- great and valid questions. I don't think the meeting was intended to be either an "evangelical victory" or an opportunity to display "moral superiority."
It was an opportunity to express the love of God, to be a mere witness to His generous character. And that was accomplished, amiably, apparently.
No simple "conclusion," tied up with a bow. Just neighborly love shared. And accepted. And that's cool!
Anyway, I'm just confused as to how this is such a wondrous occasion that we should all be thankful for. I think it's terrific that you're willing to personally meet with self-professed atheists. I also think you show great generosity by paying for the meal. I'm just wondering why such a thing would elicit the overjoyed response from the previous commenters. If someone could humor me with an explanation, I'd be most appreciative.
I'll "humor" you, Joel. It's great because he seemed to win them over, and maybe potentially saved 20 something people.
I pray YOU turn from atheism, Joel.
Oh praising God! Walking into a den of lions huh? :)
Now it's up to the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sin. I know you (and/or Mark) must have brought them through the Law and I'm sure your book will explain further so the Spirit may work with them.
What an awesome opportunity!
Praise God, Ray! I don't know if I'd have the guts to do that.
Can I make a request? Could you blog a bit on Mormonism? I just encountered a couple missionaries tonight, and its so frustrating! Point them to the law, they agree, then point to Jesus. But I tell them the Jesus you believe in is not the Jesus I believe in, and they just disagree and say he is. Should we in this case just give up and pray, or wade in with evidence? My husband and I were considering printing out some mormon and (JW) info to keep by the front door (anti-tracts, if you will) do you think this is a good idea?
I wonder which is more difficult- 40 atheists, or 40 mormons?
Ray and Mark, thank you very much for coming to our meeting. We really appreciated the chance to meet you both. Your generosity will allow us to donate several hundred more dollars to our local charity of choice, doing good work in southern Orange County.
For everyone posting comments, I'm the president of Orange County Atheists. We had a great discussion and are looking forward to the video as much as all of you.
Knowing what I know about my group, I doubt largely that there'll be any conversions, though. To Ray and Mark's credit, there wasn't any hardcore witnessing going on, just a lot of questions. Thanks again, guys!
You make it sound like you were walking into a den of ravenous snakes, and you're amazed you walked out alive. I think many people misunderstand the beliefs of an atheist. It just means they don't believe in a god or follow a religion, it has nothing to do with their morality or how they treat people. I can assure you that most atheists are very open-minded and love sharing ideas and having discussions with people of many faiths, as long as those people don't do so solely for the purpose of converting them. Atheists live completely fulfilling and happy lives, and they do so because they've chosen to do so, they don't necessarily need any kind of god or christ figure to follow or worship.
I think it's a wonderful thing you did: meeting with them, having a civilized discussion over a good meal, sharing ideas – probably disagreeing on most of them, but that's ok. That's truly what America is all about – being able to peacefully agree to disagree. Picking up their tab was very gracious of you as well, but I don't think that would be any kind of motivation for them to begin believing in a god or following a religion. It just means you're a great guy and there should be more people willing to peacefully share ideas and beliefs, without the inherent expectation that all should believe as they do.
Oh, and you should invite the head of that Atheist group to attend one of your meetings for you, I'm sure they would be most interested. But please don't do so for the sake of trying to convert him/her, but simply to share ideas and bring the world one step closer to a peaceful co-existance of different beliefs.
Look forward to seeing the video!
-Chris,
Agnostic; Orange County, CA
@speaking_as
"I'll "humor" you, Joel. It's great because he seemed to win them over, and maybe potentially saved 20 something people."
"maybe potentially". You seem almost as convinced as I am that paying for a meal and acting with common courtesy towards atheists will do anything to sway them. Just because those people didn't show open hostility towards Ray does not give anyone license to believe that they're any closer to being converted to your faith than they were out in the parking lot beforehand. But Christians have a conspicuous history of unsubstantiated belief so I probably shouldn't be surprised that you believe a shared meal and some friendly words are enough to convince anyone. Anyway, I guess we need to watch the video to find out what really happened.
Ray, I do hope you post it to youtube or some other such social media site so we can all watch you at work and see for ourselves the effect it has on the unbelievers. I've only seen you in action once, and it was sharing a stage with Kirk Cameron. Unfortunately, that elicited nothing but giggles from me.
I pray YOU turn from atheism, Joel."
Well, since in my 27 years I've yet to see any novel argument that would even begin to convince me of any truth in what's being said by any believer, I find my turning away from atheism not likely at all. I do, however, still hold out hope that there's someone out there with some sort of evidence of any god's existence. Just show it to me and I'll believe in a heartbeat. As would any self-respecting person of reason. Alas, so far there is no convincing argument nor piece of 'evidence' not easily dismissed.
Hugs,
Joel
<< Ray (and all those expressing joy and excitement), I must have missed something. I even read the passage from Peter 2:15 to make sure there wasn't some inside joke or something. What's the big deal about you meeting with atheists? I'm perplexed. What I think I'm missing is how this innocuous meeting serves as evidence for some sort of evangelical victory.>>
Joel,
Every Christian is horrified at the thought that any human being would end up in Hell. We can't begin to think of an analogy for your terrible predicament if God gives you justice. We weep for you. We pray for you. We long for you to open your heart and listen to us. So when a group of people actually do that, it gives us great joy. I know that it's hard for you to understand. Think about it . . .
Looking forward to seeing the video.
"I wonder which is more difficult- 40 atheists, or 40 mormons?"
I thought this same exact question yesterday! There was a man in a restaurant wearing a BYU shirt and I know I should've tried to strike up a conversation with him. Missed opportunity!
I think I'd take on 40atheists any day vs 40 Mormons.
:)
I am one of the atheists that was at the meeting. I didn't want to be videotaped for personal safety reasons, so I didn't get to talk to Mr. Comfort, but as a broke college student, I definitely appreciated his picking up the tab. This doesn't make me want to be a Christian any more, however, it just makes me feel a bit better about the attitude of human beings in general.
@ Joel
You said: Well, since in my 27 years I've yet to see any novel argument that would even begin to convince me of any truth in what's being said by any believer, I find my turning away from atheism not likely at all. I do, however, still hold out hope that there's someone out there with some sort of evidence of any god's existence. Just show it to me and I'll believe in a heartbeat. As would any self-respecting person of reason. Alas, so far there is no convincing argument nor piece of 'evidence' not easily dismissed.
Except maybe for the argument you bowed out of in the "Elegance of Science" comment section.
Here it is again in a nutshell. You claim to know things. Knowledge cannot be accounted for outside of God. You admit that Christians can account for knowledge, and exhibit that you cannot.
Joel, if you are so sure of your atheistic reasoning, let me ask you again: Please tell me how it is possible for you to know anything according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. No argument will convince the person who does not want to be convinced, indeed: The atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
Joel said,
"I do, however, still hold out hope that there's someone out there with some sort of evidence of any god's existence. Just show it to me and I'll believe in a heartbeat. As would any self-respecting person of reason. Alas, so far there is no convincing argument nor piece of 'evidence' not easily dismissed."
Joel, seriously bro I appreciate your honesty and being open to "new evidence". But I will tell from His word, that is not how He works. There is a great example of this in the gospel of Luke 16:19
"19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
The point here Joel is that you will not be convinced by God's hand actually smashing potatoes in front of you, you will rationalize it in your mind "there has to be a verifiable reason I have potatoes on my face".
It belongs to you my friend to reckon with what God left us as His written record. If you truely would like to see God. Study His word earnestly and then read Ray's experience with the atheists and see if you can understand that God requires your surrender. He has given you a "measure of faith" but like most people you choose to put that "measure" in man. Look at the Law and prophets as Luke said and see for your self wear you line up.
I hope this will help you see it from a different perspecitive. I will be praying for you...uh...that is a good thing (;
Warren
Joel, you said
Ray (and all those expressing joy and excitement), I must have missed something.
What I think I'm missing is how this innocuous meeting serves as evidence for some sort of evangelical victory.
Anyway, I'm just confused as to how this is such a wondrous occasion that we should all be thankful for.
I'm just wondering why such a thing would elicit the overjoyed response from the previous commenters.
Joel, scripture says that God uses the wise to confound the simple...and since it also says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, do you see where you fit in? 2nd point here is that can you see that something supernatural is here from the thrill all the Christian posters have that seems abnormal?
3rd point...from another one of your posts, you are getting the evidence you need...remember, it about FAITH, not proof. You may also think you are eating up our time, but others are reading all of this. Remember, we are doing our part in trying to save you, and you can't erase that. And now you must do yours.
Another point is that I guarantee what fun you think you are having by sticking with your stand, it's not near as pleasurable as ours. You don't need proof, you need repentance
Bravo, Ray, for your courtesy.
In my predominantly Christian town, it is incredibly moving when a townsperson is genuinely friendly to an atheistic homosexual like myself. I can say, in fact, that an act of friendship and love is a far better witnessing tool than any argument I've ever heard.
So, kudos to you.
Glory to God!, your ministry & passion has given me an encouragement to reach out to the lost since last year. What you did was simply an act of "let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father w/c is in heaven." May God bless you and continue to work in you:)
>I do, however, still hold out
>hope that there's someone out
>there with some sort of evidence
>of any god's existence. Just show
>it to me and I'll believe in a
>heartbeat.
Joel,
Clearly, if God exists, then He could overwhelm us with evidence to that effect. Yet, He chooses not to, so it seems there are two possibilities, either 1) He purposefully chooses to hold back evidence, or 2) he doesn't exist. You've decided on the last reason without, it seems, considering why the first might be true.
Even though you don't believe in the God-breathed supernatural origin of the bible, let's assume the bible is true for a moment and see if it helps reason #1 make sense. Not trying to prove anything with circular reasoning here... we're just doing a sanity check. (After all, if God exists then the bible may in fact be what it claims to be.)
The bible tells us that this life is a test. God values faith, which seems strange when you have none... why would God purposely hold back and hide Himself from people he wants a relationship with? Jesus gave His disciple Thomas absolute proof of His resurrection by letting Thomas touch His actual scars. And then Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen." In other words, blessed are those who have faith. This life is a test of your faith, and you are free to choose which direction your faith goes. Either you'll have faith that God does not exist (and there will be experts that you can put your faith into that will back you up on this, e.g., Richard Dawkins), or you will have faith that God does exist.
But what it ultimately comes down to is this... you have a free will to choose, and that's the way God wants it. If He came down and slapped you on the face with an angel's halo, or showed you His scars Himself, you'd then have no choice. You'd have to believe, perhaps grudgingly.
The bible also tells us that we must first believe (that is, choose which direction our faith goes), and only THEN will He show Himself to us. That's what so many Christians are terrible at explaining. They've seen the proof themselves, in their changed lives, their different nature, their joy. It's real evidence to us, but it's subjective to you. Like Einstein said, "Either you see God in everything, or you see God in nothing."
So what you perceive as a lack of evidence may, in fact, have a purpose. I know that sounds convenient, but it's only convenient if God doesn't exist. Ask God to show you. Try praying, "God, if you're there, I want to know the truth, and I want to believe... please show yourself to me, and help me with my skepticism." That's an honest, simple prayer that God answers every day.
You said "Just show it to me and I'll believe in a heartbeat." Joel, try believing, and God will show it to you in a heartbeat.
What really shocks me here are the number of Christians who are afraid of atheists...
What is scary about someone not believing the same thing as you...? Perhaps I am asking the wrong question... Perhaps I should be asking, are you that afraid that your belief system is that easily deconstructed...?
<< Adam and Hayley said...
Praise God, Ray! I don't know if I'd have the guts to do that.
Can I make a request? Could you blog a bit on Mormonism? >>
One of our Third Season episodes is on Mormonism. We will also have a booklet coming out soon. I will consider blogging on it.
@kprince
""God, if you're there, I want to know the truth, and I want to believe... please show yourself to me, and help me with my skepticism." That's an honest, simple prayer that God answers every day.
You said "Just show it to me and I'll believe in a heartbeat." Joel, try believing, and God will show it to you in a heartbeat."
This reminds me an awful lot of the climax to a Peter Pan pantomime.
"I believe in fairies"...
Very sad that grown men, with intellect, logic and reason throw it all away for fiction and myth. It makes me so sad that as a species we cannot move on from this paranormal claptrap.
@kprince
"Clearly, if God exists, then He could overwhelm us with evidence to that effect. Yet, He chooses not to, so it seems there are two possibilities, either 1) He purposefully chooses to hold back evidence, or 2) he doesn't exist. You've decided on the last reason without, it seems, considering why the first might be true."
"The bible tells us that this life is a test. God values faith, which seems strange when you have none... why would God purposely hold back and hide Himself from people he wants a relationship with? Jesus gave His disciple Thomas absolute proof of His resurrection by letting Thomas touch His actual scars."
That is ridiculous. Faith cannot precede proof. In your example, if god had not at first revealed himself to us we would still be blissfully ignorant of him. But that's exactly what you're asking me to do. Believe first and then proof will come. Oh, please. If you believe in something because you chose to believe first and then discovered proof after, the only explanation for that is delusional optimism. i.e "OK, I know god exists... now how to prove it....wait! look over there! that MUST be proof or else there's no reason for me to believe! Huzzah!"
The best part of your argument is that in trying to prove that faith is the first required step to belief you use "proof" of jesus having scars from his death. If I don't need proof in order to believe, what's the point of telling me that?
So, if can paraphrase, "God chooses not to provide proof, but Jesus provided proof 2000 years ago." If god did not need to provide proof, the Bible would not exist. The only way a book like the bible could have ever come into existence is for 2 reasons: 1) god provided proof of his existence to humankind way back in history through the use of miracles or 2) man created god and wrote a nice book about his fiction. So, either god MUST provide proof, or there's no way we could possibly know he exists in the first place and the whole story of his existence is a fabrication. If god chose to provide truth 2000+ years ago on many occasions, why has he stopped now? It's not like he doesn't have a precedent for revealing himself to unbelievers. He did it with Adam and Eve, he did it with Moses, he did it with Joseph, he did it with Abraham, he did it with Mark, Matthew, and all the 12 disciples, etc, etc, etc. The bible is rife with examples that he's shown himself on many occasions and even spoken with people. Why can he not then show himself to me? He has no reason not to. He has many precedents for doing so. In the end, initial belief in god was not based solely on faith, so it makes no sense that any future belief should be reliant on faith alone or require faith first before belief was possible. God shows himself to some but not everyone? Obviously, Moses needed more than faith alone or there would have been no need for the various miracles he witnessed if god was self-evident.
"But what it ultimately comes down to is this... you have a free will to choose, and that's the way God wants it. If He came down and slapped you on the face with an angel's halo, or showed you His scars Himself, you'd then have no choice. You'd have to believe, perhaps grudgingly."
Okay, you disproved this statement yourself by the end. You say we have free will so we can choose to believe or not to believe and that's how god wants it. Great. Then you go on to tell me that if god slapped me in the face with incontrovertible proof that it would remove the freedom to choose. You then go on to say that I would have to believe, "perhaps grudgingly". If I had no choice, how could I muster up something like resentment to the only answer possible? If there was no choice to begin with, how can I choose to resent it? And here's the crux. If god truly was that obvious, then, you're right, I'd have no choice but to believe. So Moses and the 12 disciples had no choice but the rest of us do? That seems rather inconsistent, n'est pas? If he can show himself at all, he can show himself to everyone. Otherwise the virtue of faith has no meaning since the ones telling you to be faithful in the Bible didn't themselves need to be faithful. They were shown proof.
"The bible also tells us that we must first believe (that is, choose which direction our faith goes), and only THEN will He show Himself to us."
Wrong. If initial belief requires proof, then all belief requires proof. Everyone who believes first then seeks proof after is simply deceiving themselves. Everyone in the bible telling you to believe had proof first and didn't need faith first. The only ones who need to have faith first are those without proof. So, unless you can show me the proof that made you believe, you're simply suffering from a self-fulfilling prophesy you've concocted in your own mind.
Hugs,
Joel
Sye tenb:
"Joel, if you are so sure of your atheistic reasoning, let me ask you again: Please tell me how it is possible for you to know anything according to your worldview?"
Since I saw that he answered but you just said he was only making assertions, I question whether you are really interested in knowing another perspective or whether you just want to say "nope, you need god." If you just want to say "nope, you need god," then you are being deceptive with a false challenge. Not that that's surprising in any way.
Sye,
"Here it is again in a nutshell. You claim to know things. Knowledge cannot be accounted for outside of God. You admit that Christians can account for knowledge, and exhibit that you cannot.
"Knowledge cannot be accounted for outside of God."
Ok, I believe this is your central theme, yes? Firstly, I never admitted that it's true that Christians can account for knowledge. All I did say was that anything is possible, including that Christians can possibly account for knowledge. All other permutations, such as the possibility that Christians cannot account for knowledge, are also possible. But what we're trying to do here is to PROVE one way or the other, correct? My argument is, and always has been, that no one can know anything about anything if your definition of 'know' requires absolutes. This is because, in the end, you're always required to resort to circular reasoning to prove absolutism is correct. Absolutism is a logical trap from which nothing can be proven. It seems really nice and all-encompassing until you consider the other implications (which I had tried to do in that other thread).
In a nutshell: absolute truth is the truth because without absolute truth nothing can be true. i.e. Absolute truth requires itself to be true. And like all circular reasoning, you're saying exactly nothing. i.e. A = A. That proves nothing. Thus, you pointing out anything you know and using absolute truth as proof for your knowledge and proof against mine is simply ridiculous.
So, yes, it's possible that god and truth are intertwined. But it's also possible that they are not. It's also possible that truth does not exist, etc. Since neither can be proved, it makes more sense to remove the superfluous bit, which is god, and just leave truth out there on its own. God is not necessary. Of course, I can't even prove that last statement using your constraints of absolutes, but you can't prove your point that god is required either. So, we're stuck.
Hugs,
Joel
Thank you, Ray! I'd love to have something to give the mormons when they come to the door.
We will continue to pray for you and everyone as the ministry goes.
Joel -- it's great to hear your thoughts. Very helpful.
You wrote, "Faith cannot precede proof." Actually, it always does. You have faith that that invisible thing called "reason" exists. You trust that there is meaning, if not in the world, at least within you. "Proof" is meaningless if there's no "meaning" to be had.
I accept by blind faith that reason and meaning exist. My experience tells me that it's reasonable to assume reason exists. And perhaps something else that's similarly invisible, God, exists as well.
Did you pull out the banana argument, Ray?
1 Peter 2:15: "Because it is God’s pleasure that foolish and narrow-minded men may be put to shame by your good behavior."
It was so kind of you to put those "foolish and narrow-minded men" to shame with your good behavior.
The only constant i see in this entire comment forum is this:
People believe what they believe. NO ONE else can change it for them, no matter how rational the argument.
That being said, as I said before, America is all about people living in peace with different views. We can all share our views, and have wonderful discussions and forums without anyone fighting or starting any holy wars or being thrown in jail. And please don't go passing any laws making our children pray in school to a god that not everyone believes in. Anyone can choose to pray or not to pray, whenever they want or don't want.
Yay freedom of, and from, religion!
Oh, and Rando,
By the "banana argument" I'm assuming you mean that since the banana is such a perfect and wonderful food for human consumption, fits perfectly into the hand, etc, that i proves a god must exist.
Actually, the modern banana as we know and love is the result of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years of deliberate genetic breeding by human farmers. The original "banana" that your god may have created thousands of years ago was actually rather inedible by human standards. Humans created the perfect banana, not god.
To Scott Moore,Jeff, and Ray,
I thank you for your prayers. I am touched that total strangers would pray for me. I feel hopless, so any prayer is appreciated.
chrisclark has left a new comment on the post "Dinner With 40 Atheists":
The only constant i see in this entire comment forum is this:
People believe what they believe. NO ONE else can change it for them, no matter how rational the argument.
That being said, as I said before, America is all about people living in peace with different views. We can all share our views, and have wonderful discussions and forums without anyone fighting or starting any holy wars or being thrown in jail. And please don't go passing any laws making our children pray in school to a god that not everyone believes in. Anyone can choose to pray or not to pray, whenever they want or don't want.
Yay freedom of, and from, religion!
OUR YOU KIDDING, Chris clark? We don't want to force a child pray. It's you that is taking away our freedom to pray with others...see how confused walking in the dark makes you. Praying you see the light someday.
@ Joel
You said: Firstly, I never admitted that it's true that Christians can account for knowledge.
Then you said: All other permutations, such as the possibility that Christians cannot account for knowledge, are also possible.
Hmmmm, so which is it, is it possible that Christian can account for knowledge or isn’t it?
My argument is, and always has been, that no one can know anything about anything if your definition of 'know' requires absolutes.
Do you know this, if so how?
Absolutism is a logical trap from which nothing can be proven.
Is this absolutely true?
absolute truth is the truth because without absolute truth nothing can be true.
Yikes!!! This is the same Joel that was accusing Christians of circular reasoning isn’’t it?
Thus, you pointing out anything you know and using absolute truth as proof for your knowledge and proof against mine is simply ridiculous.
Do you know this, if so, how? Still, this is not my argument. My argument is that in order for anyone to know anything, one must know, or have revelation from a being who knows, EVERYTHING, else there is an infinite regress of “and how do you know that? Remember Joel, you admitted that it is POSSIBLE for Christians to know things, all I’m asking for is how is it POSSBILE for you to know anything?
We both claim to know things, you have admitted that the Christian claim to knowledge is possible, again, please tell us, what is yours?
Cheers,
Sye
I'm one of the atheists from the meeting, I'm also confused by the christian comments here.. Are you afraid of atheists? Is it a huge victory for one of you to talk with one?
I've put up my thoughts about the meeting, as well as several photos of the group.
http://quickwired.com/stories/20080108_ray_comfort/
@ pvblivs
I question whether you are really interested in knowing another perspective or whether you just want to say "nope, you need god."
Oh, I know the other perspectives, I am just trying to get professed atheists to admit them. They seem to be dodging my questions though. Maybe you can help: Pvblivs, please tell us, how is it possible for an atheist to know anything? While you're at it, perhaps you can tell us, how you know that your reasoning is valid?
Thanks in advance,
Sye
P.S. You may wish to also duck this question so as not to expose the illogic of your position, not that that's surprising in any way.
how is it possible for an atheist to know anything? While you're at it, perhaps you can tell us, how you know that your reasoning is valid?
Thanks in advance,
Sye
P.S. You may wish to also duck this question so as not to expose the illogic of your position, not that that's surprising in any way.
