"He who walks in his uprightness fears the Lord, but he who is perverse in his ways despises Him" (Proverbs 14:2).
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." Mohandas Gandhi
"Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." Tom Stoppard
There five Typos. THE ANSWERS ARE IN CAPS.
There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". [A PERIOD SHOULD ALWAYS GO INSIDE QUOTES]. Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit ["SPIRIT" SHOULD BE CAPS AS IT IS A REFERENCE TO GOD], he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit["SPIRIT" SHOULD BE CAPS AS IT IS A REFERENCE TO GOD] is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the spirit["SPIRIT" SHOULD BE CAPS AS IT IS A REFERENCE TO GOD]." Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:1-18) [THIS REFERENCE IS INCORRECT. IT SHOULD BE VERSE 19].
Monday, December 29, 2008
Memory Verse, Cool Quotes, Typos Answers
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»"He who walks in his uprightness fears the Lord, but he who is perverse in his ways despises Him" (Proverbs 14:2).
If you take the reverse of this, it must also be true, so those who do not despise him are not perverse in their ways. Since I do not despise Him, but simply do not believe in Him, then I am not perverse in my ways. How can you despise something that you do not think is real?
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." Mohandas Gandhi
We're not fighting against God. Not believing in it is not the same as fighting against it.
"Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." Tom Stoppard
"And religion is a blanket for those that fear the unknown." Mudley DoRight.
I saw the non-capitalized Spirt ones, but not the others.
Vagon said: How Perceptive are You?
There are hundreds of errors in the Bible. Can you find them?
In no particular order, let me start you off:
"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)
The entire message in context is the only way to understand any form of communication.
Example 3:12 “…I looked up at the sky and it was light.”
Example 17:4 “The sky is dark when I raise my eyes to it.”
Is that a mistake? Have I contradicted myself? Either is a failed conclusion.
First, let’s be wisely thorough and look at least at the entire verse in Example 3:12: “If you return, oh sun, to your morning glory, your light will shine upon the earth. I looked up at the sky and it was light.”
The returning sun is a condition that is given so when I look up at the sky I see light. With a condition that will or will not be met, there can be no contradiction.
Jeremiah 3:12: “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: 'Return, backsliding Israel,' says the Lord; 'I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,' says the Lord; ' I will not remain angry forever.”
Between Jeremiah 3:12 and Jeremiah 17:4, Israel did not return from backsliding.
The condition is for Israel to return from backsliding.
Now do you think there’s some piece of information, additional facts, or evidence that something or some event happened between Example 3:12 and Example 17:4? Yes there is. The earth rotated and my view of the sky changed from light to dark.
[A PERIOD SHOULD ALWAYS GO INSIDE QUOTES].
It should go inside parentheses too in this case.
Hey Ray, I liked your type exercise!
As far as the Gandhi quote, we're not fighting against something we do not believe exists, we're fighting against people who believe in something which we do not believe exists. It's certainly an uphill battle though, similar to trying to convince someone who is mentally ill that the voices in his head telling him to cut his face are not real.
...thats really only one typo made three times though, isnt it? Thats kinda cheating, particularly since one of the most reasonable checks for capitalization is to see how the word is spelled when used again in the same segment of text. Spirit isn't a proper name or Title either, like Lord or God are, so I'm not completely certain the capitalization is necessary.
Ah well, so looking at the comments for it I'm seeing that Vera got the Spirit ones, and I got the others (plus the one you removed, where there was a second period after a quotation mark, couldn't even let me have that one, eh?) so we'll call it a draw in biblical literacy between the atheist and the believer then, yes?
Actually, forgot to ask, what was the point of this whole thing again? I mean it can't have just been an excuse to throw up contextless and meaningless quotes about how "Atheists are lame, hur hur" since thats what you do anyway, so what was this whole thing about?
ZOMG the printing press can make errors. Now just imagine the kind of errors that happen when people copy something they can barely read for a few hundred years.....
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." Mohandas Gandhi
I believe irrational beliefs exist, so I will continue fighting them. By the way I presume you believe Gandhi is roasting right now?
If taking reverse of this it would be... "He who is perverse in his ways despises Him, but he who walks in his uprightness fears the Lord" (Proverbs 14:2).
But if you mean something else, well then you would be twisting scriptures, thus taking the scriptures out of context, let alone the Word of God.
Even if you do not believe He exists.
To be fair Ray, your original post made reference all the way up to verse 19, not 18, though, I see where you were going with your point there...
While you are correct that the period in this example should go inside the quotes, it is not always the rule. From Wikipedia:
Punctuation
The traditional convention in American English is for commas, periods, and question marks to be included inside the quotation marks, regardless of whether they are part of the quoted sentence, whereas the British style places them inside or outside the quotation marks according to whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted phrase. The American rule is derived from typesetting while the British rule is grammatical (see below for more explanation). Although the terms “American style” and “British style” are used, it is not as clear cut as that because at least one major British newspaper prefers typesetters' quotation (punctuation inside) and BBC News uses both styles, while scientific and technical publications, even in the U.S., almost universally use logical quotation (punctuation outside unless part of the source material), due to its precision.