Sye, you might want to work on your personal issues of pride, if you consider yourself a Christian. You sure sound sure of yourself, and you come off sounding cocky.
Why do you "need" God to know anything? I perceive the world around me - that's what I've got, that's what you've got.
OUR YOU KIDDING, Chris clark? We don't want to force a child pray. It's you that is taking away our freedom to pray with others...see how confused walking in the dark makes you. Praying you see the light someday.
Witnesser, I'm not aware of any laws that restrict your ability to pray, alone or with others. Restrictions in school are in place for good reason - not everyone in most public schools are the same religion.
But even in school you can pray quietly (as the bible suggests in Matthew 5:5-6), and no one can take that away from you. But mandating prayer for people who either don't believe or don't pray like you do is against the law, and rightfully so.
chrisclark said:
"Oh, and Rando,
By the "banana argument" I'm assuming you mean that since the banana is such a perfect and wonderful food for human consumption, fits perfectly into the hand, etc, that i proves a god must exist.
Actually, the modern banana as we know and love is the result of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years of deliberate genetic breeding by human farmers. The original "banana" that your god may have created thousands of years ago was actually rather inedible by human standards. Humans created the perfect banana, not god."
I know. That comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But I guess since I hadn't posted anything before that it might not have been clear.
But good job pointing out that someone attempting to debunk evolution with such a misinformed argument isn't going to convert anyone that wasn't already part of the choir. Kind of makes you question the credibility of his other claims, doesn't it?
@ Michael:
You said Why do you "need" God to know anything? I perceive the world around me - that's what I've got, that's what you've got.
How do you know what "I've got?" Did your perceive it? If so, please tell me where, I'd like to have a look meself :-)
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Do you know anything? If so, please tell me how it is possible for you to know anything according to your worldview.
Sye tenb:
"How do you know what 'I've got?'"
"Oh, I know the other perspectives, I am just trying to get professed atheists to admit them."
Answer your own question. How do you know other perspectives? I think you made up the answer you want to hear.
I will give you this question. How do you know your god exists? I'm not talking about your previous claims on "you need god to know anything," because then you need to establish god before being able to establish the claim.
You, sir, are blind. Atheists do not claim to "know" anything beyond that which is available through perception. My beliefs, while not christian, do not properly fall into the atheist category either.
For my own part, I assume my observations are valid, just as you assume that your god exists and does not lie. I make models of the world with which I interact, adjusting the models through my observations, and using the models to guide my behavior. While it is possible, for example, that this is all a computer simulation, it would not be useful to model the assumption unless and until I "escaped" the simulation.
Well, I was one of the "40". It was nice of Ray to pick up the tab. Thanks again. I've been reading the comments on this blog with interest.
To those Christians who are genuinely concerned for a non-believer's salvation, I appreciate the concern! The thing is many of us do understand where you're coming from because we were raised as Christians. At least as far as one human being can understand another. After all, each one of us is a unique individual.
Just some thoughts from this ex-Christian:
I never felt I lost my "faith". I just moved on. Reading books, on all kinds of subjects like theology, Bible history, science, psychology, philosophy "revealed" many truths. I don't have a fear of Hell anymore. And I don't have the fear that I can't make it on my own and need a supernatural father figure to guide me. I'm an adult, I can make it through life without a supreme deity to worship. I'm less superstitious now. It's not a psychological dependence that I have anymore.
Evidence is important to me. And I see scientific theories and principles at work every day of my life. Computers, cell phones, automobile, airplanes, microwave ovens, medicines are physical evidence of science. Some of this evidence has only occured in the last 50 years or so. Yet, it repeats itself day in and day out.
In the Bible Philip wanted evidence, too. In John 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Of course, Jesus offered himself up as evidence of God, though Philip didn't seem totally convinced. So he told Philip:
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
To want physical evidence is human nature. Jesus realized that,too. His evidence hangs on the words of the gospel writers of roughly two thousand years ago. Unfortunately today, in modern times, the evidence of miracles such as those in the Bible (even the lesser ones like turning water into wine) aren't able to be recreated by his faithful believers. At least not in any setting that would stand up to modern science and observance in any repeatable, testable way.
Science has been giving us more and more evidence and delivering on it's promises year after year, decade after decade.
Most of us when faced with a serious illness put our "faith" in science and modern medicine. How many people, Christian or otherwise, when faced with a life threatening illness, put all their trust in the hands of God and pray to be healed? Do they shun modern medicine completely and put their health in God's hands?
I'm guessing most don't . They first run to the doctor and let science heal them. True when they are healthy they may thank God. But then isn't their "faith" in God riding piggyback on the back of their "faith" in science? Just because they give God the credit doesn't mean that God did the healing. Just as likely it was the medical care and antibiotics that saved them.
I'm a modern person living in the modern world. I use modern tools and creations. Products of science and modern thinking. I think modern thoughts.
If it's dark at night and I want to read my Bible (or any other book) I can pray for light. But in my experience light won't come, unless I pray until the sun rises in the morning. Or I could light a candle or an oil lamp. But I won't do that. Most likely, like most of us, I'll simply flip on the light switch And there will be light.
Now, could I thank God? Sure I'm free to do that. But I'll probably just give credit, where I feel credit is due. I'll thank science. And more specifically I'll thank Thomas Edison, an atheist, for his gift to the modern world.
From one Christian to another Ray, get a clue bro. The reason Atheists think as they do about Christians such as yourself is because of what you've already done. You, Kirk, and Todd have such an 80's throwback view of evangelism it's helped to perpetuate the stereotypes that the post-growing-pain generation is trying to throw off. Read "I sold my soul on eBay" for a better understanding of what you're up against and lay down the sales pitch - it's decidedly unbiblical.
With love,
Foosh
Holy God-sinful man....which are you?
Witnesser- "OUR YOU KIDDING, Chris clark? We don't want to force a child pray. It's you that is taking away our freedom to pray with others...see how confused walking in the dark makes you. Praying you see the light someday."
Please explain what you're talking about when you say "taking away our freedom to pray with others". Where is this happening and to whom?
Hans said: Now, could I thank God? Sure I'm free to do that. But I'll probably just give credit, where I feel credit is due. I'll thank science. And more specifically I'll thank Thomas Edison, an atheist, for his gift to the modern world.
If you will...since man can and did invent things, who do you suppose invented man?
If man could 'just happen', why couldn't you wait on other things to 'just happen'.
@ pvblivs
Answer your own question. How do you know other perspectives? I think you made up the answer you want to hear.
Sure would be nice if some of you professed atheists would answer some of my questions for a change. Still, I will answer yours: God reveals many other perspectives in His word. For example: "The fool says in his heart, "there is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
How do you know your god exists?
He has revealed this to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.
You, sir, are blind. Atheists do not claim to "know" anything beyond that which is available through perception.
Um, with which sense did you perceive that I am 'blind???'
For my own part, I assume my observations are valid
What is the basis for this assumption?
Cheers,
Sye
Witnesser said: If you will...since man can and did invent things, who do you suppose invented man?
If man could 'just happen', why couldn't you wait on other things to 'just happen'.
In my opinion, I don't think man was "invented". Science (biology, genetics, fossil evidence, etc.) shows that man evolved. And since man has a mind and intellect he constantly adapts, explores and invents to deal with the problems and issues of his world. It's a learning process.
I try to keep an open mind. And I've found the best way (for me) to find "truth" is to read and educate myself from different sources. So I've read books by secular as well as Christian authors. Books by scientists, Biblical experts, psychologists, etc. For me that's the best way to make informed choices.
@ hans
So I've read books by secular as well as Christian authors. Books by scientists, Biblical experts, psychologists, etc. For me that's the best way to make informed choices.
The problem is, is that they very concepts of 'truth' or 'choice' do not comport with any evolutionary model. If your thoughts are mere by products of the electro-chemical processes in your evolved brain, than you could no more choose them, or know them to be true, then a can of pop could choose it's fizz, or know IT to be true when you shake and open it.
Feel free to argue this point. Please tell me how you can know anything to be true.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye tenb:
"He has revealed this to us in such a way that we can know it for certain."
And how do you know that? (I can play the game of giving a pat question to every answer, too, you know.)
"Sure would be nice if some of you professed atheists would answer some of my questions for a change. Still, I will answer yours: God reveals many other perspectives in His word. For example: 'The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.' (Psalm 14:1)'"
Two things: First, I am not a professed atheist. I am rather more complicated than that. Second, I have been answering your questions. You, however, are insincere in your questions because you are trying to drive it to the answer you want.
"Um, with which sense did you perceive that I am 'blind???'"
Blind in a metaphorical sense. I want to clarify so that we aren't speaking at cross-purposes. Either you really don't understand my responses (in which case you are blind (in the sense given) or you are faking it.
"What is the basis for this assumption?"
And this is a demonstration that you are engaged in a sham. I have effectively stated that something was one of my fundamental premises, and you ask what the basis was. Fundamental premises are at the bottom. There is nothing under them. Much like your beliefs about your god are fundamental to you. They aren't based on anything. They form the basis for all your other beliefs. The difference between us is that a christian dares not admit that his belief in the god of the bible is fundamental.
Sye TenB said:
The problem is, is that they very concepts of 'truth' or 'choice' do not
> comport with any evolutionary model. If your thoughts are mere by products
> of the electro-chemical processes in your evolved brain, than you could no
> more choose them, or know them to be true, then a can of pop could choose
> it's fizz, or know IT to be true when you shake and open it.
I said that, "For me that's the best way to make informed choices". If you look at the scientific evidence: including fossil records, genetic mapping, experimenting with animal breeding, plants, bacteria, viruses, mutation, DNA, RNA, etc. The evidence is strong to support evolution. The majority of scientists agree.
As far as the electro-chemical processes of the brain. I don't see the point of comparing that to a can of soda pop. Huh? A can of soda can't choose anything. It's an inanimate object! I'm making a choice by choosing to post a comment! And as far as choice and evolution there is mating selection among various species.
Look. Science doesn't figure things out all at once. Man didn't suddenly come up with a Boeing 747 or the space shuttle (a very complicated invention). First we had Kitty Hawk and the Wright brothers (they had a simple airplane). But the dang thing still flew, didn't it?
So science can't explain everything at once concerning evolution, but year after year we learn more and explain more. More genetic evidence, more fossils found, etc. More, more, more. It builds upon itself.
Whatever is lacking in scientific theories. They still work and in time we learn more. In my opinion, the scientific theory of evolution, even if not flawless, it still beats a story, thousands of years old, about a talking serpent and people being made out of dirt (or earth).
Plus we can see evolution still at work today in the form of drug resistant bacteria. Mutation at work.
I understand that Christians would not agree with me, since I consider that much of the Bible may be allegory and myth. A way for ancient man (who had no science, telescope, no microscope, no car, no cell phone) to explain his world. Fine. But now we have explanations that are testable. And we can test theories, experiment and make stuff that actually works...on a consistent basis!
And yeah, if you believe in God, it does shift his place in the universe. And I suppose you'd have to adjust your worldview. It's what I did. I felt I had to move on. You ever see some of those NASA photos of the universe? Awesome! Being an atheist or agnostic doesn't prevent one from being in awe of the universe or the love of people. I just see natural origins...as opposed to supernatural origins. It's still a spiritual feeling...the spirit of nature.
Take care,
Hans
@ pvblivs
And how do you know that? (I can play the game of giving a pat question to every answer, too, you know.)
Because God has revealed it to us in such a way that we can be certain of it. You aren’t another one who is going to deny that possibility are you. If so, on what grounds?
“Two things: First, I am not a professed atheist. I am rather more complicated than that.”
Well, you may not have professed it, but you write like one. So, what do you believe?
Blind in a metaphorical sense.
"Um, with which sense did you perceive that I am 'blind in a metaphorical sense???'"
Did you see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it?
I have effectively stated that something was one of my fundamental premises, and you ask what the basis was. Fundamental premises are at the bottom. There is nothing under them.
By basis, I meant justification. What is the justification for your fundamental premises?
Surely you believe that fundamental premises require justifiction don’t you? What if it was a person’s fundamental premise that humans were meant to kill each other? Surely you would challenge the justification of such a premise?
Much like your beliefs about your god are fundamental to you.
And this is justified by God’s revelation.
They aren't based on anything.
Does this mean that you have no justification for them? If not, what is the justification for your fundamental premise that your observations are valid? If so, perhaps you should reconsider a worldview which lacks justification for its fundamental premises.
They form the basis for all your other beliefs.
Doesn’t mean they don’t need to be justified.
The difference between us is that a christian dares not admit that his belief in the god of the bible is fundamental.
Oh I admit it gladly. Fundamental, and justified!!!
Cheers,
Sye
Wow. Well, as an atheist I can confidently say that a discussion over a meal at IHOP is hardly going to convert any atheist.
It seems like you were, and still are, convinced that atheists hate/dislike all religious people. It seemed you even feared for your safety. Hopefully you're joking. If you're not... then my reasons to part from the religious community are just.
-Sarah
The Happy Atheist said...
Wow. Well, as an atheist I can confidently say that a discussion over a meal at IHOP is hardly going to convert any atheist.
I say:
Sarah, that sounds like an absolute. Do you have a crystal ball? It may not convert any of them, but they'll be without excuse on judgment day. It might convert others that are reading this blog. And it may only convert them if they have only a few minutes left of life. Should you be in a car crash, or something, and have only nanoseconds left, don't forget, you can cry out to Jesus.
Sye tenb:
"Because God has revealed it to us in such a way that we can be certain of it. You aren’t another one who is going to deny that possibility are you. If so, on what grounds?"
I will deny it on the grounds that any perception of "revelation" that you have could have been constructed by a deceiver. But even without that, how do you know it was revealed to you?
"By basis, I meant justification. What is the justification for your fundamental premises?"
Nice try, but fundamental premises are the basis for determining what is justified. As such, they are not justified.
"Surely you believe that fundamental premises require justifiction don’t you?"
Actually, I believe that anything that is justified is not a premise, but rather a conclusion. Your ideas about what constitutes justification are premises.
"'Much like your beliefs about your god are fundamental to you.'
"And this is justified by God’s revelation."
Except that "god's revelation" is meaningless unless you already hold (yep, unjustified) the belief that the "revelation" will be correct, so it cannot be used to justify the belief that the "revelation" will be correct.
"Oh I admit it gladly. Fundamental, and justified!!!"
Mutually exclusive.
@ pvblivs
Well we have gone over this in that other thread, but for those reading here, let’s do it again:
I said that we could know that God exists: "Because He has revealed this to us in such a way that we can be certain of it.”
You denied this possibiliy: on the grounds that any perception of "revelation" that you have could have been constructed by a deceiver.
Surely you can see that this in no way denies the possibility that God could have revealed things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain. I asked if this was possible, all you are saying is “No, because something else is also possible.” Hardly an argument.
But even without that, how do you know it was revealed to you?
Because God has revealed in such a way that we can be certain of it.
Nice try, but fundamental premises are the basis for determining what is justified. As such, they are not justified.
Hmmm, alright then, it is my fundamental premise that professed atheists actually DO know God, but are “suppressing that truth in unrighteousness,” in an attempt to avoid accountability to Him, and in a desire to be their own gods. Since this is a fundamental premise, and by your reasoning does not need to be justified, I guess you agree that it is true. Wonderful, now we are getting somewhere :-)
Except that "god's revelation" is meaningless unless you already hold (yep, unjustified) the belief that the "revelation" will be correct, so it cannot be used to justify the belief that the "revelation" will be correct.
Except that you are ridiculously holding to the claim that God could not reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye tenb:
"Surely you can see that this in no way denies the possibility that God could have revealed things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain. I asked if this was possible, all you are saying is 'No, because something else is also possible.' Hardly an argument."
In order to "know something for certain" it must not be possible for it to have been falsified. As it is possible to have been falsified, my argument holds.
"'But even without that, how do you know it was revealed to you?'
"Because God has revealed in such a way that we can be certain of it."
In that case, I know my reasoning is valid because my reasoning is valid.
"Hmmm, alright then, it is my fundamental premise that professed atheists actually DO know God, but are “suppressing that truth in unrighteousness,” in an attempt to avoid accountability to Him, and in a desire to be their own gods. Since this is a fundamental premise, and by your reasoning does not need to be justified, I guess you agree that it is true. Wonderful, now we are getting somewhere :-)"
No, just because something is your fundamental principle does not mean that I will agree it is true. It does let me know that your mind is closed to the possibility (in this case, the reality) that it is false. It also lets me know that your asking how anyone could know anything without god was a sham.
@ pvblivs
In order to "know something for certain" it must not be possible for it to have been falsified.
Do you know this for certain?
As it is possible to have been falsified, my argument holds.
Alright, prove your claim. Prove that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
In that case, I know my reasoning is valid because my reasoning is valid.
Thank you so much for that! Step up to the microphone, please tell the world how you know that your reasoning is valid!!!
Cheers,
Sye
Sye tenb:
"'In order to 'know something for certain' it must not be possible for it to have been falsified.'
"Do you know this for certain?"
It is true by definition. Any possibility of falsification invalidates the definition of certainty. Asking that question reveals that you are dishonest (or perhaps that the meaning of words from your perspective is so different that it is impossible to communicate.)
"Alright, prove your claim. Prove that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain."
I already have. As your god, the way you postulate him, can cause any event he likes to happen, he can manipulate any evidence, meaning he can deceive you into saying you know he is honest because he has revealed himself to be so in a way in which you can be certain. Even if your claims about god were not self-defeating, I would expect you to be able to identify the method used if you were there to observe it.
"Thank you so much for that! Step up to the microphone, please tell the world how you know that your reasoning is valid!!!"
Okay, everyone, listen up. I tested Sye by feeding him the same circular reasoning that he has been using for "how he knows god gave him a revelation of which he can be certain." If he was being honest, you will not find any posts on his part challenging it or saying "step up to the microphone and tell the world."
@ pvblivs
It is true by definition.
Do you know this for certain?
Any possibility of falsification invalidates the definition of certainty.
Do you know this for certain?
Alright, I said: “Prove that God could not reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain."
You said: ”I already have. As your god, the way you postulate him, can cause any event he likes to happen
Then why could He not reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain???
Okay, everyone, listen up. I tested Sye by feeding him the same circular reasoning that he has been using for "how he knows god gave him a revelation of which he can be certain."
Alright then, if you were lying, and that is not your claim, please tell me how, according to your worldview, you can know anything for certain?
If he was being honest, you will not find any posts on his part challenging it or saying "step up to the microphone and tell the world."
Um, I have a website telling the world my claim, if I was allowed to post the link, I would, but you can get to it through my profile.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye tenb:
According to my worldview, the only things we can know "for certain" are things which are true by definition or constitute logical tautologies. In other words, things which cannot be false.
I answered your apparent facetiousness with facetiousness of my own. I do not question that you spout the same nonsense on your website. The general form is "I know X is true because X is true."
Incidentally, I don't expect to convince you, only to expose you.
@ pvblivs
According to my worldview, the only things we can know "for certain" are things which are true by definition or constitute logical tautologies. In other words, things which cannot be false.
How do you know that the definitions are correct, that the laws of logic are valid, or that those things cannot be false? How do you know that the reasoning you use to interpret anything, is valid?
Furthermore, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
I do not question that you spout the same nonsense on your website. The general form is "I know X is true because X is true."
My claim is the only way that anything can be known for certain is by or through divine revelation. Lets see how (or if) you answer my questions, then we can compare the claims.
Incidentally, I don't expect to convince you, only to expose you.
I appreciate the exposure, of your worldview, and mine :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Witnesser said:
"Should you be in a car crash, or something, and have only nanoseconds left, don't forget, you can cry out to Jesus."
I've had Christians make similar statements to me. I guess the thinking is that when are faced with a fearful situation we'll convert? That would be fear driven behavior. I've face life-threatening situations or illness before. Scary yes. But no, those instances didn't make me cry out for Jesus.
sye tenb:
"My claim is the only way that anything can be known for certain is by or through divine revelation."
Interesting statement. In my humble opinion though, the problem with divine revelation is this: It's all subjective. That's why I choose hard scientific evidence. A scientist may have a "revelation" of his own. But it doesn't become a scientific theory until it's gone through peer reveiw and tested, tested and tested some more. Then it's safe to use the vaccine or board on the airplane. Not a perfect system, but the best one we have.
Now Christians say God's word is perfect. They say the Bible was written through "divine revelation" from God. That's why it's scripture. Okay, fair enough. So tell me this then: When was Jesus crucified? What were his last words? How many women went to the tomb? And what were their names? Was the stone rolled away or not? Did the woman/women see an angel, a man or two men? Did they tell the disciples to go to Galillee or stay in Jerusalem? Did the disciples got to Gallilee or did they stay in Jerusalem? etc., etc.
The answers depend on which gospel writer you read. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John carefully and you'll see that they all have different accounts. They differ in their "divine revelation" of the same event!
So personally, if someone tells me through "divine revelation" a vaccine is safe, an airplane will fly, a bridge will stay up, a building won't fall, that's not good enough for me. Because "divine revelation" hasn't shown itself to be consistent or necessarily true.
I'll take my chance with evidence, peer review, experimentation, science and the laws of physics which have turned out to be consistent and true, time and time again.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Interesting statement. In my humble opinion though, the problem with divine revelation is this: It's all subjective.
This is assuming that God could not reveal things in such a way that we know them as an objective certainty. People indeed interpret God’s revelation subject to their own selfish motivations, but this in no way, makes the revelation subjective.
That's why I choose hard scientific evidence. A scientist may have a "revelation" of his own. But it doesn't become a scientific theory until it's gone through peer reveiw and tested, tested and tested some more. Then it's safe to use the vaccine or board on the airplane. Not a perfect system, but the best one we have.
Hey, I agree that science is a wonderful thing, but science itself is dependent on God. As I have discussed in other threads here, all of science is based on the inductive principle, or ‘the uniformity of nature.’ Science can only be done, because of the assumption that the future will be like the past. The problem is, no atheistic worldview has any basis for this assumption. Saying: the future will be like the past, because the future has always been like the past, in the past, is entirely circular.
Now Christians say God's word is perfect. They say the Bible was written through "divine revelation" from God. That's why it's scripture. Okay, fair enough. So tell me this then: When was Jesus crucified? What were his last words? How many women went to the tomb? And what were their names? Was the stone rolled away or not? Did the woman/women see an angel, a man or two men? Did they tell the disciples to go to Galillee or stay in Jerusalem? Did the disciples got to Gallilee or did they stay in Jerusalem? etc., etc.
The problem here is that with your presupposition that the Bible is not infallible, you will look for apparent contradictions, while I, who believe that the Bible is infallible, will look for resolutions to those apparent contradictions. The question is though, which worldview can account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, with which we examine the Bible, or anything for that matter. All of the characteristics of the laws of logic are accounted for in the nature of God, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
The answers depend on which gospel writer you read. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John carefully and you'll see that they all have different accounts. They differ in their "divine revelation" of the same event!
Again, I believe that there are resolutions to these apparent contradictions, indeed, I maintain that the Bible does not contradict itself, but let me ask you this: Why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?
So personally, if someone tells me through "divine revelation" a vaccine is safe, an airplane will fly, a bridge will stay up, a building won't fall, that's not good enough for me.
Me neither.
Because "divine revelation" hasn't shown itself to be consistent or necessarily true.
Only with the presupposition that it is not.
I'll take my chance with evidence, peer review, experimentation, science and the laws of physics which have turned out to be consistent and true, time and time again.
And which can only be accounted for in the Christian worldview. The instant that you expect the future to behave like the past, you abandon any atheistic notion of ‘randomness’ and ‘chance,’ and borrow from the Divine. It’s not that atheists cannot do science, it is that they do not give credit to the One who makes science possible, for this, they are ‘without excuse’ (Romans 1: 18-20).
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. For a more in-depth look at the science discussion, refer to the next thread "Another word for atheism...."
"I Never Made a Sacrifice"
Hudson Taylor, Missionary to China
James and Amelia Hudson loved their children and, like all doting parents, they enjoyed giving them little treats on occasion. But once in a while, when Amelia brought a dessert to the table for her family, James would say, "Who will see if they can do without today?" He explained it to the children this way:
By and by, you will have to say "No" to yourself when we are not there to help you, and very difficult you will find it when you want a thing tremendously. So let us try to practice now, for the sooner you begin, the stronger will be the habit.
The children were not punished if they chose not to give up the sweet, but if they were able to go the entire day without it they were rewarded with some other treat and most importantly, with the loving approval of their parents. Hudson Taylor took this lesson to heart and learned early how to say "no" to himself. He went on to live a life characterized by self-denial for the sake of the gospel, and yet, when he looked back over his long life he said, "I never made a sacrifice." How could he honestly say such a thing?
From his conversion in his teens, Hudson Taylor had a deep passion for God and desire to serve him as a missionary in China. All through his young adulthood his focus on this goal never failed. Most of China's inland cities had never seen a foreign missionary and a million Chinese each month were dying without having heard the gospel. Taylor could not understand how any believer could be unmoved in the face of such staggering need. He left his home in Barnsley in 1850 to study medicine in London, planning to go to China at the first opportunity as a medical missionary.
Taylor was touched by the plight of the poor in the slums of London. He chose to live among them in order to devote as much of his small income as possible to medicines and tracts to alleviate both the physical and spiritual suffering of the community. The damp, smelly neighborhood (aptly named Drainside) in which he rented a room was a full four miles from the hospital, which meant Taylor had at least an hour's brisk walk each way in every kind of weather. He willingly made that sacrifice to serve the poor.
During his studies at the hospital, Taylor was required to dissect a cadaver. While working on a particularly dangerous specimen, a small open wound on Taylor's finger allowed contaminants from the cadaver to enter his own blood stream. He became ill almost immediately. As soon as the teacher on duty learned what had happened and diagnosed "malignant fever," he urged Taylor to hurry home to get his affairs in order. "You are a dead man," he said grimly, expecting Taylor to die within hours. And though Taylor did get very sick, he recovered fully. The physician who cared for him credited Taylor's careful lifestyle and his long walks to and from the hospital as giving him the stamina to survive. Suddenly, his choice to live in Drainside didn't seem like a sacrifice.
During this same period of Taylor's life, the woman he loved refused to marry him unless he gave up his dream of serving in China. Taylor ended this relationship with tears. He trusted that God (like his parents at the dinner table) would have something better for him later if he denied himself for the sake of the gospel. And his faith proved true. God provided a wife in China—one who shared his passion for missionary work. Maria grew up in China, the daughter of English missionaries in Shanghai. She was as fluent in Mandarin as she was in English and became great help and comfort in Taylor's work. "It never cooled, my love for her," he said forty years later—"It has not cooled now." The relationship he gave up in London no longer seemed like a sacrifice.
In China, Taylor found that to gain an audience with the people, he first needed to give up his European dress and customs. He adopted a pigtail and chopsticks and traveled from town to town, living in boats, in small shacks or in attic garrets, usually battling insects and vermin. Once, on a journey to an inland city, he was robbed of his traveling bed, spare clothes, surgical instruments, and a Bible given to him by his mother. Taylor decided not to prosecute the thief because of the harsh Chinese penal system, but wrote the culprit a letter instead, urging him to repent. He described his plea to the errant servant in a letter sent home to England. That letter somehow fell into the hands of George Mueller of Bristol. He was so impressed by the spirit of the writer that he became a supporter of the mission. Taylor's sacrifice of the right to prosecute the man who stole his bed resulted in a supporter who would provide over $10,000 per year for the mission and would be a friend and advisor in times of trial. Looking back, giving up the right to justice did not seem like a sacrifice.
Taylor endured many hardships including arrests, insults, slander and poverty, but lived his life believing what Christ said in Mark 10:29 and 30—that if we give up anything for the sake of the gospel we will receive blessings one hundred times better in this life, and eternal life in the world to come. With that perspective, he could truly say, "I never made a sacrifice."
Sye TenB said:
"People indeed interpret God's revelation subject to their own selfish motivations, but this in no way, makes the revelation subjective."
"The problem here is that with your presupposition that the Bible is not infallible, you will look for apparent contradictions, while I, who believe that the Bible is infallible, will look for resolutions to those apparent contradictions."
Hmm... some of my comments don't seem to be making it through, but I'll try again. I'll address these points.
Thanks for your comments, you're obviously well read. Here's my take.
When I read the Bible, I see four different gospel writers giving four different versions with "apparent contradictions". Seriously, I don't need "presupposition that the Bible is not infallible", I see contradictory stories. Some Biblical scholars, teaching at Christian Universities would agree with me.
We could argue all day and night about Bible inerrancy. Let's just cut to the chase.
Let's take the crucifiction and resurrection narratives. So, give me a concise story that agrees with Matthew, Mark. Luke and John. Start with when Jesus dies (In Mark's Gospel: AFTER the Passover meal vs. John's Gospel: He's crucified on the afternoon of Preparation for The Passover-The Day BEFORE The Passover). Go ahead and reconcile all the "apparent contradictions" in the four gospels, of the questions I've posed. Can any Christian write a narrative that makes any sense, of the four gospels combined? So far I haven't heard or read any.
Thanks,
Hans
Sye TenB said:
"Hey, I agree that science is a wonderful thing, but science itself is dependent on God."
Except, I don't see that "science itself is dependent on God".
That's a subjective opinion, that some would argue with. For example: Look at the evolution vs. intelligent design Dover, Pennsylvania court case in 2004. The judge ruled that evolution (science) worked quite well without a designer. From fossil evidence to modern genetics there's plenty of evidence for nature working without a designer.
This was a landmark case that even many Christians were in agreement with. They didn't want intelligent design taught next to evolution, because ID is not testable science. ID lost and so it isn't taught in school. Evolution is testable scientific theory, has substantial evidence to back up it's claims and doesn't need the supernatural or God to make it work.
Feel free to read the court transcripts if you don't believe me. They're out there, in books or online.
Take care,
Hans
Sye TenB said:
"Again, I believe that there are resolutions to these apparent contradictions, indeed, I maintain that the Bible does not contradict itself, but let me ask you this: Why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?"
It's not that I contradictions are "not allowed". They are there. And when I see them I examine them. I see obvious contradictions and discrepancies. So I investigate.
Some Biblical scholars see them, too.
Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his comment in Matthew 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matthew 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword").
Even Martin Luther saw discrepancies:
"When discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize them, let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith."
James Orr (one of the fathers of the Christian Fundamentalist movement): It is urged...that unless we can demonstrate what is called the inerrancy of the biblical record down even to its minutest details, the whole edifice of belief in revealed religion falls to the ground. This, on the face of it, is the most suicidal position for any defender of revelation to take up."
Obviously other see them, including the man who started the Protestant movement! And what, I should pretend that discrepancies, contradictions and problems are not there?
I also see obvious violations of the laws of science and physics. Scientists sees them, too. Things may work a certain way in the stories of the Bible. But they don't work that way in the world that I observe.
To not address discrepancies, that even church fathers saw, would be intellectually dishonest. I would be lying to myself. Fine, if others don't see them....or choose not to. But I see them.
Take care,
Hans
@Hans
Hans, thanks for your compliment, sadly though, you miss the whole point of my post.
You list what you believe are ‘contradictions’ within the Bible, then you go on to suggest that the Bible is not supported by science, the problem is, neither the laws of logic or our ability to do science make any sense, if the Bible were not true.
You see Hans, you can list verses, or cite scientific studies till the cows come home, but you will interpret them according to your presupposition that the Bible is not the inspired infallible Word of God, while I will interpret them as though it is.
We could both produce scholars who take polar opposite views on the topic of Biblical inerrancy, or who cite studies to support either creation (I don’t believe in ID either), or evolution. A discussion to determine who was right and who was wrong, would indeed be a colossal waste of time.
If we are to get anywhere at all in this discussion we must first examine our fundamental beliefs and see which worldview can make sense out of the laws of logic which say that contradictions in reasoning are not allowed, and which worldview can make sense out of our very ability to do science.
I’ll even go first.
The laws of logic are universal, abstract (not made of matter), and invariant (do not change). All of these characteristics reflect the nature of God as He has revealed to us in His Word. God is universal, not made of matter, and He does not change (If you want the verses, you can get them through my website via my profile). Contradictions are ‘logical incongruities,’ and are not allowed in my worldview as they constitute ‘lying’ and Christians are not to lie.
Science is based on the ‘inductive principle,’ or ‘the uniformity of nature,’ which is derived from the basic assumption that the future will be like the past. Science would be meaningless without this assumption. If fire burned yesterday, then we assume that under identical conditions, it will burn tomorrow. Christians are able to trust our ability to do science as we believe in a God who controls this world in such a way that we can proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past.
Ok, your turn.
Rather than cite apparent Biblical contradictions, or give scientific explanations as to why you believe the Bible is not true, lets get right down to basics. Please tell me why contradictions are not allowed, or how you account for the uniformity of nature, according to your worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye TenB said:
"Hans, thanks for your compliment, sadly though, you miss the whole point of my post."
" Ok, your turn. "
" Rather than cite apparent Biblical contradictions, or give scientific explanations as to why you believe the Bible is not true, lets get right down to basics. Please tell me why contradictions are not allowed, or how you account for the uniformity of nature, according to your worldview."
You're welcome. Though I'm not sure that I miss your point, it may be I just don't agree with it! What's interesting is that Christian will debate and debate to defend the validity of the "inspired infallible Word of God". Yet, even when asked for some evidence of consistency of that "infallible Word" they don't want to get into specifics. They direct the debate elsewhere and basically say: God is infallible...and that's that!
If I can't mention the Bible (which is where the Christian concept of God comes from) or science (which is basically the natural, testable explanation for the world/universe we live in) my hands are somewhat tied, so to speak. Those are basics.
But I'll try... Not sure what you mean that "contradictions are not allowed" in my worldview. It's not a case of allowing anything. I see contradictions, but I don't accept them as "truth." An example:
Basically all things in existence are compose of matter or energy.
You say God exists, but He isn't matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). Okay.
Then is God energy (light, heat, electrical energy,mechanical energy)?
If He exists then He would be observable, measureable, or the effects of him could be measured or observed. But not so with God.
A contradiction! I allowed it in my worldview. I saw it. I examined it and came to the conclusion: Not true.
As far as the "uniformity of nature". That's how the universe evolved. That's how systems evolved. It exists because it works. We are the result. No need for the supernatural.
As someone said," Furthermore, all explanations for the attributes of God are conceptual, and therefore can only ever promise consistency, not truth. The rubber never hits the road, as they say, because God's existence isn't subject to empirical testing."
Take care,
Hans
@Hans
Though I'm not sure that I miss your point, it may be I just don't agree with it!
Nope – you’re missing it – still.
Yet, even when asked for some evidence of consistency of that "infallible Word" they don't want to get into specifics.
As I said, before we discuss apparent inconsistencies, we must lay the groundwork as to why they are not allowed. I have told you why they are not allowed in my worldview, you have yet to tell me why they are not allowed in yours.
If I can't mention the Bible (which is where the Christian concept of God comes from) or science (which is basically the natural, testable explanation for the world/universe we live in) my hands are somewhat tied, so to speak. Those are basics.
Those are basics which can be accounted for in the Bible, I want to know how you account for them.
But I'll try... Not sure what you mean that "contradictions are not allowed" in my worldview. It's not a case of allowing anything. I see contradictions, but I don't accept them as "truth."
Yes this is my point, why can contradictions not be accepted as ‘truth’ according to your worldview?
Basically all things in existence are compose of matter or energy.
Perhaps you could direct me to the laws of logic then.
A contradiction! I allowed it in my worldview. I saw it. I examined it and came to the conclusion: Not true.
By ‘not allowed’ I meant why can contradictions not be true in your worldview, if it is “Not true,” then it is not allowed.
As far as the "uniformity of nature". That's how the universe evolved.
Prove this please.
It exists because it works.
Works to what end? How is the universe supposed to ‘work?’
We are the result. No need for the supernatural.
That would be like me arguing that God just exists, and we are the result, that’s just how it is. You would regard that argument as being as poor as I regard yours.
As someone said," Furthermore, all explanations for the attributes of God are conceptual, and therefore can only ever promise consistency, not truth. The rubber never hits the road, as they say, because God's existence isn't subject to empirical testing."
Do you believe that all beliefs must be ‘subject to empirical testing’ before they can be considered true?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye TenB said:
"Do you believe that all beliefs must be 'subject to empirical testing' before they can be considered true?"
Okay, I went to your website.
I pushed all the buttons. Your conclusion: Laws of logic, mathematics, science, absolute morals,exist. They are abstract. These laws are unchanging. Your conclusion: "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore... God exists".
You site Bible passages to support your conclusion.
Huh? With all due respect, I see some major problems with your argument. In fact I argued this point when I first posted. As more discoveries are made science makes adjustments. So does math! Laws of Science and mathematics laws change constantly!
From a New York Times Science article:
"Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds"
An international team of astrophysicists has discovered that the basic laws of nature as understood today may be changing slightly as the universe ages, a surprising finding that could rewrite physics textbooks and challenge fundamental assumptions about the workings of the cosmos."
From Wikipedia: " Mathematics is not a closed intellectual system, in which everything has already been worked out. There is no shortage of open problems. Mathematicians publish many thousands of papers embodying new discoveries in mathematics every month."
In fact, so do "moral" laws! Even in your own Bible. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery or selling your daughter as a sex slave. Yet I would hope most modern Christians don't think those are "moral" acts.
You site the Bible, so I will, too.
God has Moses break one of his own commandments:
The 6th commandement is 'Thou Shalt Not MURDER'. (Deuteronomy 5:17 and Exodus 20:13)
In Numbers 31, Moses is commanded by god to destroy the Midianites because they worshipped false idols.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army....
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Killing civilian women and children, POWs and non-combatants! I think that would be considered a war crime today. Moses would be on trial as a war criminal.
And some of the New Testament (especially Paul) seems to be at odds with the OT. Do Christians need to follow the Law of Moses to be right with God? Or not? Argument and changing "morals"?
Even if these laws were unchanging they still wouldn't prove the existence of God. And these laws do change.
To be honest, so far, every time a Christian offers up "proof" of "evidence" of God's existence I'm disappointed with poor argument and some Bible passages thrown in.
You asked: "Do you believe that all beliefs must be 'subject to empirical testing' before they can be considered true?"
To that I answer: I need something! False logic, assumptions, and ancient writings don't give me "truth." If it's not testable or observable, it's most likely conceptual.
And just because a concept exists doesn't automatically mean it's true. And just because it "exists" may mean it only "exists" in the imagination of someone's mind.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Okay, I went to your website…
…Laws of Science and mathematics laws change constantly!
The laws do not change, our understanding of them do.
In fact, so do "moral" laws! Even in your own Bible. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery or selling your daughter as a sex slave. Yet I would hope most modern Christians don't think those are "moral" acts.
As I said before, you will interpret the Bible subject to your presupposition that it is not true. Christians get their morality from the God of the Bible, we try not to twist it for our own selfish benefit or understanding like professed atheists do.
You site the Bible, so I will, too.
God has Moses break one of his own commandments:
The 6th commandement is 'Thou Shalt Not MURDER'. (Deuteronomy 5:17 and Exodus 20:13)
In Numbers 31, Moses is commanded by god to destroy the Midianites because they worshipped false idols.
Alright, just for the benefit of those who are reading this, and feel that these spurious arguments cannot be answered by Christians. The command is “Thou shalt not murder,” murder being that killing which is unlawful. Since these killings were decreed by God according to His holy law, they were not murder.
To be honest, so far, every time a Christian offers up "proof" of "evidence" of God's existence I'm disappointed with poor argument and some Bible passages thrown in.
Well it would be nice if we could compare how Christians account for logic, science and morality, to how you account for logic, science, and morality, but since you never answer the question, we can’t. You mention ‘proof’ but you do not tell us how you can prove anything according to your worldview.
I asked: "Do you believe that all beliefs must be 'subject to empirical testing' before they can be considered true?"
You answered: ”I need something! False logic, assumptions, and ancient writings don't give me "truth." If it's not testable or observable, it's most likely conceptual.”
And again you did not answer my question. Let me ask it again: Do you believe that all beliefs must be ‘subject to empirical testing,' before they can be considered true?
Cheers,
Sye
God has Moses break one of his own commandments:
The 6th commandement is 'Thou Shalt Not MURDER'. (Deuteronomy 5:17 and Exodus 20:13)
In Numbers 31, Moses is commanded by god to destroy the Midianites because they worshipped false idols.
Sye TenB said: "Alright, just for the benefit of those who are reading this, and feel that these spurious arguments cannot be answered by Christians. The command is "Thou shalt not murder," murder being that killing which is unlawful. Since these killings were decreed by God according to His holy law, they were not murder."
I can't believe Christians will justify about anything, even wholesale slaughter in the name of God! Is the genocide of Moses any more acceptable because it happened about three thousand years ago? Or because it was carried out in the belief that it was God's will? If the names were any others beside God and Moses, you'd think mass killing would be horrific. But since God orders it, you blindly accept it. And that's moral?
Where's the absolute morality that Christians talk about? Where's morality period? If you wonder what atheists find so immoral about religion, this is one example right here.
Sye TenB also said :Do you believe that all beliefs must be 'subject to empirical testing,' before they can be considered true?"
Yeah, I'd probably say yes, for the most part, most beliefs must be subject to testing before they are taken as "true".
And if you're trying to bring up the false dichotomy argument. Forget it. I don't see life as black and white or to be followed blindly according to ancient laws of a supposed deity. That's your deal.
Sye TenB also said: " Christians get their morality from the God of the Bible, we try not to twist it for our own selfish benefit or understanding like professed atheists do."
Seriously, you're accusing me and other atheists of twisting the Bible for our "selfish benefit or understanding?" That's laughable. I'm not twisting anything. I just cited a Bible verse where God orders mass killing of women and children. And you say that's okay with Christians because it's God's Law.
Hey, I can read the Bible, fine. I just don't agree. God orders mass killing, you can hedge on the word "murder". As an atheist, I say that's wrong and immoral. Unethical. Barbaric. Plain and simple. How did I come to this conclusion? I used reasoning, I thought for myself, instead of blindly following dogma. No need to "twist" anything. You and other Christians might like to try it sometime.
Take care,
Hans
@pvblivs
I can't believe Christians will justify about anything, even wholesale slaughter in the name of God!
Look, you said that God had Moses break one of His own commandments, I showed you that this was not the case. Just because you do not agree with God, does not mean that you were not refuted. That is why I do not argue these evidences with professed atheists, you can show them that they are wrong, then they change the playing field.
If you wonder what atheists find so immoral about religion, this is one example right here.
I don’t wonder, because I know that professed atheists believe that morality is stipulated, and therefore lose any moral argument against anyone. If morality can be stipulated, then anyone can stipulate their own.
I asked:”Do you believe that all beliefs must be 'subject to empirical testing,' before they can be considered true?"
You answered: ”Yeah, I'd probably say yes, for the most part, most beliefs must be subject to testing before they are taken as "true".
So, not all beliefs must be subject to empirical testing before they can be considered “true.” Perhaps you can give me an example of a belief which can be considered “true,” that is not subject to empirical testing then.
Seriously, you're accusing me and other atheists of twisting the Bible for our "selfish benefit or understanding?" That's laughable. I'm not twisting anything. I just cited a Bible verse where God orders mass killing of women and children. And you say that's okay with Christians because it's God's Law.
Yip.
Hey, I can read the Bible, fine. I just don't agree. God orders mass killing, you can hedge on the word "murder". As an atheist, I say that's wrong and immoral.
Based on what standard of morality?
How did I come to this conclusion? I used reasoning, I thought for myself, instead of blindly following dogma.
Perhaps you can tell me how you know that the reasoning you used to come to this conclusion is valid? (Something tells me that you are going to avoid this question, like the others I keep posting).
For the record, let me ask again:
1. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
2. How do you account for the uniformity of nature according to your worldview?
3. How is it possible to prove anything according to your worldview?
4. What is the absolute standard of morality according to your worldview?
And to recap:
5. How do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
Cheers,
Sye
I just cited a Bible verse where God orders mass killing of women and children. And you say that's okay with Christians because it's God's Law.
Sye TenB said: " Yip."
Sye TenB said: "So, not all beliefs must be subject to empirical testing before they can be considered “true.” Perhaps you can give me an example of a belief which can be considered “true,” that is not subject to empirical testing then."
Sye TenB said: "Perhaps you can tell me how you know that the reasoning you used to come to this conclusion is valid? (Something tells me that you are going to avoid this question, like the others I keep posting)."