Here's another cool (extended) quote
Travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.
Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.
gotten from teampyro (Pyromaniacs)
Actually, a full stop only goes inside the quotation marks if it was part of the original citation, in which case it may double as the full stop for a sentence ending in a quote. If the original citation did not contain a full stop, it must be placed outside the the quotation marks.
This does not apply to commas, which may never be placed inside quotation marks.
Much like I'm sure you feel a lot of the time Ray, I feel I live in a place that is hostile to my beliefs. I only stand up for my beliefs when they are questioned as they are here. You won't find me on religious sites preaching my beliefs and you won't ever hear my say 'There is no God' or 'Religion is inherently bad' or any such thing.
If I was fighting against religious beliefs, I wouldn't set my stall out at this blog would I? No, I am standing up for my beliefs.
Mudley said...
Since I do not despise Him, but simply do not believe in Him, then I am not perverse in my ways. How can you despise something that you do not think is real?
__
If you knew that the God of the Bible was real, what would you think of Him?
mudley,
""If you take the reverse of this, it must also be true, so those who do not despise him are not perverse in their ways. Since I do not despise Him, but simply do not believe in Him, then I am not perverse in my ways.""
Whoa!! I would say that denying the existence of God to avoid accountability to Him is a sure sign of perverted ways. It's been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason criminals can't find the police.
""How can you despise something that you do not think is real?""
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
""And religion is a blanket for those that fear the unknown." Mudley DoRight.""
Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?
Here's another play I wrote.
Act 1
Admiral Akbar: Dinosaur, who's your friend?
Dinosaur: oh, this is Gandhi.
Admiral Akbar: oh hai Gandhi. Please call me Akie.
Gandhi: I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Admiral Akbar: yeah, I guess. Anyway, you guys want pie?
Dinosaur: Heck yeah!
Gandhi: It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.
Admiral Akbar: well, 1) you won't find one of those here, and 2) this is REAL pie.
Dinosaur: omnomnom
Gandhi: There is no God higher than truth.
Dinosaur: And there is no pie greater than this one!
Admiral Akbar: Thanks, guys. So, Gandhi, what do you do for a living?
Gandhi: A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.
Admiral Akbar: self made man, huh? That's cool.
Gandhi: All the religions of the world, while they may differ in other respects, unitedly proclaim that nothing lives in this world but Truth.
Admiral Akbar: are we talking about the Pie again?
Dinosaur: I ate the pie. rawr.
Gandhi: Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Admiral Akbar: uh-huh...
Gandhi: An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.
Admiral Akbar: uh-huh...
Gandhi: Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.
Admiral Akbar: I think I'm done here. Dinosaur, do you want any more pie?
Dinosaur: No, I think Gandhi and I are gonna hit the clubs.
Gandhi: But for my faith in God, I should have been a raving maniac.
Dinosaur: Oh, sorry, Gandhi's right... we're going to a rave.
FIN
Another true story. I mean, help me out guys!
It's a Trap,
AA
"Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." Tom Stoppard
Theism is a crutch for those who can't handle reality.
- me
Chris (from Oz) said:
It should go inside parentheses too in this case.
Those are brackets, geinus!
scmike said:
Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?
Can you explain to me how this is possible in a theistic worldview? I'm sure you've told me before, but I've forgotten.
Also, can you tell me why you think that knowledge is certain by definition? I'm reading through the Wikipedia article on knowledge now, and there does not seem to be a widely agreed upon definition of knowledge, and none of the definitions offered seem to necessarily imply certainty. You probably have better sources than I do.
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists."
Since when did I claim lying televangelist snake oil salesmen didn't exist ???
SC Mikei!
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Well, that might be your position, but that does not mean it is true.
Guys, SC Mikei is a presuppositionalist. Meaning he is a bag of rhetorical tricks. So, no matter how convincing and intelligent your answers to his questions might be, he will reject them using one of several prefabricated tricks designed to either avoid any questions you make, or deviate whatever you say into something else, or just anger you. Semantic tricks, dishonest changes of your meaning (he understands, but he does not care, he will change your meaning anyway), and lots of other "niceties."
You have been warned, if you engage the guy into "conversation" it will be a waste of time and energy. I call these presupps "trolls for Jesus."
G.E.
Admiral, that play kinda made my day. I now have the lovely image of Gandhi at a rave, with his glow sticks and everything. Thank you. :-P
к∑ⅰ₮ｻ said...
__
If you knew that the God of the Bible was real, what would you think of Him?
Supposing there would be sufficient evidence to support the notion that not only was there a thing such as a deity, but that there was only one deity, and that deity was the same deity as described in the bible, i would have to conclude that he were real. And i wouldn't know what i would think of him if he were real unless i thought he were real, so i am unable to answer your question.
scmike said...
Whoa!! I would say that denying the existence of God to avoid accountability to Him is a sure sign of perverted ways.
You're making an assumption as to why I don't believe in any deities. It is not because I am trying to avoid accountability. If I were trying to avoid accountability for something, then I would have to believe in whatever I was trying to hide my accountability from.