"For the record, let me ask again:
1. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
2. How do you account for the uniformity of nature according to your worldview?
3. How is it possible to prove anything according to your worldview?
4. What is the absolute standard of morality according to your worldview?
And to recap:
5. How do you know that your ability to reason is valid?"
Sye TenB said: I've notice you use his tactic in comments to other people: "(Something tells me that you are going to avoid this question, like the others I keep posting)."
Funny though. You demand specifics, yet when an atheist wants specifics like :How can the apparent contradictions in the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection be reconciled? You answer like this: "Again, I believe that there are resolutions to these apparent contradictions, indeed, I maintain that the Bible does not contradict itself, but let me ask you this: Why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?
You didn't answer me! You claim Bible inerrancy and then answer me with a question. Weak. Because you can't give me an answer. No matter all the mental gymnastics, circular thinking. Christians cannot specifically reconcile their "inerrant Bible".
I've asked you repeatedly to show me specifically how they are not contradictions. Reconcile the scriptures! You don't. That just shows me that Christians can't!!!
You just direct me away with a question. Why in the end, does the Evangelical and Fundamentalist answer always come down to "Because the Bible says so." ???? That's not proof or evidence of anything. That's just your opinion.
And if Fundamentalist Christians think mass killing of women and children is okay, because it says so in the Bible... I question their ethics! Ah, such loving Christians!
As far as where morailty comes from: evolution. Altruistic behavior = individual survival survival of the group, etc. Humans are social animals. You sound like a smart guy. There are tons of books to read on the subject by anthropologists, evolutionary scientists. I'm of course simplifying. Naturalism and humanism. Valid. No supernatural God needed. Even modern primates develop harmonious relationships and ethics:
Jessica Flack and Frans de Waal, a psychobiologist and a primate ethologist-
"Monkeys and apes are concerned that their groups be relatively harmonious, because such harmony is usually in each member's interests. For this reason, they engage in activities designed to forestall and resolve conflicts. Flack and de Waal identify several mechanisms which work to this end: food sharing, reconciliation of combatants, direct intervention in conflicts, and others besides."
Beliefs can be based on objectivity or subjectivity. I'll get on the airplane because my belief is based on prior evidence that it will most likely fly.
Subjective beliefs. Things like love, affection. Concepts and feeling that we have in our own minds.. Might be true (the person may love us) or not true (it's a feeling that we alone have in our mind).
Life is not all black and white. And not all absolute. Not for this atheist. It doesn't need to be.
I'll try to answer your questions as best I can given my time available. I've given you answers, you just don't accept them . But realize that when you accuse people of not specifically answering question...you do the same thing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps?
Take care,
Hans
Hey, I can read the Bible, fine. I just don't agree. God orders mass killing, you can hedge on the word "murder". As an atheist, I say that's wrong and immoral.
Sye TenB said.."Based on what standard of morality? "
On what I've read, seen and learned in observing the world. And on what my parents taught me!
Somewhere along the line they taught me to think for myself. That acts like purposely killing defenseless women and children is wrong and immoral, even if an authority figure or state commands it.
Didn't your parents ever teach you moral lessons like that?
Take care,
Hans
@hans
You didn't answer me! You claim Bible inerrancy and then answer me with a question. Weak. Because you can't give me an answer. No matter all the mental gymnastics, circular thinking. Christians cannot specifically reconcile their "inerrant Bible".
I was simply laying the foundation to your claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I would be happy to discuss those points in detail as soon as you tell me why, according to your worldview, contradictions are not allowed. You see Hans, you can’t borrow the foundations of logic from my worldview, to try to logically disprove my worldview. It hardly makes sense to discuss what you consider to be ‘contradictions’ if you refuse to lay the foundations of what a contradiction is according to your worldview, and why they are not allowed.
I've asked you repeatedly to show me specifically how they are not contradictions. Reconcile the scriptures! You don't. That just shows me that Christians can't !!!
Look Hans, even though you would not tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview, I did answer the one about ‘murder.’ I will not answer any more until you tell me why contradictions in reasoning are not allowed according to your worldview.
And if Fundamentalist Christians think mass killing of women and children is okay, because it says so in the Bible... I question their ethics! Ah, such loving Christians!
And what standard of morality do you use to ‘question their ethics?’
As far as where morailty comes from: evolution.
Um, didn’t terrorists evolve too? How do you know that you evolved ‘right,’ and they didn’t?
Altruistic behavior = individual survival survival of the group
So which is more important, individual survival, survival of the group, justice, pleasure, aesthetics, or love, and how do you know?
etc. Humans are social animals. You sound like a smart guy. There are tons of books to read on the subject by anthropologists, evolutionary scientists.
You aren’t suggesting that I put my faith in a book are you??? :-)
Beliefs can be based on objectivity or subjectivity. I'll get on the airplane because my belief is based on prior evidence that it will most likely fly.
Yip you will, and when you do this, you borrow your expectation that the future will ‘most likely’ be like the past from my worldview. Please tell me on what basis you believe that the future will be like the past?
Life is not all black and white. And not all absolute. Not for this atheist. It doesn't need to be.
Um, is that absolutely true?
I'll try to answer your questions as best I can given my time available. I've given you answers, you just don't accept them . But realize that when you accuse people of not specifically answering question...you do the same thing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps?
I fully admit that I have not answered all (in fact only one) of your questions on apparent Biblical contradictions, but Hans, you have to crawl before you can walk. Tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview, and we can go from there.
Hey, I can read the Bible, fine. I just don't agree. God orders mass killing, you can hedge on the word "murder". As an atheist, I say that's wrong and immoral.
Ya, but why should anyone care what you say? If you can stipulate what is ‘wrong and immoral,’ so can molesters, rapists and murderers.
I asked: "Based on what standard of morality?"
You answered: ”On what I've read, seen and learned in observing the world. And on what my parents taught me!
Again, why should anyone care about your subjective ‘morals?’
Somewhere along the line they taught me to think for myself.
Ya, that’s another question you neglected to answer: How do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
That acts like purposely killing defenseless women and children is wrong and immoral, even if an authority figure or state commands it.
I would agree, but that’s not what happened in the Bible. Still though, if you can simply stipulate what you believe to be moral, anyone can, and you lose all moral argument.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye TenB said:
"I was simply laying the foundation to your claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I would be happy to discuss those points in detail as soon as you tell me why, according to your worldview, contradictions are not allowed. "
"...you have to crawl before you can walk. Tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview, and we can go from there."
Okay, fair enough. I get your point. So let's just zero in on your point about contradictions. Actually, I don't think I ever said that I didn't allow contradictions in my world view. If you remember I stated that I don't see life as black and white. Or that life's questions can always be solved with simplistic answers. And I'm not ducking your question. I'm being honest. Consider the following definitions.
I understand the definition:
Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
But I also understand this definition:
Some dialetheists, including Graham Priest, have argued that coherence may not require consistency: It might be argued that our actual thinking is dialetheistic. In other words, it is not completely prima facie implausible that we might affirm both a proposition and its negation. Consider "John is in the room" when John is standing precisely halfway in the room.
True story:
For instance, I know of a couple that had a baby. Now, was the baby a boy or a girl? If I told you it was a boy and a girl, you might say that was a contradiction. The baby must be one or the other. It cannot be both. Not true. It was born with all the characteristics of both sexes. It was both. True. Male and female. A Hermaphrodite. So the parents decided to choose (a gut-wrenching decision, no doubt) whether to raise it as a boy or girl, and choose appropriate surgery and hormone therapy.
In addition to a 'yes' and a 'no,' the Universe contains a 'maybe.'"
— Physicist David Finkelstein
To me the argument that contradictions are "allowed" or "not allowed"? seems like a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy assumes that only two (or only a few) alternatives exist when many alternatives actually exist.
At the same time if I see an obvious contradiction in a story or event I question it and see it as false...unless there's evidence (an explanation) to prove that it is in fact true.
But for the sake of argument, if you want to press me for a yes or no answer... And I'm not "allowed" to use "maybe" (in this debate), I could say yes I "allow" (some) contradictions in my worldview (depending on the evidence).
Okay, your turn.
Hans
@hans
Welcome to the discussion man :-)
But for the sake of argument, if you want to press me for a yes or no answer... And I'm not "allowed" to use "maybe" (in this debate), I could say yes I "allow" (some) contradictions in my worldview (depending on the evidence).
Why are some contradictions not allowed in your worldview?
Your turn :-)
Sye
Sye TenB said:
@hans
"Welcome to the discussion man :-)
Why are some contradictions not allowed in your worldview?"
Thanks. :)
Contradictions that are obviously false are not allowed. If someone tells me that they can levitate (on earth), that's obviously contradictory to the natural laws of physics, gravity and just what I've observed of the way the universe works. (Even though they may believe it to be true in their mind).
I seek truth. Contradictions go against logic and reason.
Now if they show me empirical evidence: They levitate in a scientifically controlled setting with witnesses, scientists present, etc. so I know it's not a magic trick then it's allowed. It's been shown to be true. And obviously the laws of physics need to be amended!
Take care,
Hans
@Hans
Now we are getting somewhere :-)
I really do have a point in my line of questioning, so please bear with me.
I seek truth. Contradictions go against logic and reason.
Alright, so you affirm 'truth,' 'logic,' and 'reasoning.' I submit that none of these can be made sense of in any atheistic worldview.
In order for anyone to 'know' whehter or not anything is 'true,' one would have to know everything, or have revelation from someone who does know everything, otherwise we would end up in an infinite regress of "and how do you know that? This is the Christian claim, that God reveals certain things to us in such a way that we can know them to be true.
Logic. The laws of logic are universal (apply to all people at al times), abstract (not made of matter), and invariant (they do not change), none of these charcteristics of logic can be accounted for in any atheistic worldview, and they are accounted for in the nature of God as revealed to us in His word.
Reasoning. Reasoning is dependent on the laws of logic, which as I said, cannot be accounted for in any atheistic worldview. Secondly, in order to assume that one's reasoning is valid, without appealing to revelation from God, one ends up in the visciously circular argument of "I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid."
So now, the questions :-)
1. How can you know whether or not anything is 'true' according to your worldview?
2. How does your worldview account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?
3. How do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
I understand that you may disagree with how Christians account for truth, knowledge, logic and reasoning, but rather than get into that at this point, please tell us how you account for these things, so we can compare their validity. We both make truth claims, let's see who can back them up :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
I see you're still on with this invalid argument during my absence :)
I'm still amazed that the absurdity of your reasoning hasn't hit home yet. Let's see if I can finally convince you that it's invalid by asking you some simple questions of my own.
Is circular reasoning a valid form of argument?
[Example of circular reasoning: I know god exists because if god didn't exist I couldn't know that he exists. i.e. god = knowledge, knowledge = god; therefore god = god. This argument is saying exactly nothing.]
How do you know that god is necessary for knowledge?
Is your knowledge based on circular reasoning?
If your reasoning is circular, how can you possibly use it as proof for the necessity of god's existence?
If my reasoning is circular, how can I possibly use it as proof that god is not necessary?
Doesn't this line of reasoning make it impossible for anyone to prove anything, then?
Since both sides reach the same dead end, isn't it therefore a pointless argument?
Shouldn't we then drop this argument and base our arguments on basic premises that we can both agree to? [Eg. Something can't be both true and false at the same time. Circular reasoning is invalid. My blue is probably the same as your blue. Etc.]
Hugs,
Joel
Joel has left a new comment on the post "Dinner With 40 Atheists":
Sye,
Shouldn't we then drop this argument and base our arguments on basic premises that we can both agree to? [Eg. Something can't be both true and false at the same time. Circular reasoning is invalid. My blue is probably the same as your blue. Etc.]
Hugs,
Joel
Witnesser: So Joel, in regards to you saying this argument has all been pointless...it is pointless for you either way, because, if you are right or wrong, you gain nothing, (unless it's more wrath) and if Sye is right,he is working for eternity. Truth is so simple for those looking for it. Don't miss it.
if you are right or wrong, you gain nothing, (unless it's more wrath) and if Sye is right,he is working for eternity.
Unless, of course, both are wrong - Pascal's Wager ignores the possibility of an unknown option, which could possibly be worse than the two presented.
I've always been just fine with things in life I can verify, believing out of fear, or because it's "a better option" goes against our nature as curious beings looking for reality.
@joel
Is circular reasoning a valid form of argument?
‘Visciuosly’ circular arguments – no, ‘virtuously’ circular arguments – yes. All ultimate authority claims, in fact all logical arguments, contain a degree of circularity, but not all can be valid. The argument (your argument) “my reasoning is valid because my reasoning is valid” is visciously circular, and therefore invalid as the premises have exactly zero justification. The argument, “my reasoning is valid, because God has revealed to me that it is valid,” contains an element of circularity (more of a spiral) in that one assumes that God exists in order to account for one’s God-given ability to reason, yet it is logically sound as the premises can be justified, as divine revelation is within the scope of possiblity (as you have admitted).
How do you know that god is necessary for knowledge?
By the impossiblity of the contrary. Without God, knowledge is impossible, as you have been so kind to demonstrate.
Is your knowledge based on circular reasoning?
Viscious circularity – no. Virtuous circularity – yes.
If your reasoning is circular, how can you possibly use it as proof for the necessity of god's existence?
All proofs contain an element of circularity in that they assume what is to be proven in the proof. The premises within my proof can be known to be true, through divine revelation (as you have admitted).
If my reasoning is circular, how can I possibly use it as proof that god is not necessary?
Your reasoning is visciously circular, and therefore cannot be used to prove anything.
Doesn't this line of reasoning make it impossible for anyone to prove anything, then?
Nope, just impossible for those who deny God.
Since both sides reach the same dead end, isn't it therefore a pointless argument?
We don’t (as you have agreed that the Christian argument for knowledge is possible, and you have not yet positted your possible alternative).
Shouldn't we then drop this argument and base our arguments on basic premises that we can both agree to? [Eg. Something can't be both true and false at the same time. Circular reasoning is invalid. My blue is probably the same as your blue. Etc.]
Nope, neutrality is a myth. You have agreed that my claim to knowledge is possible, again, what is yours?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"So now, the questions :-)
1. How can you know whether or not anything is 'true' according to your worldview?
2. How does your worldview account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?
3. How do you know that your ability to reason is valid?"
To answer your questions:
By using reason and logic gained from experience, information, education, I judge things to be true.
"Universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic", I would say, are concepts that we've formed as human beings throughout history through the human experience. Primitive to advanced cultures: basic survival, hunting, fishing, farming, industry, philosophy, science, etc. Different cultures shared goods, as well as experience, knowledge, etc. As a species human beings developed a set of generally understood universal truths, laws of physics, etc.
If you tell me to go jump in front of a car I won't. My ability to reason (gained from observation and education) tells me that would harm me. I don't need to experiment with my life to understand that truth. I know my cognitive ability to reason is valid based on empirical evidence of how the world works.
Okay, fair is fair. :-) Now I have some questions for you! You stated :
"In order for anyone to 'know' whehter or not anything is 'true,' one would have to know everything, or have revelation from someone who does know everything, otherwise we would end up in an infinite regress of "and how do you know that? This is the Christian claim, that God reveals certain things to us in such a way that we can know them to be true."
"... none of these charcteristics of logic can be accounted for in any atheistic worldview, and they are accounted for in the nature of God as revealed to us in His word.
"Reasoning is dependent on the laws of logic, which as I said, cannot be accounted for in any atheistic worldview. Secondly, in order to assume that one's reasoning is valid, without appealing to revelation from God, one ends up in the visciously circular argument of "I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid."
My questions to you:
If, as you say, logic can only be accounted for as revelation by God, why have Christians, from earliest times (Council of Nicea) to today's Fundamentalists and Evangelicals been in dispute about God's word?
Article excerpt:
"When Newsweek proclaimed the "Year of the Evangelical" on October 25, 1976, the article noted the internal divisions which threatened evangelicalism at the height of its apparent cultural victory. .......a struggle between conservative evangelicals and...."postconservative" evangelicals, and by Millard Erickson as a dispute between traditional evangelicals and the "evangelical left," and by both Olson and Erickson as a dispute about the evangelical response to "postmodernism."
Including: "serious internal disputes over the meaning of numerous defining evangelical beliefs (such as the doctrines of God, Scripture, and salvation)."
I know of Evangelical pastors who are in serious disagreement about the Book of Revelations and end times.
If for Christians, as you say, "God reveals certain things to us in such a way that we can know them to be true" , then why are Evangelicals and Fundamentalists arguing over "truth" in doctrine, Scripture and salvation?
So:
1) If God's word (truth) is revealed why are Evangelicals fighting and bickering about the meaning of God's doctrine, scripture and salvation?
2) Didn't God "reveal" the same "truth" to all of them? (If so, why are they in conflict. And if He gave them contradictory "truths", then where is universal "truth"?)
3) If Christians hold to "universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic" and that "reasoning is valid" because of God's revelation, why are they in disagreement (Since laws of logic and reasoning should have no variance)?
4) And why is the invalid " visciously circular argument of "I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid " that you attribute to atheists, not applicable to two or more Evangelicals arguing about doctrine,scripture and salvation?
( Since all the disagreeing Evangelicals in the debate would claim revelation by God to defend their viewpoint what they will invariably fall back on, is the subjective "I have reasoned that my reasoning is valid", since none have empirical evidence).
Your turn...
:-)
Hans
@hans
Sorry Hans, I posted this on the wrong thead. I just cut and pasted it here, so I hope you respond to it here to keep the train of thought going.
Good post Hans. I appreciate your attempts to answer my questions, and your thought-out questions.
My question was: “How can you know whether or not anything is 'true' according to your worldview?”
You answered: ”By using reason and logic gained from experience, information, education, I judge things to be true.”
I was not asking how you ‘judged things to be true,’ I was asking how you know if something is true? Truth is independent of personal judgment. Please try this one again:
1. How do you know anything to be true according to your worldview?
"Universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic", I would say, are concepts that we've formed as human beings throughout history through the human experience.
2. How do humans form “abstracts?”
3. If humans formed them, why can they not change?
4. How do humans form things which are universally true?
If you tell me to go jump in front of a car I won't. My ability to reason (gained from observation and education) tells me that would harm me.
5. On what basis do you assume that the future will behave like the past?
I know my cognitive ability to reason is valid based on empirical evidence of how the world works.
6. Did you use your reasoning to interpret the empirical evidence?
Okay, fair is fair. :-) Now I have some questions for you!
If, as you say, logic can only be accounted for as revelation by God, why have Christians, from earliest times (Council of Nicea) to today's Fundamentalists and Evangelicals been in dispute about God's word?
As I said, I appreciate your questions, as they are quite good, but they have nothing to do with the foundations of knowledge and reasoning. If you are willing to concede that knowledge can only be gained by, or through divine revelation, then, I will be happy to address them, but until then, let’s stick to questions which deal with the justification for knowledge and not with the disputes between people who agree with this justification.
Again, my claim to knowledge is that God has revealed things to me in such a way that I can know them for certain, if you have questions regarding that claim, I will be happy to answer them.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"I was not asking how you 'judged things to be true,' I was asking how you know if something is true? Truth is independent of personal judgment."
"Did you use your reasoning to interpret the empirical evidence?"
"As I said, I appreciate your questions, as they are quite good, but they have nothing to do with the foundations of knowledge and reasoning. If you are willing to concede that knowledge can only be gained by, or through divine revelation, then, I will be happy to address them, but until then, let's stick to questions which deal with the justification for knowledge and not with the disputes between people who agree with this justification.
Again, my claim to knowledge is that God has revealed things to me in such a way that I can know them for certain, if you have questions regarding that claim, I will be happy to answer them."
Sye,
Empirical evidence is examined by human intellect and reasoning. From these experiments and observations of the universe, conclusions are drawn. Facts, truths, laws of science, etc. are established. Of course human reasoning is involved! So are the neurotransmitters in my brain, as well as other chemicals, electrical impulses, etc. in a complex system. How do I know these things to be true? Because airplanes fly, light bulbs shine, invisible microwaves allow my cellphone to work, etc., etc. Empirical evidence.
And thank you, I think my questions are valid. And in fact, I think they have everything to do with foundations of knowledge and reasoning! It's your claim that God "reveals things" to Christians so they "know them for certain". The basis of knowledge and truth. If Evangelicals are arguing and bickering over God's doctrine, scripture and salvation they seem to have disagreements over "truth."
Your claim is that God's revelation is the basis for Christian truth, knowledge and certainty. My observation (echoed by Newsweek and other publications) is that Evangelicals (conservative, post conservative, traditional, neo-Evangelicals, etc.) have no consensus of truth, knowledge and certainty in God's doctrine, scripture or salvation. Or else they wouldn't be fighting about it!
So go ahead and justify your claim of God's revelation. Do you have any evidence for it? Other than that you subjectively claim it to be true?
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Rats, we were doing so well. Alas, back to the drawing board.
1. Hans, is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being (God), could reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain?
Empirical evidence is examined by human intellect and reasoning. From these experiments and observations of the universe, conclusions are drawn…
…How do I know these things to be true? Because airplanes fly, light bulbs shine, invisible microwaves allow my cellphone to work, etc., etc.
These are only statements, I want to know how you know them to be true.
2. How do you know that the faculites (reasoning, senses, memory) with which you examine empirical evidences are valid?
3. Is all knowledge gained through the senses?
And thank you, I think my questions are valid. And in fact, I think they have everything to do with foundations of knowledge and reasoning! It's your claim that God "reveals things" to Christians so they "know them for certain". The basis of knowledge and truth. If Evangelicals are arguing and bickering over God's doctrine, scripture and salvation they seem to have disagreements over "truth."
Nope, it has nothing to do with the argument. We are not arguing what truth can be known, we are arguing if truth can be known. You are basically saying that since kindergarten students get different answers to the question, what is 2 + 2, the true answer cannot be known. Even if people argue about which revelation is true, that does not mean that truth cannot be known through revelation.
Let’s first establish which worldview can account for truth, then we can examine the truth claims. I’ve numbered my questions, so thet will be easier to see (and hopefully harder to skip).
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"Rats, we were doing so well. Alas, back to the drawing board."
So it goes. :-)
Sye said:
"1. Hans, is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being (God), could reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain?"
Highly improbable! I would say nope. No matter what form revelation came in (burning bush, stone tablets, scripture, God "talked" to you, etc.) how do you know the info isn't false or you were hallucinating? Anyone can make any claim! That's why science needs empirical evidence to prove stuff works!
"2. How do you know that the faculites (reasoning, senses, memory) with which you examine empirical evidences are valid?"
Those are the ways human beings can examine and validate their world! Intuition, hunches, guesses, etc. aren't valid by themselves. Sure, we can use them to get the ball rolling and form an opinion or hypothesis. But we need empirical evidence to validate the hypothesis. Again, I know that "reasoning, senses, memory are valid because stuff works! Empirical evidence: This computer, technology, medicine, blah, blah, blah. Haven't I explained this before?
3. Is all knowledge gained through the senses?
Yes! Of course! Science and our basic understanding of life in the world was gained through the senses.
Sye, think about it. Even religion was gained through the senses. If it wasn't why did God have to "write" a book? Why didn't he just "reveal" through intuition (to humanity) the whole story about Jesus? Why did he need Moses tell people His law. Why the stone tablets? Why did he need Jesus to spread His message? Why not just cut out the middle man?
"You are basically saying that since kindergarten students get different answers to the question, what is 2 + 2, the true answer cannot be known. Even if people argue about which revelation is true, that does not mean that truth cannot be known through revelation."
Sye, you're not comparing Evangelical Christians to kindergarten students, are you? :-)
But the point is that kindergarten students playing with building blocks will eventually figure out that 2+2=4 is true. Again, empirical evidence.
Evangelicals, theists, etc. can/will debate and argue for eternity and come to no consensus about God's doctrine, scripture or salvation! And you know why? No empirical evidence! Only subjective interpretation (senses) and conceptual arguments with no empirical evidence to draw a unanimous conclusion. That's the problem with the God Hypothesis. All subjective. No empirical evidence.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
I asked: “Hans, is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being (God), could reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain?"
You answered: Highly improbable! I would say nope.
Well, which is it, improbable or impossible?
I asked: “How do you know that the faculites (reasoning, senses, memory) with which you examine empirical evidences are valid?"
You answered: “Those are the ways human beings can examine and validate their world!... …Again, I know that "reasoning, senses, memory are valid because stuff works!
How would you know this if your reasoning, senses, and memory were invalid?
I asked: “Is all knowledge gained through the senses?”
You answerd: Yes! Of course! Science and our basic understanding of life in the world was gained through the senses.
By which sense did you come to know that all knowledge is gained through the senses? Did you see, hear, touch taste or feel that all knowledge is gained through the senses?
Sye, think about it. Even religion was gained through the senses.
Well not all of Christianity is revealed through the senses, but still, Christians can account for the reliablity of their senses as they are a gift from God. You fall back on the visciously circular argument that you sense that your senses are valid.
But the point is that kindergarten students playing with building blocks will eventually figure out that 2+2=4 is true. Again, empirical evidence.
I have never argued that people cannot count, the argument is that without God one cannot account for counting :-)
That's the problem with the God Hypothesis. All subjective. No empirical evidence.
That’s the problem with your hypothesis, without God, you cannot account for the validity of empirical evidence.
Cheers,
Sye
Yawn.
Hans to Sye said, "So go ahead and justify your claim of God's revelation. Do you have any evidence for it? Other than that you subjectively claim it to be true?"
Hans, can you not fathom that when the God of the universe reveals Himself to each of us, we can know it for sure? Do not you know that He makes sure there is no mistaken His communication to us? If you can place your rebellion that you mistakenly call disbelief aside and take a humble moment to entertain this, you will (without a doubt) be able to reason, 'If He does exist and created the universe and all that is in it, He can surely reveal Himself solidly to man.' But, Hans, proof is not the problem, you know, and you don't fool anyone with the Holy Spirit, my friend. It's written on your being to believe so that you can see your need of a Savior and repent, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to rescue your backside. Why are you guys/gals here? We will still love and pray for you all, a given from your Christian friends that you can be thankful for whether you are or not, but you guys are monotonous.
witnesser said:
"Yawn."
"If you can place your rebellion that you mistakenly call disbelief aside and take a humble moment to entertain this, you will (without a doubt) be able to reason, 'If He does exist and created the universe and all that is in it, He can surely reveal Himself solidly to man.' But, Hans, proof is not the problem, you know, and you don't fool anyone with the Holy Spirit, my friend."
" Why are you guys/gals here? We will still love and pray for you all, a given from your Christian friends that you can be thankful for whether you are or not, but you guys are monotonous."
Hello Witnesser,
Well actually I'm here because we atheists were written about in this blog. And I'm still here because Sye and I are still debating! Are you saying that atheists shouldn't be on this blog, that it's only for Christians?
And as for your reasoning, "If He does exist and created the universe and all that is in it, He can surely reveal Himself solidly to man." You just made my point. If God showed himself "solidly" to an atheist that would be empirical evidence and they would probably convert on the spot. Unfortunately, so far atheists or the scientific world see no empirical evidence of His existence. Sorry.
I'm not here to change anyone's ideas. I doubt that would happen anyway. Rather, I'm here for an exchange of ideas. There's a difference.
To your comment about my need for "proof" and my "rebellion that you mistakenly call disbelief", I'll just respond with a couple of quotes I like, from two pretty smart guys that you might have heard of: Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein. I concede that they are much more eloquent than my own "monotonous" babbling. :-)
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
~Thomas Jefferson
"The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation...
The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it."
~Albert Einstein
Sye said:
"I have never argued that people cannot count, the argument is that without God one cannot account for counting :-) "
Ha ha! Clever play on words, Sye. Very good! I like that. :-)
"That's the problem with your hypothesis, without God, you cannot account for the validity of empirical evidence."
Hmm. I suppose this is where we fundamentally differ as theist and atheist. Yes?
I see human reasoning, senses, science and empirical evidence as not needing the supernatural, God, deity, etc. for validity. In my observation and opinion they work fine on their own.
I guess with the theist it all begins and ends with God. Faith.
I know you won't agree, but from my side:
My journey from theist to atheist wasn't a short one. Besides reading about science and theology, I've also read quite a bit of mythology. Loved it as a kid! Greek, Roman, Zeus, Hercules, the Norse Gods, Odin, Thor, Loki, etc. When I got a little older, I realized that at moments in history these stories were not just mythology. They were in fact, theology. They were the gods that people of the time worshipped. Hmmm....
So I started questioning. Smart, influential people in history questioned. Thomas jefferson, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud and others. I realized that using my (at the time ) God-given reason and senses was the correct thing. I was given an inquisitive mind. I should use it...
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Ha ha! Clever play on words, Sye. Very good! I like that. :-)
Brillaint eh? :-) I wish I could take credit for it – that was Cornelius Van Til.
I said: "That's the problem with your hypothesis, without God, you cannot account for the validity of empirical evidence."
You said: Hmm. I suppose this is where we fundamentally differ as theist and atheist. Yes?
I’d say that this is a fundamental disagreement – yes.
I see human reasoning, senses, science and empirical evidence as not needing the supernatural, God, deity, etc. for validity. In my observation and opinion they work fine on their own.
How do you know? You see Hans, that’s the problem, you assume the validity of human reasoning, senses, and science, with exactly nothing to back up that assumption. When you assume the validity of those things, you borrow their foundations from my worldview. That is one of the reasons you stand guilty before God, you use what He has given you, and do not give Him the credit.
I guess with the theist it all begins and ends with God. Faith.
We both begin with faith. I trust my ability to reason in that I have faith in God who has given it to me. You trust your ability to reason, on blind faith in your ability to reason.
My journey from theist to atheist wasn't a short one.
If you used your reasoning to turn away from God, you may have professed theism, but you were not a Christian. Christianity recognizes that God is the foundation of all reasoning. If you used your reasoning to turn away from God, then you assumed that your reasoning was above God, and were therefore not a Christian. Theism is not Christianity, even Satan is a theist.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
No, I deny the idols of other religions, there is only one God.
Cheers,
Sye
mY (WITNESSER) RESPONSE IN CAPS TO DISTINGUISH.
"Yawn."
"If you can place your rebellion that you mistakenly call disbelief aside and take a humble moment to entertain this, you will (without a doubt) be able to reason, 'If He does exist and created the universe and all that is in it, He can surely reveal Himself solidly to man.' But, Hans, proof is not the problem, you know, and you don't fool anyone with the Holy Spirit, my friend."
" Why are you guys/gals here? We will still love and pray for you all, a given from your Christian friends that you can be thankful for whether you are or not, but you guys are monotonous."
Hello Witnesser,
Well actually I'm here because we atheists were written about in this blog. And I'm still here because Sye and I are still debating! Are you saying that atheists shouldn't be on this blog, that it's only for Christians?
NO, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW YOUR REASON FOR HANGING AROUND, SINCE YOU’VE BEEN GIVEN THE TRUTH TO SALVATION. THE TWO OF YOU SOUND LIKE YOU COULD BE GREAT FRIENDS SOMEDAY. IMAGINE WHAT IT'D BE LIKE TO HAVE HIM AS YOUR BROTHER-IN-CHRIST.
And as for your reasoning, "If He does exist and created the universe and all that is in it, He can surely reveal Himself solidly to man." You just made my point. If God showed himself "solidly" to an atheist that would be empirical evidence and they would probably convert on the spot. Unfortunately, so far atheists or the scientific world see no empirical evidence of His existence. Sorry.
NO, YOU STILL WOULD NOT BELIEVE…YOU WOULD WRITE IF OFF AS A CONINCIDENCE. BESIDES, THE ONE KNOWN AS ‘GOD’ IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE RULES, AND YOU MUST COME ON HIS TERMS. FAITH IS A BEAUTIFUL THING, BUT YOU CAN’ T APPRECIATE THIS WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT.
I'm not here to change anyone's ideas. I doubt that would happen anyway. Rather, I'm here for an exchange of ideas. There's a difference.
ARE YOU SURE? BECAUSE, SINCE YOU BELIEVE YOUR LIFE IS LIMITED, WHY WOULD YOU USE UP YOUR PRECIOUS TIME FOR MERE DEBATE? THE BELIEVERS ARE HERE TO HELP SAVE YOUR SOUL AND IF YOU REFUSE HIM, WE STILL HAVE DONE OUR PART. ARE YOU SURE YOU AREN’T WORKING FOR THE OPPOSITE, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN POSSIBLY ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR EFFORTS. FUNNY THING, THOUGH, THAT WHILE YOU WILL GET YOUR PUNISHMENT FOR THIS, THE KINGDOM WILL ONLY GROW IN SPITE OF YOUR EFFORTS! WE DO THANK-YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, AS THEY SHOW US WHAT IS GOING ON IT OTHER’S HEADS, WHILE GIVING US OPPORTUNITY TO POSSIBLY HELP YOU TO SEE THE LIGHT. I JUST WONDER HOW LONG YOU THINK THERE IS SOMETHING IN IT FOR YOU IF YOU STAY ON YOUR SIDE.
To your comment about my need for "proof" and my "rebellion that you mistakenly call disbelief", I'll just respond with a couple of quotes I like, from two pretty smart guys that you might have heard of: Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein. I concede that they are much more eloquent than my own "monotonous" babbling. :-)
REMEMBER, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND WISDOM ARE LIFE AND DEATH. AND OOOHHH, MAY GOD-BLESS YOU, HANS, FOR THAT TOUCH, IF ONLY A BIT, OF HUMBLENESS! mAY YOU TURN IT TO HIM!
WITNESSER said:
" THE TWO OF YOU SOUND LIKE YOU COULD BE GREAT FRIENDS SOMEDAY. IMAGINE WHAT IT'D BE LIKE TO HAVE HIM AS YOUR BROTHER-IN-CHRIST."
I'm sure Sye is a great guy. :-) Still, we don't agree....
"NO, YOU STILL WOULD NOT BELIEVE…YOU WOULD WRITE IF OFF AS A CONINCIDENCE. BESIDES, THE ONE KNOWN AS 'GOD' IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE RULES, AND YOU MUST COME ON HIS TERMS. FAITH IS A BEAUTIFUL THING, BUT YOU CAN' T APPRECIATE THIS WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT."
Witnesser, with all due respect, I disagree. If God revealed himself to unbelievers in a way that they could not doubt (empirical evidence) I think they would convert. I've talked to a lot of atheists and empirical evidence is a big issue.
"BECAUSE, SINCE YOU BELIEVE YOUR LIFE IS LIMITED, WHY WOULD YOU USE UP YOUR PRECIOUS TIME FOR MERE DEBATE? THE BELIEVERS ARE HERE TO HELP SAVE YOUR SOUL AND IF YOU REFUSE HIM, WE STILL HAVE DONE OUR PART. ARE YOU SURE YOU AREN'T WORKING FOR THE OPPOSITE..."
What? Now you think I'm working for Satan? I don't believe in him either! That concept doesn't make much sense to me, especially in light of the fact that the Bible says a loving God would create evil in the first place:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 KJV
You want to save me, fine. Thank you. I debate because I want to get across the point that Christianity has been wrong about some big issues. Read your history books. Christianity thought that:
The world was flat. The sun goes around the earth. There are witches and they should be tortured and burned at the stake. Christians believed all these things. Blind faith.
Yet all of these things turned out to be false. People (including early scientists) were killed or imprisoned by Christians because they didn't believe in these false ideas.
My point here is that debate is important. Exchanging ideas is important. Human reason and intellect is important.
"REMEMBER, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND WISDOM ARE LIFE AND DEATH. AND OOOHHH, MAY GOD-BLESS YOU, HANS, FOR THAT TOUCH, IF ONLY A BIT, OF HUMBLENESS! mAY YOU TURN IT TO HIM!"
Witnesser, I know that some Christians think atheists are arrogant and not "humble" for believing in God. But that's not the intent.
It's not a life and death situation for me, because I don't believe in the supernatural. I believed humans evolved. I don't have a fear of Hell anymore.
Take care,
Hans
Sye said:
"How do you know? You see Hans, that's the problem, you assume the validity of human reasoning, senses, and science, with exactly nothing to back up that assumption. When you assume the validity of those things, you borrow their foundations from my worldview. That is one of the reasons you stand guilty before God, you use what He has given you, and do not give Him the credit."
"We both begin with faith. I trust my ability to reason in that I have faith in God who has given it to me. You trust your ability to reason, on blind faith in your ability to reason."
....and were therefore not a Christian. Theism is not Christianity, even Satan is a theist."
Sye,
Well as an atheist I don't see evidence, hence, I don't believe that God created me. I believe evolution and nature did. And I'm appreciative of that. No guilt. No Hell.
I, of course, disagree with your contention that my "trust" in my ability to reason" is based on " blind faith " And looking back in history I don't see that Christianity's faith in reasoning was very reliable. Christianity thought that:
The world was flat.
The sun goes around the earth.
Witches with supernatural powers exist and they should be tortured and burned at the stake.
Christians believed all these things, faithfully. Yet all of these things turned out to be false. People (including early scientists) were killed or imprisoned by Christianity because they didn't believe in these false ideas. Science proved Christian thought and reason to be untrue. I'll stick with science, it has a better track record.
Okay, to you I was never a Christian. That is your Christian judgement. I'm not even gonna debate that point.
As far as Satan being a theist is concerned, I don't believe in him either. And that whole relationship strikes me as odd. God is loving, but he creates evil:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 KJV
Satan is a result of that evil. Satan becomes God's arch enemy. Yet God likes to have the occasional wager with Satan ( Job 1:8-12) (at the expense of the lives of Job's family):
"Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." Job 1:8
Again, my rational thought and reason just cry out. Just my opinion. Seems a bit irrational and convoluted. I know you'll say I don't understand, because I'm not a Christian and it hasn't been revealed to me. That's fine. I'm not even gonna ask for an explanation. :-)
Take care,
Hans
@Hans
Again, my rational thought and reason just cry out.
Hans, you skipped my question (again). I will keep my post short this time so that the question will be unavoidable.
Hans, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Keep in mind that you use your reasoning to interpret all of your sensory experiences, so to appeal to them to validate your reasoning is visciously circular.
Sye said:
"Hans, you skipped my question (again). I will keep my post short this time so that the question will be unavoidable."
"Hans, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?"
"Keep in mind that you use your reasoning to interpret all of your sensory experiences, so to appeal to them to validate your reasoning is visciously circular. "
Sye,
Okay. Like I said before I use empirical evidence, observation of the world and common sense to establish if my reasoning is valid. I also turn to other things outside of myself: books, academics, psychologists, scientists to check validity and "logic" of my reasoning.
So far, you won't accept my reasoning, since I'm using my non-Christian "senses". As you stated before: "This is the Christian claim, that God reveals certain things to us in such a way that we can know them to be true." "... none of these charcteristics of logic can be accounted for in any atheistic worldview, and they are accounted for in the nature of God as revealed to us in His word."
Sounds like you're familiar with Cornelius Van Til, who I believe came up with the "impossibility of the contrary".
His implication being that any worldview which is not identical to that of Christianity, is in one way or another impossible. So, as you stated, my atheistic logic for my reasoning cannot be accounted for.
Now, Christianity's positions are based on what is written in the Bible, which claims that "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26;) Yet if you state my position is impossible or cannot be acounted for, then your are blatantly disagreeing with what is explicitly stated in the Bible! "...all things are possible" must accept that even other contrary worldviews and reasoning may be (possible) valid.
So what is clearly and unmistakably affirmed in Matt. 19:26, the believer must also accept as a possibility any worldview which rejects worldviews like Christianity. If one accepts that "with God all things are possible," one must also accept the supposition that it is possible that this God has created viable worldviews which do not acknowledge his existence. If God is both omnipotent and infallible, who's to say He could not create such worldviews?
So as a Christian you claim God's word to be infallible as "with God all things are possible", yet you refute the Bible itself by insisting that the validity of my reasoning, empirical evidence, logic, common sense, atheistic worldview and senses as not being possibly true, in essence: impossible.
So are you stating that with God all things are "not possible"?
Take care,
Hans
@hans
You said: Okay. Like I said before I use empirical evidence, observation of the world and common sense to establish if my reasoning is valid.
Didn’t you read this part of my post? "Keep in mind that you use your reasoning to interpret all of your sensory experiences, so to appeal to them to validate your reasoning is visciously circular."
How do you know that the reasoning with which you interpret ‘empirical evidence, observations of the world, and common sense,’ is valid?
Now, Christianity's positions are based on what is written in the Bible, which claims that "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26;) Yet if you state my position is impossible or cannot be acounted for, then your are blatantly disagreeing with what is explicitly stated in the Bible!
Hans, you are grasping a straws here. You are taking that quote wildly out of context. All things are possible for God within His nature. One interprets scripture with scripture. Like I said, until you can account for the logic with which you attempt to evaluate my worldview, from within your own worldview, I will not discuss what you consider to be logical difficulties. Not to leave this one hanging though, the Bible also teaches that God cannot lie, so we see in the context of the verse you quoted, that Jesus was referring to that which is within God’s nature.
So as a Christian you claim God's word to be infallible as "with God all things are possible", yet you refute the Bible itself by insisting that the validity of my reasoning, empirical evidence, logic, common sense, atheistic worldview and senses as not being possibly true, in essence: impossible.
As weak as this argument is, I have never insisted that your reasoning was invalid. I merely asked you to account for the validity of your reasoning, and show us on your own that it isn’t.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"That's the problem with your hypothesis, without God, you cannot account for the validity of empirical evidence."
"As weak as this argument is, I have never insisted that your reasoning was invalid. I merely asked you to account for the validity of your reasoning, and show us on your own that it isn't."
Sye,
Actually, I think you did say my reasoning, based on conclusions from empirical evidence, was invalid because it was without God.
It seems that you're using TAG. Read number 3 below. That's one of the problems with your argument. It's circular, but you don't realize it (or don't want to admit it)!
If you don't want to accept the validity of empirical evidence (see definition below) then that's your right. But I think you're just going in conceptual circles.
It always strikes me as amusing and peculiar that Christians rally so strongly against science and empirical evidence when it gets too close to their precious religious beliefs. Yet they gladly accept all that science has given them in medicine, healthcare, transportation, housing, computer technology, etc. but don't acknowledge scientific process (or minimize it) and acknowledge everything to God.
One could have a Bible and all the faith in the world...yet, without science (and secular logic/reasoning), we'd probably all be sitting in caves or tents somewhere. In the dark! And I wonder how many believers would be willing to give up all the modern comforts that all the atheist/secular scientists and empirical evidence have given them!
Take care,
Hans
Sye said:
"Didn't you read this part of my post? "Keep in mind that you use your reasoning to interpret all of your sensory experiences, so to appeal to them to validate your reasoning is visciously circular."
Sye,
Yes, I read your post! You keep harping on the same thing.
Look. We all use our senses! Our brains interpret sensory information. That how human beings operate. And combined with the scientific process, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc. there's validity in that process. And if you don't want to accept the validity and make it all a conceptual circular argument because it doesn't include your worldview and God, go right ahead. :-)
You use your senses when you read the Bible. I use my senses when I read a science book. How do I know that the chapter I'm reading about electricity is valid? Because the light bulb works...and I'm not reading in the dark! Empirical evidence. Duh!
Take care,
Hans
Sye,
Hmm...Once again, some of my comments are being deleted!
Info below was related to a previous post:
Empirical Evidence - Scientifically-based research from fields such as psychology, sociology, economics, and neuroscience, and especially from research in educational settings. Empirical data on performance used to compare, evaluate, and monitor progress.
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God that attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian god.
Crticisms of TAG:
1) Another objection is that the TAG does not provide a uniqueness proof. That is, this objection claims that even if the TAG can prove God's existence, it doesn't prove that of the Christian god — any sufficiently similar god would do (e.g., Allah).
2) Another objection claims that the TAG moves from conceptual necessity to necessary existence. This criticism argues that proving the conceptual necessity of a worldview doesn't establish its ontological reality. In other words, one may need to think about the world a certain way to make sense of their experience and knowledge, but that doesn't prove that the world actually is that way. David P. Hoover has raised this objection in his article titled For the Sake of Argument.
3) Another objection claims that the TAG utilizes circular reasoning to make its case. That is, the TAG is assuming from the beginning what it intends to establish by its conclusion (namely, the existence of God).
@Hans
If you don't want to accept the validity of empirical evidence (see definition below) then that's your right. But I think you're just going in conceptual circles.
You still don’t get it Hans. I accept the validity of empirical evidences as I can account for the validity of my reasoning about them, your atheistic worldview cannot.
It always strikes me as amusing and peculiar that Christians rally so strongly against science and empirical evidence when it gets too close to their precious religious beliefs.
Lets leave the straw-man argumentation, and deal with the Christian you are actually arguing with. I don’t rally against science of empirical evidence, I will, however, argue against pseudo-science.
Yet they gladly accept all that science has given them in medicine, healthcare, transportation, housing, computer technology, etc. but don't acknowledge scientific process (or minimize it) and acknowledge everything to God.
Again, you are way off. All of science is based on the uniformity of nature, which Christians can account for, and you can’t. Our ability to do science is a wonderful gift from God.
One could have a Bible and all the faith in the world...yet, without science (and secular logic/reasoning), we'd probably all be sitting in caves or tents somewhere. In the dark! And I wonder how many believers would be willing to give up all the modern comforts that all the atheist/secular scientists and empirical evidence have given them!
Science can only be done because God exists. You have yet to explain how you account for the uniformity of nature apart from God.
Yes, I read your post! You keep harping on the same thing.
That’s because you keep answering the same way (see below).
Look. We all use our senses! Our brains interpret sensory information. That how human beings operate.
I agree, but Christians can account for their validity, you cannot.
And combined with the scientific process, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc. there's validity in that process.
Not without first assuming that your reasoning is valid and you have yet to account for the validity of your reasoning.
And if you don't want to accept the validity and make it all a conceptual circular argument because it doesn't include your worldview and God, go right ahead.
Again, I accept the validity of my reasoning, as it is a gift from God, and the laws of logic are entirely accounted for in the nature of God. On what basis do you accept the validity of your reasoning, and how do you account for the laws of logic?
You use your senses when you read the Bible. I use my senses when I read a science book. How do I know that the chapter I'm reading about electricity is valid? Because the light bulb works...and I'm not reading in the dark! Empirical evidence. Duh!
How do you know it works? Your reasoning could be false for all you know.
Another objection is that the TAG does not provide a uniqueness proof. That is, this objection claims that even if the TAG can prove God's existence, it doesn't prove that of the Christian god — any sufficiently similar god would do (e.g., Allah).
If any other contrary worldview wishes to posit its claim to proof, I will be happy to refute it.
Another objection claims that the TAG moves from conceptual necessity to necessary existence. This criticism argues that proving the conceptual necessity of a worldview doesn't establish its ontological reality. In other words, one may need to think about the world a certain way to make sense of their experience and knowledge, but that doesn't prove that the world actually is that way. David P. Hoover has raised this objection in his article titled For the Sake of Argument.
This does not take into consideration the possibility that God could reveal things to us in such a way that we could them for certain (which is my claim).
Another objection claims that the TAG utilizes circular reasoning to make its case. That is, the TAG is assuming from the beginning what it intends to establish by its conclusion (namely, the existence of God).
All justification for reasoning has an element of circularity but not all (read only one) can be vaild.
Cheers,
Sye
Hans,
Give it up, dude. There is no point in debating someone who leaves no room for the possibility they might be wrong.
You can't argue with "My god has revealed it to me in such a way that I am certain that all the knowledge I have is correct."
That is what Sye is going to fall back on no matter what you throw at him.
Sye said:
"You still don’t get it Hans. I accept the validity of empirical evidences as I can account for the validity of my reasoning about them, your atheistic worldview cannot."
" How do you know it works? Your reasoning could be false for all you know."
Re: "Another objection claims that the TAG moves from conceptual necessity to necessary existence..... In other words, one may need to think about the world a certain way to make sense of their experience and knowledge, but that doesn't prove that the world actually is that way. David P. Hoover has raised this objection in his article titled For the Sake of Argument.
Sye said: "This does not take into consideration the possibility that God could reveal things to us in such a way that we could them for certain (which is my claim)."
Sye,
Oh, I get it. You think you know things for certain because God "revealed" it to you. And you think atheists don't know anything for certain because we're "only" using human logic, knowledge, science, empirical evidence.
The criticism of the transcendental argument totally takes your claim into consideration. I don't know how many great inventions, vaccines, medicines, etc. came about because God "revealed them. But I'm betting most, if not all came about through human reasoning and the scientific process. Just because you see God in everything it doesn't mean that's the way the world actually works.
That's why, if you're in court you need "evidence" to win your case. "God told me" arguments are gonna get you tossed out of court.
So you're not so much debating as laying claim to your presupposition. And it's your right to negate all truth outside of Christianity and lay claim to only truth with God.
You can also claim my atheistic worldview has no validity. But that's just your claim. I don't agree at all. Maybe you just don't understand the scientific process.
Take care,
Hans
Rando,
Yeah, thanks. I'm beginning to realize that fact. :-) It's like the statement of "It's written in the Bible, God said it, I believe it." End of subject.
No room for debate. Or gaining more knowledge.
As Martin Luther said: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has..." And "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear out the eyes of his reason." "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
Pretty much says it all doesn't it?
@hans
Oh, I get it. You think you know things for certain because God "revealed" it to you. And you think atheists don't know anything for certain because we're "only" using human logic, knowledge, science, empirical evidence.
Nope, I think atheists know things for certain too, but they suppress the truth about the only possible source for knowledge, and can therefore not account for anything they know (a point which you have been so kind to help demonstrate).
I don't know how many great inventions, vaccines, medicines, etc. came about because God "revealed them. But I'm betting most, if not all came about through human reasoning and the scientific process.
Which cannot be accounted for outside of God. I don’t know how many times I’ve challenged you to explain how you know that your reasoning is valid, and all you’ve come up with is basically: “I know that my reasoning is valid, because I’ve reasoned that it is valid.” If you can’t see the fallaciousness of that argument, I don’t see any point in continuing.
Still, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this, if you tell me one specific thing that you know for certain, and how you know it, then I will respond in kind, and we can compare knowledge claims. Sound good?
So you're not so much debating as laying claim to your presupposition. And it's your right to negate all truth outside of Christianity and lay claim to only truth with God.
You have yet to explain how ‘truth’ is possible without God.
You can also claim my atheistic worldview has no validity. But that's just your claim. I don't agree at all. Maybe you just don't understand the scientific process.
Oh, I understand it alright, thing is, I can account for its validity, you can’t.
Cheers,
Sye
@rando,
You can't argue with "My god has revealed it to me in such a way that I am certain that all the knowledge I have is correct."
Knowledge by definition is ‘correct.’ One cannot know something that is false. I do not claim that everything I believe is correct, just that I can account for knowledge, whereas you can’t.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"Nope, I think atheists know things for certain too, but they suppress the truth about the only possible source for knowledge, and can therefore not account for anything they know (a point which you have been so kind to help demonstrate)."
"Which cannot be accounted for outside of God. I don't know how many times I've challenged you to explain how you know that your reasoning is valid, and all you've come up with is basically: "I know that my reasoning is valid, because I've reasoned that it is valid." If you can't see the fallaciousness of that argument, I don't see any point in continuing."
"Still, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this, if you tell me one specific thing that you know for certain, and how you know it, then I will respond in kind, and we can compare knowledge claims. Sound good?"
"You have yet to explain how 'truth' is possible without God."
Sye,
I found this on a website:
Tell-tale signs that you’re dealing with a presuppositionalist include use of the key phrases ‘atheists can’t account for [reason/logic/morality]’ and ‘the impossibility of the contrary’.
Ah, the old presupposition "logic." Well, I know for certain that if I don't put gas in my car it won't run. In fact, I did it once or twice. Got too close to empty...and the dang thing wouldn't go anymore.
No gasoline= my on the side of the road. That's my reasoning. But WAIT, it isn't really is it? I only THINK I know the truth....that it's the lack of gasoline. I'm really suppressing the truth. It's not that my car won't run without gasoline. It won't run without God. Yip. You got me again.
See, I'm learning how to think like a presuppositionalist.
:-)
Hans
@hans
I'm really suppressing the truth. It's not that my car won't run without gasoline. It won't run without God.
Is this what your argument has been reduced to? Like I said Hans, I believe that atheists know things, they just cannot account for what they know.
I see that you neglected to take up my challenge. I will pose it again: Please tell me one thing that you know for certain, and I will tell you one thing that I know for certain, and we will compare the knowledge claims and their justification.
Cheers,
Sye
@hans
Sorry, I thought this was a joke:
Well, I know for certain that if I don't put gas in my car it won't run.
Is that the thing that you claim to know for certain, and wish to defend, or is it a joke?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
I see that you neglected to take up my challenge. I will pose it again: Please tell me one thing that you know for certain, and I will tell you one thing that I know for certain, and we will compare the knowledge claims and their justification.
Sye,
Regarding my last post, it was obviously tinged with some sarcasm. But, you did want me to make a declaration of something I know for certain. And I know for certain that my car won't run without gasoline.
I guess I could give you something else: If I throw a rock up in the air (barring any interference) it'll come back down. I know this for certain. I know it to be true because I've tried it. Others have tried it. Observation, backed up by scientific studies, laws and empirical evidence. Laws of gravity.
Take care,
Hans
Sye,
It was kind of a joke. I was only half serious.
We'll do the rock thing instead.
Obviously, here on this planet, if I throw a rock straight up in the air (barring any interference) it'll come back down to earth. I know this for certain. I know it to be true because I've tried it. Others have tried it. Observation, backed up by scientific studies, laws and empirical evidence. Laws of gravity.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Alright. I know for certain that murder is wrong. I know this for certain, because it is in violation of God's law as He has revealed in His Word (Exodus 20:13) and it is also "written on my heart" (Romans 2:15). I know this becasue God has revealed it to me in such a way that I can know it for certain.
Now let's examine our claims to knowledge.
Yours was:
Obviously, here on this planet, if I throw a rock straight up in the air (barring any interference) it'll come back down to earth. I know this for certain. I know it to be true because I've tried it. Others have tried it. Observation, backed up by scientific studies, laws and empirical evidence. Laws of gravity.
So basically you are saying that if you throw a rock in the air it will come back down to earth. You know for certain what will happen to this rock in the future through what you have learned in the past.
Ok, now here is my question: How can you know for certain that the future will be like the past?
Now, please answer my question, and feel free to ask any questions about my claim to knowledge.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"Ok, now here is my question: How can you know for certain that the future will be like the past?
Now, please answer my question, and feel free to ask any questions about my claim to knowledge."
Sye,
Okay I get it. I think, according to Hume (?) my logical assumption reasoning based on past evidence shows a presupposition on my part (?). Induction..philosophy debate?
Anyway, my answer:
I know with reasonable certainty that the future (rock/gravity) will be like the past based on past empirical evidence, observation, experience. The laws of gravity should still apply tomorrow.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
I know with reasonable certainty that the future (rock/gravity) will be like the past based on past empirical evidence, observation, experience. The laws of gravity should still apply tomorrow.
“Reasonable certainty” that something “should,” is a far cry from “knowing for certain” that something “will.” I asked you to tell me one thing that you know for certain, and what you have given me is not what you ‘know’ but what you ‘believe.’ I really would rather discuss what you know for certain, but until you come up with something, we can look at your belief.
On what basis do you believe that ‘past empirical evidences, observations, experiences or laws,’ should be the same in the future? Why ‘should’ they be? What do they answer to according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"On what basis do you believe that 'past empirical evidences, observations, experiences or laws,' should be the same in the future? Why 'should' they be? What do they answer to according to your worldview?"
Sye,
I base that "should" on the history of, say, the laws of gravity. Since I've never thrown a rock up up in the air (or witnessed, or read about) that has not fallen to the ground I base it on all that criteria.
And my worldview includes these aspects (from Wikipedia-Scientific Method):
Induction. The long-run validity of the rule of induction is deducible from the principle (presuppositional to reasoning in general )that the real is only the object of the final opinion to which adequate investigation would lead. In other words, if there were something to which an inductive process involving ongoing tests or observations would never lead, then that thing would not be real.
Uncertainty- Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty.
Rocks and gravity (historically) have behaved in a certain way...and will continue to do so. My uncertainty stems from variables (with a low probability) that could affect the outcome of my "experiment" (A big bird "catches" my rock and flies off with it, etc.)
But for the most part, things will behave as in the past. So my presuppositional reasoning is supported by "tests" or "experiments."
Otherwise it's just conjecture. And as stated above "then that thing would not be real."
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Rocks and gravity (historically) have behaved in a certain way...and will continue to do so.
How do you know?
But for the most part, things will behave as in the past.
How do you know?
So my presuppositional reasoning is supported by "tests" or "experiments."
Hans, how do you know that “tests” or “experiments” done in the past, will have the same results in the future? How do you know anything about the future? You keep repeating the same argument, but you are not answering the question. Please try again.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"Hans, how do you know that “tests” or “experiments” done in the past, will
have the same results in the future? How do you know anything about the
future? You keep repeating the same argument, but you are not answering the
question. Please try again."
Sye,
Huh? I thought I answered.
Look, I know the rock will fall back down to earth, because it's been proven time and time again. Science and observation have proved it. Empirical evidence. It's a law of gravity. I've observed it. My reasoning plus empirical evidence, plus observation, and experimentation. Rocks thrown into the air have a history of coming back down! Reasoning tells me it would be "reasonable" to assume that in the future another rock thrown into the air will fall back to earth. That's how the world works.
How am I not answering the question? I assume you're trying to make a point, but I don't know what it is. If I'm not answering to your satisfaction you're going to have to give me a clue as to what you're after. It's kind of silly to keep going back and forth.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
How am I not answering the question? I assume you're trying to make a point, but I don't know what it is. If I'm not answering to your satisfaction you're going to have to give me a clue as to what you're after. It's kind of silly to keep going back and forth.
It's really quite simple Hans, I don't understand how you keep missing it. I want to know how you know that the future will be like the past. You keep telling me about the past, I want to know how you know about the future.
Cheers,
Sye
Hans:
I think Sye is trying to get across something like "According to your worldview there isn't any reason to expect the future to behave like the past." He isn't arguing against your evidence or prediction, he's arguing that your worldview can't account for why you can use past experiences to predict that the rock will fall back to earth. Of course his is the only worldview that can account for it. Though it seems to me that his worldview is the one in which past experiences of reality cannot be relied upon to predict the future because God is liable to step in and catch the rock if he so pleases.
@munjaros
Though it seems to me that his worldview is the one in which past experiences of reality cannot be relied upon to predict the future because God is liable to step in and catch the rock if he so pleases.
We beleive in a God who maintains this universe in a uniform fashion. Although you have not demonstrated that miracles are a violation of natural laws, and not an invocation af laws which we are not aware of (i.e. other dimensions), even so, we (Christians) can proceed with the assumption that nature will probably be uniform, based on the promise of God, whereas you have no basis for such an assumption. When you do make this assumption, you borrow from our worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
Munjaros said:
"Hans:
I think Sye is trying to get across something like "According to your worldview there isn't any reason to expect the future to behave like the past." He isn't arguing against your evidence or prediction, he's arguing that your worldview can't account for why you can use past experiences to predict that the rock will fall back to earth. Of course his is the only worldview that can account for it. Though it seems to me that his worldview is the one in which past experiences of reality cannot be relied upon to predict the future because God is liable to step in and catch the rock if he so pleases."
Munjaros,
Thanks. Yeah, I think you're right.
Of course, in that respect, that Christian worldview invalidates or dismisses the scientific process, when it's convenient. Anyone can argue any philosophy or abstract. And make that hypothesis work in their mind or even on a piece of paper. But, at the end of the day, Christians read their printed Bibles, turn on light bulbs, use computers, talk on cellphones, drive cars, use modern medicine, fly on airplanes, etc. Results of "predictions" in the natural world.
All of the above are a direct result of a worldview that predicts future behavior (the scientific process). Again, empirical evidence. Of which the Christian worldview has none.
Take care,
Hans
Sye said:
"We beleive in a God who maintains this universe in a uniform fashion. Although you have not demonstrated that miracles are a violation of natural laws, and not an invocation af laws which we are not aware of (i.e. other dimensions), even so, we (Christians) can proceed with the assumption that nature will probably be uniform, based on the promise of God, whereas you have no basis for such an assumption. When you do make this assumption, you borrow from our worldview."
"It's really quite simple Hans, I don't understand how you keep missing it. I want to know how you know that the future will be like the past. You keep telling me about the past, I want to know how you know about the future."
Sye,
You claim that atheists borrow from your worldview. I'm not so sure. In any case, it goes both ways. You invalidate the scientific process and it' "predictions". So your final explanation for modern technology (medicine, airplane, cellphones, computers,etc.) is God (the supernatural).
So, if your argument includes God, I don't see that it would necessarily invalidate other supernatural sources: Multiple gods, Zeus, Allah, crystals, metaphysics or anything else. I mean, if you invoke the supernatural, that's a pretty broad worlview, is it not? Who is to say the Evangelical Christian claim is correct. I hear the same claim from other religions. They all claim God "reveals" things to them. And none have any empirical evidence.
In my opinion, the reason Christians have to rally so hard against the scientific process and accompanying worlview is that it threatens the concept of an inerrant Bible. Here on earth, in this dimension of time and space, yeah science pretty much predicts that "miracles" are a violation of natural laws.
Sorry, but I'm not missing anything. You're basically telling me that the atheist worldview can't account for the validity of a future prediction (Scientific process). If you don't understand my explanation, you could read up on science. That's pretty much my belief system. Maybe your Christian worldview is not allowing you to see the obvious validity of the scientific process?
Take care,
Hans
@hans
Another long post, not suprisingly devoid of answers.
You claim that atheists borrow from your worldview. I'm not so sure. In any case, it goes both ways. You invalidate the scientific process and it' "predictions". So your final explanation for modern technology (medicine, airplane, cellphones, computers,etc.) is God (the supernatural).
You are still not getting it Hans. I do not invalidate the scientific process, I, however can account for its validity, you cannot.
So, if your argument includes God, I don't see that it would necessarily invalidate other supernatural sources: Multiple gods, Zeus, Allah, crystals, metaphysics or anything else.
If you care to posit any of them as your worldview, I will be happy to refute it.
And none have any empirical evidence.
This is question begging. If God exists, then all empirical evidences are evidence for His existence.
Sorry, but I'm not missing anything. You're basically telling me that the atheist worldview can't account for the validity of a future prediction (Scientific process).
Just Hans, PLEASE answer the question, instead of continually avoiding it: I want to know how you know that the future will be like the past. You keep telling me about the past, I want to know how you know about the future.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said: "Another long post, not suprisingly devoid of answers."
"Just Hans, PLEASE answer the question, instead of continually avoiding it: I want to know how you know that the future will be like the past. You keep telling me about the past, I want to know how you know about the future."
Sye,
Why so difficult? My rock/gravity scenario is predicted (with a high rate of probability) by basic laws of gravity and personal observation. That's how I know how the rock/gravity will behave in the future.
Take care,
Hans
@hans
That's how I know how the rock/gravity will behave in the future.
No Hans, even if I grant that you can know that your memory, and senses, are valid, which I don't, you are telling me about past observations, and how laws behaved in the past, I want to know how you know that these laws and observations will be the same in the future. Hans, how do you know about the future?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
“No Hans, even if I grant that you can know that your memory, and senses, are valid, which I don't, you are telling me about past observations, and how laws behaved in the past, I want to know how you know that these laws and observations will be the same in the future. Hans, how do you know about the future?”
Sye,
A science article stated: "A variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event."
My cognition evaluates the data and make a prediction for a future outcome of an event. (See above) That’s how I know that the laws and observations will be the same (accounting for probablility) in the future. As scientists state, “Nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty.” But science gets pretty dang close!
Okay, you claim you “know” that my senses and memory aren’t valid? How do you "know" this?
How do you "know" that your senses are valid?
How do you "know" that God has revealed things to you?
How do you "know" that you have “faith” ?
Take care,
Hans
@hans
A science article stated: "A variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event."
But you could only know this once the event has taken place. Again, I am not asking about the past, I am asking about the future. Hans, how do you know the future?
My cognition evaluates the data and make a prediction for a future outcome of an event. (See above) That’s how I know that the laws and observations will be the same (accounting for probablility) in the future.
Nope, you could only know what HAS taken place, not what WILL take place. Hans, I don’t know how many times I’ve asked this now, but how do you know the future?
As scientists state, “Nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty.” But science gets pretty dang close!
Actually without FIRST assuming the uniformity of nature, the odds are zero percent. Problem is, you have ZERO basis for that assumption, as you obviously refuse to see.
Okay, you claim you “know” that my senses and memory aren’t valid? How do you "know" this?
Never said they weren't. Just that you cannot account for their validity.
How do you "know" that your senses are valid?
I know this because I know that they are a gift from God, and God has revealed that we can know things through them. In order to know anything, they must be valid.
How do you "know" that God has revealed things to you?
Because He has revealed them to me in such a way that I can be certain of them.
How do you "know" that you have “faith” ?
Because God has revealed that everyone has faith.
Now Hans, please think about what you are saying. Are you really telling me that you know the future?
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Care to take another shot at telling me what you know for certain, and how you know it, since this example is obviously a bust.
Hans,
You're still missing the point. He's trying to draw you into an unanswerable philosophical premise. If you really think about it, all knowledge is based on rudimentary assumptions. Like that something can't be both true and false at the same time, or that something can't both exist and not exist. Of course, we can't prove those assumptions because in order to do so we would have to know the outcome of every possible permutation of what those assumptions could be applied to. Sye's point is that without an all-knowing god, there's no way that anyone can "know" with 100% ABSOLUTE certainty that what they know is actually true. Sye believes that the only way we can even posit that we know anything is because the omniscient god has provided us with his own absolute and universal knowledge of everything. Of course, his is a circular argument and is rightly invalid, but he refuses to accept that simply because god is the only comfortable explanation for knowledge so far (even though it's untenable). Not that I believe this, but I could just as easily say that the universe has existed forever and all the truth has also existed forever and that's how we can come to know it - without the need for god. Of course, that argument relies on the same circular logic, so it's just as invalid.
This whole argument is futile since neither of you can prove your point without using circular logic. Humans just don't know enough about knowledge or the universe to be able to answer this question. And it's entirely possible we may never be able to... unless we can get to the point where we know absolutely everything have no need for assumptions since we can see the links between everything.
Anyway, Hans and Sye, this is an argument neither of you can win. What Hans has on his side though, is that he's not arrogant enough to think he knows the answer. And neither am I. So we make do with the assumptions we have now, and hope that through continued learning we'll eventually get to a point where we humans will eventually be in a position to know the answer - in a few billion years or so. So far, our basic assumptions have worked out quite well, so I see no need to discredit them until they stop working.
I suggest you both drop this argument because it'll never end since both of you can only be wrong without absolute knowledge or circular reasoning.
Any philosophical debate about the existence of god can only lead to the humiliation of both parties. Neither can prove their side nor disprove the other's if you're both intellectually honest. Atheists have the high ground because they only choose to believe things which are highly likely and fit in with things we can observe with our limited senses and/or tools. God is not one of those things. But, an intellectually honest atheist should be happy to adopt a belief in god should it ever be proved beyond reasonable doubt (since we can't be absolutely sure - see above). So far it hasn't, so none of us should believe.
Cheers,
Joel
@Joel
Welcome back to the debate!
Hans, You're still missing the point.
Told ya :-)
Sye's point is that without an all-knowing god, there's no way that anyone can "know" with 100% ABSOLUTE certainty that what they know is actually true.
Yip. (But what is non-absolute certainty?)
Sye believes that the only way we can even posit that we know anything is because the omniscient god has provided us with his own absolute and universal knowledge of everything.
Ah, nope. Just some things.
Of course, his is a circular argument and is rightly invalid
Um how do you know? You see the problem is that you Joel, have already admitted that the Christian claim to knowledge is at least possible while you have not positted your own claim to knowledge (of course we know why), and yet you make knowledge claim after knowledge claim. Let me point out a few:
but he refuses to accept that
How do you know?
(even though it's untenable).
How do you know?
Not that I believe this, but I could just as easily say that the universe has existed forever and all the truth has also existed forever and that's how we can come to know it - without the need for god.
You could, but it would be just one more thing you could not know, which would undermine any further knowledge claim.
Of course, that argument relies on the same circular logic, so it's just as invalid.
How do you know that circular arguments are invalid? You claim that they are, but how do you know this according to your worldview?
This whole argument is futile since neither of you can prove your point without using circular logic.
Well again, you have admitted that the Christian claim to knowledge is possible, but still, how do you know that neither of us can prove our points?
Humans just don't know enough about knowledge or the universe to be able to answer this question.
This one is really funny :-) How do you know that humans don’t know enough about knowledge. You obviously claim to know enough to know that :-)
Anyway, Hans and Sye, this is an argument neither of you can win.
How do you know this?
What Hans has on his side though, is that he's not arrogant enough to think he knows the answer. And neither am I.
Ha ha ha ha This is getting better all the time! You are arrogantly claiming to know that we can’t know the answer :-) (Thanks for this man, I had a long day at work, and needed the laugh).
So we make do with the assumptions we have now, and hope that through continued learning we'll eventually get to a point where we humans will eventually be in a position to know the answer - in a few billion years or so.
Like I said, that’s the problem with you atheists, you live on faith. (Blind faith at that).
So far, our basic assumptions have worked out quite well
How do you know this? How do you know that your memory, or your reasoning about your basic assumptions is valid?
it'll never end since both of you can only be wrong without absolute knowledge or circular reasoning.
How do you know this?
Any philosophical debate about the existence of god can only lead to the humiliation of both parties.
How do you know this?
Neither can prove their side nor disprove the other's if you're both intellectually honest.
How do you know this? And no, I do not expect an intellectually honest answer from you to any of my questions.
Atheists have the high ground because they only choose to believe things which are highly likely and fit in with things we can observe with our limited senses and/or tools.
How do you know what is ‘highly likely?’ How do you know that the senses with which you observe things, or the reason with which you interpret what you observe are valid? (Funny thing here is that you are categorizing a group of people, who claim to belong to no category).
God is not one of those things.
How do you know this?
But, an intellectually honest atheist should be happy to adopt a belief in god should it ever be proved beyond reasonable doubt (since we can't be absolutely sure - see above).
Intellectually honest, and atheist are a conflict in terms. Let’s see how intellectually honest you are Joel. Please answer how you know any of the things you have stated. If you don’t know any of them, please be intellectually honest, and cease making knowledge claims.
Cheers,
Sye
@Joel
Bravo, man.
Sye,
Blast you for dragging me back into this! :)
I've already answered all your monotonous questions, so I don't see a point in doing so again.
Instead, I'll point out a flaw in your argument that I may not have already.
You're very correct that I said it is possible for a god to have revealed things in such a way that we can be certain of their validity. It's possible in the same way that my idea of an infinite and timeless universe filled with everlasting truth is possible. The reason I don't latch on to that idea is because I have no way of proving it just as you have no way to prove that god has revealed truth to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.
How can you prove you know it for certain without using a circular argument? You can't. You're on just as intellectually dishonest ground as I would be if I said I believed in the infinite universe idea of truth. Thing is, I'm not saying I believe in my wild idea. You are. I'm saying we can't know... so far, at least.
So tell me, how is it you can be certain? Exactly how did god reveal truth to us? Where is your evidence for how god revealed this truth to us? If you cite the Bible, you don't understand logic - that is circular. If you cite personal experience, that is not evidence. If you cite "you just don't understand," that is not an argument. You have no more solid footing than me or Hans. We both recognize that this whole premise is, frankly, stupid. You don't. It seems you've fallen into the same trap that people who fall in love with determinism do. It explains everything, and seems to make everything so simple that your brain immediately cries out "it must be true!" before you've taken the time to examine all the angles. Determinism, just like your idea, is in reality logically untenable. Circular arguments have a certain appeal, I must admit, but if we're all intellectually honest and truly understand what makes a premise illogical, they should easily be discarded. I hope that eventually you'll break through whatever mental wall you're struggling against. You're obviously a smart guy, but you're confusing what you want and hope is true with what you're actually able to prove is true.
So tell me, how did got reveal truth to us in such a way that we can know it for certain? Provide evidence that is not self-referential, please. If you can, you'll be the first one ever. I'll be duly humbled and impressed. Won't hold my breath, though. I'm sure you'll understand why if you break through that mental wall :)
Hugs,
Joel
Hi Joel and Sye,
Joel, thanks. You’re probably right. I am missing some points. :) I appreciate the constructive criticism and evaluation.
Sye,
In regards to Joel’s observation: “Hans, You're still missing the point.”
and yours: “Told ya :-) “...
Okay, I’ll agree with you that I’m not fully understanding. So, if you would be so kind, explain it to me. No use throwing more questions at me.
Educate me to the Christian veiwpoint. Exactly what point am I missing? (I’m trying to educate myself, reading books by world renowed scientists, intellectuals, and academics who make use of the scientific process. What is so lacking in this quest for knowledge? Because, to me, it seems like the best system we have and seems to work.)
As far as your comment that: “Intellectually honest, and atheist are a conflict in terms.”
Don’t be hatin’! What’s the issue? Because I don’t happen to have the same same viewpoint as you, I’m intellectually dishonest?
You paint with a broad brush.
Take care,
Hans
Joel,
You're very correct that I said it is possible for a god to have revealed things in such a way that we can be certain of their validity.
Well thanks for the admission.
It's possible in the same way that my idea of an infinite and timeless universe filled with everlasting truth is possible. The reason I don't latch on to that idea is because I have no way of proving it just as you have no way to prove that god has revealed truth to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.
Joel, you are question begging. How do you know that I ‘have no way of proving it?’ As I said, if you want to make knowledge claims, please back them up. You have admitted that Christians have a way in which it is possible for us to know things for certain, rather than discuss my view (since you have admitted that it is possible), let’s just compare it to your view. How is it possible for you to know anything according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
Hans,
Okay, I’ll agree with you that I’m not fully understanding. So, if you would be so kind, explain it to me. No use throwing more questions at me.
Without divine revealtion, telling me that you know what will happen in the future, puts you on the same level as those who peer into crystal balls :-)
My point is that without invoking God, one cannot account for science or knowledge (or a host of other things, but we’ll leave it at the 2 we are discussing). We both claim to know things, but only my worldview can support that claim. We both claim that science is valid, but only my worldview can support that claim. As I have said, in order to know anything it must be by or through revelation from a being (God) who knows everything. That is my claim. In order to do science, one must proceed with the assumption that nature is uniform. Atheism has no support for such a claim, Christianity does. When scientists do science, without professing faith in God, they do it on blind faith that nature is uniform.
As far as your comment that: “Intellectually honest, and atheist are a conflict in terms.”
Don’t be hatin’! What’s the issue? Because I don’t happen to have the same same viewpoint as you, I’m intellectually dishonest?
Well I ain’t hatin :-) I’m just telling you what the Bible teaches (Romans 1: 18-21) I would not be here if I did not care deeply for your eternal wellbeing.
Cheers,
Sye
Hans,
What Sye is trying to use here is commonly called the Transcendental Argument for God or TAG. It's a logical void :)
There's also an Transcendental Argument against God or TANG. Unfortunately, it's equally full of logical nonsense.
That's why I keep saying this whole argument is pointless because both sides are wrong.
Anyway, Google those two and read up (wikipedia might also be a good place to start). It's a philosophical argument so you can't rely on scientific assumptions to prove your point, which is what it looks like you've been doing so far. Have to think a little more abstractly/metaphysically. I covered all this stuff in my many years of philosophy in university, although it was a while ago, so I have a hard time remembering the really good sound bites.
Anyway, good luck with Sye. I don't think he'll ever drop the circular argument, personally. Oh well.
Hugs,
Joel
@Joel,
That's why I keep saying this whole argument is pointless because both sides are wrong.
How do you know?
@Hans,
See what I mean? Joel likes to make knowledge claims such as: "Both sides are wrong," but refuses to answer my questions as to how he can know that "Both sides are wrong," or how he can know anything according to his worldview.
As I said, he may not like how Christians account for knowledge (an account which he agreed was possible), but what do you do with someone who continues to make knowledge claims, yet refuses to support them?
You call that intellectually honest? I don't.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
I've repeatedly told you I can't answer your question. Again, that's my whole point. You can't answer the same question, either.
I clearly asked you to substantiate your claim to knowledge and you ignored that request, so I'll make it again. How did god reveal truth to you in such a way that you could be certain of its validity? How was that done? Provide proof that this is the case, please. Otherwise, your whole premise is ridiculous... saying I have no claim to knowledge when you haven't proven you have a claim to knowledge strips your argument of all validity. And no, my admitting that it's possible that you're right is not the same as me saying you're right and can't be used as proof that you're right. Besides, if you're right, then whatever I say doesn't count for anything because I have no claim to knowledge. You can't use my agreements as proof that you're right because I don't have a claim to knowledge in the first place. According to your worldview, I couldn't even agree with you if I wanted to, because I don't share your worldview...
I'm not the one saying I have the answer to where truth comes from. You are. I don't have to substantiate my lack of a claim. You do, since you're the only one making a claim.
Just in case you get sidetracked with some other stuff in this comment, I'll be very clear. The only thing I want you to specifically respond to is this: how did god reveal truth to you in such a way that you could be certain of its validity?
Once you prove your claim, then we can continue with the debate. Otherwise, neither of us has a claim to knowledge and neither can say anything about anything. I still can't believe you don't see how futile this line of reasoning is. Oh well.
Big Hugs of Enlightenment,
Joel
Since God is a fair and righteous God and makes us account for ourselves only (thank God), we will each stand before Him alone. Therefore, there is not even a NEED to prove the certainty we have in Him. Can you dig it?
Last night a brown dog showed up in my yard...he had brown colored lines on his fur. I didn’t get a picture of him, but he showed himself to me, and I can be certain, though I can’t make you certain of it. Kind of like a personal discovery.
Besides speaking to our hearts and sometimes our brain, God can also appeal to our 5 senses to reveal Himself. I personally know two people that have been physically touched, and 2 that have had Him speak audibly to them. You see, He knows what you are thinking and what it takes to reach you for something, and sometimes it takes that. Once he spoke in my mind how much money to give someone, much to my surprise (!), once he gave me a 3-word idea when asking what more I could do for someone before they died, once when I was very down about something, He surprised me with filling me with himself for 15 minutes that made me feel like my head glowed! NO, I don't drink, take drugs, etc.
You don't know what you are missing guys! So sad. But remember, if you ever desire this kind of communication from your creator, you cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless you truly have a contrite heart about you human sin. No amount of proof or convincing will do YOU any good unless you repent. And you'll never need proof your looking for to repent anyway.
You better hope its lack of intelligence on your part to grasp this; otherwise, your rebellion puts you in a terrible spot.
Joel,
I've repeatedly told you I can't answer your question. Again, that's my whole point. You can't answer the same question, either.
Joel, now you are the one not getting it. If you can’t answer my question as to how you know anything, presumably because you believe that you cannot know anything according to your worldview, then how can you know that I ‘can’t answer the same question?’
If you can know that I ‘can’t answer the same question,’ then please tell me how you know it. If you can’t know that I ‘can’t answer the same question,’ then you are refuted.
I clearly asked you to substantiate your claim to knowledge and you ignored that request, so I'll make it again. How did god reveal truth to you in such a way that you could be certain of its validity?
Look Joel, I could go on and on about ‘natural’ and ‘special’ revelation (the two ways that God reveals things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them), (in fact I discuss it on my website), but do you not see that engaging in such a discussion with someone who cannot justify their own claim to knowledge, is a fruitless endeavour? I need to know how it is possible for you to know anything, in order to prove anything to you. If you cannot know anything, then proof is impossible. (Yet oddly enough, we both believe in ‘proof’)(Shouldn’t be too tough to see who is living consistenly with their claims).
saying I have no claim to knowledge when you haven't proven you have a claim to knowledge strips your argument of all validity.
Well first of all, you agreed that my claim to knowledge is possible, but still, how do you know that I haven’t proven my claim to knowledge??? How do you know that lack of proof of anything, invalidates anything??? How can anything be ‘proven’ according to your worldview???
Once you prove your claim, then we can continue with the debate.
Well Joel, of the two of us, we have agreed that I am the only one with a possible claim to knowledge. Surely you would concede that ‘proof’ requires ‘knowledge,’ so tell me how proof of anything is possible according to your worldview, then we can continue the debate.
Otherwise, neither of us has a claim to knowledge and neither can say anything about anything.
How do you know?
Look Joel, you have already conceded that I have a possible claim to knowledge, if you care to concede that you do not, I will be glad to end the debate there, because that is exactly my claim; Without God, one cannot account for anything they claim to know. I imagine that if you respond, your response will be filled with non-answers, but if nothing else, thank you for helping me to prove that point.
Cheers,
Sye
@witnisser
You better hope its lack of intelligence on your part to grasp this; otherwise, your rebellion puts you in a terrible spot.
"lack of intelligence" isn't an excuse either.
Sye TenB has left a new comment on the post "Dinner With 40 Atheists":
@witnisser
You better hope its lack of intelligence on your part to grasp this; otherwise, your rebellion puts you in a terrible spot.
"lack of intelligence" isn't an excuse either.
witnesser: You're absolutely correct, Sye! I shouldn't have worded it like that. What I mean is that it would be better for him to not yet get it as opposed to not wanting to get it. Thanks.
Sye, what stamina you have...Praise God for your hanging in there for Joel. Maybe he want the light someday.
Sye said: “
Without divine revealtion, telling me that you know what will happen in the future, puts you on the same level as those who peer into crystal balls :-)
“We both claim that science is valid, but only my worldview can support that claim. That is my claim. In order to do science, one must proceed with the assumption that nature is uniform. Atheism has no support for such a claim, Christianity does. When scientists do science, without professing faith in God, they do it on blind faith that nature is uniform.”
Sye,
Well thanks for the concern for my eternal wellbeing. :)
And you’re right, as an atheist I’ve never made a claim of absolute knowlege. I just said science can predict outcomes with a high rate of probablility.
So you argue that nature is uniform: Knowledge, laws of nature, laws of gravity, physics, remain consistent. You invoke God.
But now it seems there’s a little problem. Actually a few big problems. Miracles. ( Resurrection, ascension, walking on water, water into wine, etc.) Which totally contradict that nature is uniform. Miracles make nature inconsistent and break laws of gravity and physics.
Seems the argument contradicts itself.
On one hand , for example, the laws of gravity and physics are supposedly “proof” of God. On the other hand miracles, which break those very laws, are supposed to be proof of God.
Where is the uniformity and consistency of the argument? Can’t have it both ways.
Taks care,
Hans
Joel,
Yeah, thanks. I looked up TAG a while back on Wikipedia. Personally, the whole thing seems so circular. And all reasoning needs presupposition of the supernatural.
It's all conceptual anyway, isn't it? And just because a concept works on paper or in one's head doesn't mean it would work in the real world. I'm not saying the science method is perfect. But for my money, it's the most accurate way we have, right now, of viewing the world.
Take care,
Hans
Witnesser,
Thanks brother.
What I mean is that it would be better for him to not yet get it as opposed to not wanting to get it.
Why? :-)
Hans,
And you’re right, as an atheist I’ve never made a claim of absolute knowlege.
Are you forgetting this?: Obviously, here on this planet, if I throw a rock straight up in the air (barring any interference) it'll come back down to earth. I know this for certain. I know it to be true because I've tried it. Others have tried it. Observation, backed up by scientific studies, laws and empirical evidence. Laws of gravity. (Feb 1, 8:10 PM – this thread)(bolding mine :-)
Are you now claiming that you cannot know anything??? If so, I will be happy to end the debate there, if not, again, please tell me what you know and how you know it.
I just said science can predict outcomes with a high rate of probablility.
How do you know that the future will even probably be like the past? How do you know anything about the future?
So you argue that nature is uniform: Knowledge, laws of nature, laws of gravity, physics, remain consistent. You invoke God.
But now it seems there’s a little problem. Actually a few big problems. Miracles. ( Resurrection, ascension, walking on water, water into wine, etc.) Which totally contradict that nature is uniform. Miracles make nature inconsistent and break laws of gravity and physics.
Well, first of all, you would have to prove that natural laws were violated during those miracles, and not something like ‘other dimensions’ were involved. But still, I have never seen something that I would clasify a miracle which violated natural laws, and would even argue that they are not of this age. However, even if miracles did violate natural laws, they would be so rare so as to allow the Christian to assume that at least very likely the future will be like the past, whereas you have exactly zero justification for such a claim.
Seems the argument contradicts itself.
It doesn’t, but still, why can contradictions in reasoning not be ‘true’ according to your worldview?
On one hand , for example, the laws of gravity and physics are supposedly “proof” of God. On the other hand miracles, which break those very laws, are supposed to be proof of God.
Christians can account for both, you can account for neither.
Where is the uniformity and consistency of the argument? Can’t have it both ways.
Why not? I can assume that the future will at least, very likely be like the past, wheras you cannot. When you do, you borrow from my worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said: "Are you now claiming that you cannot know anything??? If so, I will be happy to end the debate there, if not, again, please tell me what you know and how you know it."
Sye,
Calm down. Just because I was certain (high probability) with the rock/gravity scenario, doesn't mean I claimed “absolute knowledge”.
And by the same token, just because I’ve never claimed “absolute knowledge” it doesn’t mean I “cannot know anything”. That’s a false dichotomy. You’re excluding the middle.
Either I know everything or I don’t know anything? All or nothing? That’s not my stance.
If, as a Christian, you need something “perfect” and “absolute” (God, Jesus, Christianity) then so be it.
I don’t see absolutes as being true. I see “high probability”.
You said: “Well, first of all, you would have to prove that natural laws were violated during those miracles, and not something like ‘other dimensions’ were involved. But still, I have never seen something that I would clasify a miracle which violated natural laws, and would even argue that they are not of this age.”
Okay, I can see your point, though it just seems like special pleading. I’ve never seen anything that has violated natural laws, either. And barring drugs, alcohol, hallucination, psychiatric disorders, I think most people would agree with our observations and experiences.
And if I have to pull “other dimensions” into the argument that’s again special pleading. As, is the argument, miracles only happened at an earlier age (when people were more ignorant,highly superstitious and had no video technology or mass communication).
I suppose you could back me into a corner and get me to say miracles might be possible. Because science will say anything is possible. ( The laws of gravity might suspend themselves for just a minure ...and we’ll all start levitating. Or we could invoke your “other dimensions” scenario).
But likely to happen or have happened? In the past, present or in the future? No.
Feel free to continue the debate or end it. :)
Take care,
Hans
Sye,
I think we're close now. I refrain from making any statements so you can't throw that "how can you know that?" question at me. I'll just ask you questions and hope that you'll eventually see the error in your logic.
"Without God, one cannot account for anything they claim to know. I imagine that if you respond, your response will be filled with non-answers, but if nothing else, thank you for helping me to prove that point."
How can you make this claim without first assuming that God existed to allow you to make this claim? How do you know your assumption is correct if God, who you are trying to prove is necessary, is the only thing which can allow you to know that it is correct? How can a circular argument be used as proof?
Hugs,
Joel
@hans,
Calm down.
Hey, I’m calm man.
Just because I was certain (high probability) with the rock/gravity scenario, doesn't mean I claimed “absolute knowledge”.
“High probability” does not equal certainty, not that you could attain ‘high probabilty’ either. Hans, how do you know what will probably happen in the future? How do you know anything about the future?
And by the same token, just because I’ve never claimed “absolute knowledge” it doesn’t mean I “cannot know anything”. That’s a false dichotomy. You’re excluding the middle. Either I know everything or I don’t know anything? All or nothing? That’s not my stance.
You claimed to know with certainty what will happen to that rock. I am not saying that you claimed to know everything, just that you claimed to know absolutely what would happen to that rock.
If, as a Christian, you need something “perfect” and “absolute” (God, Jesus, Christianity) then so be it.
I don’t see absolutes as being true. I see “high probability”.
How do you know if anything will ‘highly probably’ happen in the future? Hans, how do you know anything about the future?
Okay, I can see your point, though it just seems like special pleading. I’ve never seen anything that has violated natural laws, either. And barring drugs, alcohol, hallucination, psychiatric disorders, I think most people would agree with our observations and experiences.
Observation and experiences could only give you information about the past, not the future. Hans, how do you know about the future?
Feel free to continue the debate or end it.
Well, just tell me one thing that you know, and how you know it, and we can continue, or concede that you cannot know anything according to your worldview, and I’d be happy to end it there.
Cheers,
Sye
@Joel,
I think we're close now. I refrain from making any statements so you can't throw that "how can you know that?" question at me. I'll just ask you questions and hope that you'll eventually see the error in your logic.
By refusing to answer my questions, are you conceding that you cannot know anything according to your worldview? If not, please tell me how you can know anything according to your worldview so that I can know how to respond to your questions.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. How do you know that 'my logic' has errors?
Sye said:
“Well, just tell me one thing that you know, and how you know it, and we can continue, or concede that you cannot know anything according to your worldview, and I’d be happy to end it there.”
Sye,
Why would I concede that I “cannot know anything”? That’s silly.
A secular worldview that involves the scientific method obviously works, though not perfectly. Still, we all benefit from it’s ability to predict outcomes. It’s the best method we have in the natural world. The source of that knowledge is our naturally developed brains and cognitive ability to reason and interpret empircal evidence. From that we can make fairly relaible predictions of the future.
How’s it all work? Complex chemical and electrical processes in our natural brains. No crystal ball. No supernatural.
Now, if you want to invalidate the natural for the supernatural, that’s your perogative. But it doesn’t mean your claim is correct or even has a high probablility rate. You can’t even account for the Bible miracles without the use of “something like ‘other dimensions’ were involved” or “even argue that they are not of this age.”
Since when did laws of gravity, physics, etc. change with “age”? Huh? You mean the chance of levitating, changing matter, or rising from the dead were better two thousand years ago? A few hundred years ago? How about the 60’s?
Was there a good “age” for miracles?
And if you need to invoke “other dimensions” to help account for miracles, that quite a weak argument. And again, you have no evidence at all. It’s all conceptual.
Take care,
Hans
@Hans,
Why would I concede that I “cannot know anything”? That’s silly.
You’re right, it is silly, because it is quite obvious that we both claim to know things. Problem is though, I keep asking you to answer my question as to what you know and how you know it, but you keep avoiding it. Hans, please tell me one thing that you know and how you know it, or concede that you cannot know anything according to your worldview.
A secular worldview that involves the scientific method obviously works, though not perfectly.
How do you know it works? If the proper function of humanity is to serve God, then clearly, the ‘secular worldview’ does not ‘work.’ How do you know what the proper function of humanity is?
Still, we all benefit from it’s ability to predict outcomes. It’s the best method we have in the natural world.
Hans, I am not asking you to tell me why science is beneficial, I’m asking you to account for its validity.
The source of that knowledge is our naturally developed brains and cognitive ability to reason and interpret empircal evidence.
How do you know that your senses, and the reasoning with which you interpret what they tell you is reliable?
From that we can make fairly relaible predictions of the future.
Hans, how do you know what will happen in the future? You could only tell me what has happened. How do you know what will happen. How do you know anything about the future?
How’s it all work? Complex chemical and electrical processes in our natural brains.
Chemical reactions in your brain do not give you knowledge. Knowledge requires ‘truth.’ Saying that the chemical reactions in your brain give you truth, while the chemical reactions in another person’s brain do not, would be like arguing that the fizz that comes out of a can of Dr. Pepper when you shake and open it is true, while the fizz that comes out of a Mountain Dew, when you shake and open it is false (paraphrasing Douglas Wilson). If all you are relying on is chemical reactions, then you simply fizz ‘atheism,’ while I fizz ‘Christianity,’ arguing which is ‘true’ would be ludicrous. Hans, how do chemical and electrical processes give you truth and knowledge?
You can’t even account for the Bible miracles without the use of “something like ‘other dimensions’ were involved” or “even argue that they are not of this age.”
Huh? I can account for them as being by the hand of God. I haven’t a clue how God did them, but that does not invalidate my argument.
Since when did laws of gravity, physics, etc. change with “age”?
Huh X2?? Never said they did.
Huh? You mean the chance of levitating, changing matter, or rising from the dead were better two thousand years ago?
Well, I haven’t seen any of these things happen, have you?
And if you need to invoke “other dimensions” to help account for miracles, that quite a weak argument.
I don’t. I was just hypothesizing. It has nothing to do with the argument.
And again, you have no evidence at all. It’s all conceptual.
How do you know? Let me try this again: Hans, please tell us one thing that you know and how you know it. I know, and I trust all who are reading this know, why you are avoiding this question, still though, don't you feel that it is intellectually dishonest to keep doing so?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye said:
"By refusing to answer my questions, are you conceding that you cannot know anything according to your worldview? If not, please tell me how you can know anything according to your worldview so that I can know how to respond to your questions."
Sye, again, I'm not refusing to answer your question. I simply can't. And neither can you. Ask yourself the same question and see if you can answer it without assuming that god exists first. If you can, you'll be the first person ever to do so. If you can't, then you don't have a claim to knowledge either because your claim is based on an assumption, not absolute knowledge. Therefore, neither of us has any claim to knowledge and this argument has no basis. If you can't prove you have a claim to knowledge, you're in no position to tell me that I have no claim to knowledge (which is exactly what your point is against me). My stance has always been that neither of us can prove our our claims to knowledge when your premise is that absolute knowledge is required for any knowledge at all. The only way someone could legitimately use this premise is if they had absolute knowledge themselves. If you need to refer to some other entity to provide absolute knowledge, you're immediately relying on assumptions - that the entity exists, that the entity provided you with knowledge, and that you somehow were able to recognize what it was, etc... So, if you know everything yourself, then you can hold this position. Otherwise, you're out of luck and can't use this argument.
How can I know any of this? I can't. The same way you can't know your position is true. Neither of us has absolute knowledge of everything.
As I've stated way earlier in this thread, your line of reasoning takes away the ability for either of us to claim we have knowledge which renders both of us incapable of proving our points (or anything else, for that matter). It is a futile argument because it strips us of the ability to reason by its very premise.
"P.S. How do you know that 'my logic' has errors?"
Again, with your premise intact, I can't. But you can't know that you logic is valid because you haven't proven you have a claim to knowledge in the first place.
So, I've admitted I can't claim knowledge under your premise. In order for you to claim knowledge, you need to prove your side under the same premise. You haven't done so yet. Go ahead.
Oh, and to close off your only possibility for respite, my saying it's possible that God could have shown us truth in such a way in which we could know it for certain does not prove your point. Possibility is not proof. Any other wild idea I could invent would also be possible in the same way. But I'd have no way of proving them without assuming they were true first, just as you must do to prove that the God scenario is true. Plus, to make it even more futile, if you're telling me I have no claim to knowledge, I'm incapable of even admitting that anything is possible, so even if I agreed with you, your own argument would make it impossible that what I say is true since I have no claim to knowledge. This is why this whole argument is beyond silly. No one can say anything because no one has a claim to knowledge (under your premise). I hope you'll eventually understand that.
Hugs,
Joel
P.S. I've decided to start capitalizing the word God. I hope that at least gives you some satisfaction :)
"Joel P.S. I've decided to start capitalizing the word God. I hope that at least gives you some satisfaction :)"
Thank you Joel.
@Joel,
Indeed thanks for capitalizing ‘God.’ I cannot claim any satisfaction in this sign of respect, but I do appreciate it.
Sye, again, I'm not refusing to answer your question. I simply can't.
So, you cannot tell me how it is possible to know anything according to your worldview, and yet you have no problem making knowledge claims such as:
And neither can you.
Rather too convenient wouldn’t you say? How would you like it if I argued like that: “I know that God exists, but I can’t tell you how I know it.” Not much of an argument.
Ask yourself the same question and see if you can answer it without assuming that god exists first.
I can’t, but that does not negate the plausibility of my answer (as you have admitted). Presupposing God accounts for knowledge, presupposing knowledge accounts for nothing.
If you can't, then you don't have a claim to knowledge either because your claim is based on an assumption, not absolute knowledge.
How do you know? You have admitted that God could reveal things to us in such a way that we could know them for certain.
Therefore, neither of us has any claim to knowledge and this argument has no basis.
No, I have a claim to knowledge (which you admitted was possible), you may disagree with my claim, but Joel, what is yours?
If you can't prove you have a claim to knowledge, you're in no position to tell me that I have no claim to knowledge (which is exactly what your point is against me).
How do you know that I can’t (or haven’t) proven my claim? I’m not saying that you have no claim to knowledge, but I keep asking for one, and you do not provide one, so what else am I supposed to think?
My stance has always been that neither of us can prove our our claims to knowledge when your premise is that absolute knowledge is required for any knowledge at all.
Well, I have never asked you to tell me how you can know anything using my premise, I want to know how you can know anything according to your worldview.
The only way someone could legitimately use this premise is if they had absolute knowledge themselves.
How do you know? You keep making knowledge claims, please back them up. You admitted that God could reveal things in such a way that we can be certain of them. That is my claim, nothing you have said refutes it.
How can I know any of this? I can't.
That’s what I’m saying. If you can’t know what you are saying, you should be consistent, and cease making knowledge claims.
The same way you can't know your position is true.
How do you know? Remember, you have admitted that God could reveal things in such a way that we could know them.
As I've stated way earlier in this thread, your line of reasoning takes away the ability for either of us to claim we have knowledge which renders both of us incapable of proving our points (or anything else, for that matter).
Again, Joel, I’m not asking you to use my line of reasoning. Please tell me how it is possible for you to know anything using your line of reasoning.
It is a futile argument because it strips us of the ability to reason by its very premise.
How do you know this (using your line of reasoning)?
I asked: “How do you know that 'my logic' has errors?"
You answered: ”Again, with your premise intact, I can't. But you can't know that you logic is valid because you haven't proven you have a claim to knowledge in the first place.
How can you know what I have or have not proven according to your premises?
So, I've admitted I can't claim knowledge under your premise.
Joel if you haven’t grasped the question yet, allow me to pose it again: How can you claim knowledge under your premise? (Perhaps you should first tell us what your premise is).
In order for you to claim knowledge, you need to prove your side under the same premise.
Why? Is this a logical necessity? If so, why is my argument subject to the laws of logic?
You haven't done so yet. Go ahead.
Again, how do you know what I have or have not done?
Oh, and to close off your only possibility for respite, my saying it's possible that God could have shown us truth in such a way in which we could know it for certain does not prove your point. Possibility is not proof.
Nope, but it is a possible explanation for knowledge, what is yours?
Plus, to make it even more futile, if you're telling me I have no claim to knowledge,
I'm not telling you that you have no claim to knowledge, you are showing me that you do not.
I'm incapable of even admitting that anything is possible, so even if I agreed with you, your own argument would make it impossible that what I say is true since I have no claim to knowledge.
Well Joel, we have been through this before, but I in fact DO believe that atheists know lots of things, they just suppress the truth about the only possible foundation for that knowlege. I have never claimed (except for argument's sake), that atheists do not know things, just that they cannot account for anything they claim to know (which you have helped me to demonstrate).
This is why this whole argument is beyond silly. No one can say anything because no one has a claim to knowledge (under your premise).
What is your claim to knowledge (under your premise)?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
Sounds like you’re having basically the same argument with me as with Joel.. You ask a question. Then you invalidate or reject the answer. Then you ask the question again. Invalidate another answer. Then you make accusations of avoiding or not answering the question. Then you make accusations of intellectual dishonesty.
No, I haven't avoided your question (and I don't think Joel has, either). I’ve answered numerous times. You just don’t accept it. No, I’m not being intellectually dishonest.
Here’s how Wikia states an atheist’s claim for knowledge.
From Wikia:
“For many gnostic atheists (strong atheists), their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that "gods don't exist" can be made, and said to be "known", in the same spirit as the statement that "leprechauns don't exist".
(I understand “practical considerations” as being: The human mind, observation, reasoning, scientific method, empirical evidence, etc.).
Now, if you also want to accuse Wikia (and perhaps other sources, encyclopedias, etc.) of being intellectually dishonest and not answering the question, then go right ahead.
So, my “claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations”.
Will you accept that this is my claim....and that I am answering your question?
Take care,
Hans
Sye,
Fine. History and experience are my claims to knowledge. They are yours as well. You do not have absolute knowledge yourself, and you can't show that the assumption that God even exists, let alone that He's the source of truth and knowledge.
Knowledge is generated by the consistency of the past. Yes, we cannot know with absolute certainty that the way things worked in the past are the way they'll work even 10 seconds from now, but history has shown so far that reality is extremely consistent so it seems a safe bet that it will continue being consistent. And yes, that means that all my knowledge is, essentially, assumptions. So what?
Yes, my claim to "knowledge" is based on something I can only "prove" using other assumptions that have so far worked out flawlessly. It may not be absolute knowledge, but it's the best any of us can get without knowing everything in the first place.
So, where's your argument? Notice that I'm not just saying that my worldview is possible but that it's been consistently reinforced by the way universe seems to have operated in the past. So it's a more valid assumption than assuming God, whose travails are shrouded in myth and pomp and who cannot be called into evidence at anyone's whim to show the effects of His great omniscience. God, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns are all possible, but none stands the scrutiny of consistent evidence that would be concretely attributable to them.
Like I've said repeatedly, I have no claim to knowledge that I can prove. I can't answer your questions. Neither can you. But I do have consistently "true" assumptions. Just like everyone else. Just like you. Unfortunately, those assumptions don't give much credence to God, and they do not require God in order to be consistently "true".
We humans, for better or worse, have essentially made our basest assumptions synonyms for knowledge. I think this is what was confusing Hans, for instance. The problem is, which I've been trying to point out, is that no one can prove they have a claim to absolute knowledge, and bringing God into it just brings up even more unanswerable questions that weren't necessary in the first place.
I can't "know". You can't "know". God could know, but no one can show He exists. Allah could know, but no one can show Allah exists. Fairies could know, but no one can show they exist...etc, etc, etc.
How can I "know" this? I can't. But I can assume it is probably true based on my historical ability for logic and reason and all the historical evidence to support me that litters the past. Now, all that's left is for us to argue over whose assumption is more likely true. And I'm pretty sure I've got the more solid assumptions on my side :)
Now, I suppose you'll think you've won, even though you can't prove your side either, simply because I can't prove mine. Unfortunately, "You're wrong, so I must be right" isn't valid, as I'm sure you know - er, assume.
Again, this whole argument is silly because neither of us has a leg to stand on.
Hugs,
Joel
Joel to Sye: Again, this whole argument is silly because neither of us has a leg to stand on.
Witnesser here: Hey guys, I'm still hanging in there with y'all.
Joel, God love ya, your last statement is all you need to look at now. You admit you know nothing for sure; therefore, you can't know God doesn’t exist. Your intelligence now demands that you pray for truth.
Hm, yep, that's where you are at... deny it and risk intellectual suicide? Humbleness would be less painful and we, who have already humbled ourselves do not see it as a win for us. No, my friend, we will sing with the angels over it. That's part of our make-up now. The only thing Christians want to win is souls from hell.
Hans,
Sounds like you’re having basically the same argument with me as with Joel.
Basically
You ask a question. Then you invalidate or reject the answer. Then you ask the question again. Invalidate another answer. Then you make accusations of avoiding or not answering the question. Then you make accusations of intellectual dishonesty.
Problem is Hans, you never answer the question. I keep asking you how you know about the future and you keep telling me about the past, with no indication as to why the past is a predictor of future events. Why do the laws of physics have to be the same tomorrow as yesterday or today? Why do the laws of logic have to be the same tomorrow as yesterday or today? All you are telling me is what has happened in the past, and all I am asking is how you know that the future will be like the past. You have yet to answer that question.
No, I haven't avoided your question (and I don't think Joel has, either). I’ve answered numerous times. You just don’t accept it. No, I’m not being intellectually dishonest.
Perhaps it would be better if I phrased the question like this: Hans, why does the future have to be like the past?
Here’s how Wikia states an atheist’s claim for knowledge.
“For many gnostic atheists (strong atheists), their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that "gods don't exist" can be made, and said to be "known", in the same spirit as the statement that "leprechauns don't exist".
Problem is, denying the existence of leprechauns does not undermine knowledge, while denying the existence of God does.
(I understand “practical considerations” as being: The human mind, observation, reasoning, scientific method, empirical evidence, etc.).
The thing is Hans, I could take each one of your ‘practical considerations’ and show that you, as an atheist, cannot know if any of them are themselves reliable (if you were to ever answer my questions that is). How do you know that your observations are reliable? How do you know that the future will be like the past? (the backbone of the scientific method). How do you know that the senses with which you observe ‘empirical evidences,’ or the reasoning you use to interpret them, are reliable? Without God, those questions could go on ad infinitum - the buck never stops, so to speak.
Now, if you also want to accuse Wikia (and perhaps other sources, encyclopedias, etc.) of being intellectually dishonest and not answering the question, then go right ahead.
Nope, they just report the intellectual dishonesty of the atheist position, they do not assume it.
Cheers,
Sye
Jœl,
Fine. History and experience are my claims to knowledge.
How do you know that your memory is reliable?
They are yours as well.
How do you know?
You do not have absolute knowledge yourself,
I have never claimed this, but, how do you know?
and you can't show that the assumption that God even exists, let alone that He's the source of truth and knowledge.
How do you know what I can or cannot show?
Knowledge is generated by the consistency of the past.
How do you know that the past has been consistent?
Yes, we cannot know with absolute certainty that the way things worked in the past are the way they'll work even 10 seconds from now,
Are you saying that knowledge does not require ‘certainty?’ If so, please tell me something which you know which is not certain.
but history has shown so far that reality is extremely consistent so it seems a safe bet that it will continue being consistent.
How do you know what history has shown? How do you know that past consistency equals future consistency? Why does the future have to be consistent?
And yes, that means that all my knowledge is, essentially, assumptions. So what?
Then it is not knowledge that’s so what.
Yes, my claim to "knowledge" is based on something I can only "prove" using other assumptions that have so far worked out flawlessly.
How do you know that your assumptions have been ‘flawless?’
It may not be absolute knowledge, but it's the best any of us can get without knowing everything in the first place.
Again, please give me an example of something which you know ‘non-absolutely.’
So, where's your argument? Notice that I'm not just saying that my worldview is possible but that it's been consistently reinforced by the way universe seems to have operated in the past.
The argument, is that you, like Hans, cannot justify the very foundations of your knowledge - How do you know how the universe has operated in the past? How do you know that the way the universe has operated has been ‘consistently reinforced?’
So it's a more valid assumption than assuming God,
Nope, you have admitted that my claim could give us certainty, and admitted that your claim cannot.
God, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns are all possible, but none stands the scrutiny of consistent evidence that would be concretely attributable to them.
How do you know? How do you account for the laws of logic with which you ‘scrutinize’ anything?
Like I've said repeatedly, I have no claim to knowledge that I can prove. I can't answer your questions.
Well, then it is quite apparent that you can’t know anything. If you still claim that you can, please tell me what you know and how you know it.
Neither can you.
Do you not see the fallacy of making that statement??? How do you know what I can or cannot know or do?
But I do have consistently "true" assumptions.
How do you know what is “true?”
Just like everyone else. Just like you. Unfortunately, those assumptions don't give much credence to God, and they do not require God in order to be consistently "true".
I guess we can determine that once you tell us how you know if something is ‘true,’ and how you know if something is ‘consistent,’ without God.
We humans, for better or worse, have essentially made our basest assumptions synonyms for knowledge.
Don’t include me in that statement. Knowledge is certainty which can only be obtained by or through divine revelation, not based on arbitrary assumptions.
I think this is what was confusing Hans, for instance. The problem is, which I've been trying to point out, is that no one can prove they have a claim to absolute knowledge
How do you know what anyone can prove, let alone what no one can prove?
and bringing God into it just brings up even more unanswerable questions that weren't necessary in the first place.
Well, we both claim to know things, and as is glaringly apparent, only with God, could one claim certain knowledge (a claim which you have admitted is possible).
I can't "know".
Yes, this is your claim.
You can't "know".
Again, if you can’t know, how can you know what I can or can’t know?
God could know, but no one can show He exists.
Well, you could not know that God could know, if God did not exist. Remember, you claim that you ‘can’t know,’ so claiming to know that God ‘could know,’ is self refuting.
How can I "know" this? I can't. But I can assume it is probably true based on my historical ability for logic and reason and all the historical evidence to support me that litters the past.
Problem is, you cannot know that logic and reason are valid according to your worldview, or that historical evidence has any bearing on the future, let alone that there even was a history.
Now, all that's left is for us to argue over whose assumption is more likely true. And I'm pretty sure I've got the more solid assumptions on my side :)
Well, how about you start supporting your assumptions by answering my questions.
Now, I suppose you'll think you've won
I thought that before we started :-)
even though you can't prove your side either,
How do you know that I can’t prove my side?
Unfortunately, "You're wrong, so I must be right" isn't valid, as I'm sure you know - er, assume.
That is not my claim, still, on what basis do you claim that that is not a valid argument?
Again, this whole argument is silly because neither of us has a leg to stand on.
It is silly because you imply that you cannot know anything, them make numerous knowledge claims, including that one.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
So, in order to convince me that you are correct in your assertion that God's absolute knowledge is required in order for us to claim any sort of knowledge altogether, I'd like you to substantiate your claim that God has revealed truth to us in such a way that we can know it for certain. How was this done, exactly? And how do you know this for certain?
Thanks,
Joel
A personal discovery is just that.
Joel,
So, in order to convince me that you are correct in your assertion
It was never my intention to convince you of anything, that is not up to me.
that God's absolute knowledge is required in order for us to claim any sort of knowledge altogether, I'd like you to substantiate your claim that God has revealed truth to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.
Ha ha, you don’t ask for proof anymore, as you now see that proof requires knowledge, and you have yet to posit your claim to knowledge. Look Joel, I could go on and on about ‘natural’ and ‘special’ revelation (the two ways that God reveals things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them), (in fact I discuss it on my website), but do you not see that engaging in such a discussion with someone who cannot justify their own claim to knowledge, is a fruitless endeavour? What sense is there in substantiating a claim to someone who cannot know anything? If that were the case, you could not know if I substantiated my claim or not!
If you claim that you can know something, please tell us how this is possible according to your worldview, so we can compare our claims. You haven’t come right out and said that you cannot know anything according to your worldview, but you’ve come pretty close. Which is it, can you, or can you not know anything according to your worldview? If you can, please tell us how, if you can’t, be bold and admit it.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
When you have a minute put this search into your browser: Chimps Beat Humans In Memory Tests
Check out the ABC News and BBC News websites. And also YouTube.
BBC News:
"Chimpanzees have an extraordinary photographic memory that is far superior to ours, research suggests.
"Young chimps outperformed university students in memory tests devised by Japanese scientists. The tasks involved remembering the location of numbers on a screen, and correctly recalling the sequence."
Go to YouTube and check out the videos of the experiment. It's like the chimps aren't even trying. I had to laugh. hahaha. They're eating peanuts or something while they're playing the game and easily beating the university students on a computer touch screen.
BBC News: "Here we show for the first time that young chimpanzees have an extraordinary working memory capability for numerical recollection - better than that of human adults tested in the same apparatus, following the same procedure."
So I thought God made man in his image, with far superior intellect and cognitive skills than all the animals on earth? Doesn't the Bible state that? But it seems God may have given chimps some superior photographic memory and cognitive functions. Hmm...
Take care,
Hans
Post a Comment