It's been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason criminals can't find the police.
And what reason is that? Why can't criminals find the police? I'm sure that if a criminal were to want to turn themselves in, they could walk to a police station, confess their crime, be handcuffed, tried, and serve their sentence. This is tangible.
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.
Then he didn't do a very good job. There are many cultures within all of mankind who do not believe in the God of the bible, and Catholicism has already been surpassed by the largest growing religion in the world, Islam. But neither of this is evidence of the existence o a deity, only that people have irrational beliefs.
Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.
How do you define truth? One definition which I accept is a fact that has been verified. Where is the verifiable evidence for the existence of your God? Again, how can I avoid accountability from something that I do not believe exists. Back to your criminal analogy, if a criminal does not believe in police officers, whether or not they exist is irrelevant to his motives and sense of accountability.
Just like that, whether or not God exists is irrelevant to my thoughts on accountability because I do not believe that I am accountable to an invisible deity.
I am, however, accountable for my actions to my peers, family, and society. As is everyone else, including you, and our hypothetical criminal.
It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
I disagree. Rebellion is a conscious act against an established order. While I may be rebelling against a religion, or a church, or the members of that church, I am not rebelling against the mythical deity which they worship any more than you are rebelling against zeus, thor, osiris, odin, etc.
Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?
My comment was based on personal experience, and by listening to the majority of arguments based on fear of retribution or reward.
I say that religion is a comfort blanket because theists show an innate fear of the unknown, and have to find something from within their scriptures to explain what is not known. This has been done and redone throughout time from the myths of the gods of olympus, to pele, the hawaiian goddess of fire to explain natural phenomena.
People are afraid of not knowing what will happen when they die, and can not come to terms with the thought that their consciousness might just die with their bodies. People are afraid of not knowing what was at the beginning, and are unhappy with the extent of current scientific explanations, such as, what came before the big bang. The answer to this question is "i don't know", and many people are uncomfortable with that.
The truth is that people are uncomfortable with the thought that there is not some loving creator watching over them that makes everything right where they can live forever in happiness on a cloud.
Mudley said, "If you take the reverse of this, it must also be true, so those who do not despise him are not perverse in their ways. Since I do not despise Him, but simply do not believe in Him, then I am not perverse in my ways. How can you despise something that you do not think is real?"
Mudley, would it be fair for me to make a judgment of you by taking a snippet of information or just a day's worth of information from you and make a critical assessment of your entire character?
Would it be fair for me to take a small selected portion of your writing here and judge your whole nature?
I think it would be safe to say "NO!"
And if I have done this same thing, and I know I have with atheists, I apologize.
But let me reason with you.
If it's not fair to take small snippets of what you say here, not even knowing anything about you and certainly not even seeing you, and make a huge misjudgment of you...don't you think it's grossly unfair of you to do the same about God and His story as told in the Bible?
You have taken a snippet of scripture and you just twisted it around to suit yourself and then you go on (in other posts throughout the blog) to make a critical judgment on the character of God.
Many atheists are doing this. Placing a blame on God whom they haven't read His WHOLE STORY.
Don't you find that a bit, lame?
Could you imagine a movie critic doing the same thing? They make a critical assessment of a movie without seeing the entire movie?
That critic would be discredited, quite quickly.
What you are doing is discrediting yourself, in a major way.
I am starting to not to make a huge judgment call on atheists here, it's truly a difficult thing to do - it's such an ground in problem with humanity.
But I'm going to be bold to put a challenge to you and say to you that taking a single passage and twisting it completely in reverse to point out what you feel is "truth" is about as foolish as foolish gets.
Please, let's use some reason here, and use logic, if indeed you want us [Christians] to equally use logic.
I submit that you are far from being logical.
Just because you use the "reverse" effect doesn't make the reversal true. What you have done is input your own biases into a scriptural passage which was meant for one way only.
You have lowered yourself to quote mining the Bible.
That's right, quote mining, the very thing you can't tolerate Christians doing to atheists.
Do you realize or understand what you are doing?
In reference to the error:
"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)
tomh said:
The entire message in context is the only way to understand any form of communication.
Example 3:12 “…I looked up at the sky and it was light.”
Example 17:4 “The sky is dark when I raise my eyes to it.”
Is that a mistake? Have I contradicted myself? Either is a failed conclusion.
Certainly not. However had you said:
Example 3:12 “…I look up and the sky and it will be light forever.”
Example 17:4 “The sky is dark when I raise my eyes to it.”
Then you would have an issue. Please reread, its pretty impossible to miss.
With a condition that will or will not be met, there can be no contradiction.
God has explicitly described his character, without condition. Or are you suggesting that on top of Jeremiah, Psalm 30:5 and Micah 7:18 are incorrect?
Admiral Akbar said...
Act 1
Admiral Akbar: Dinosaur, who's your friend?
Dinosaur: oh, this is Gandhi.
Admiral Akbar: oh hai Gandhi. Please call me Akie.
Gandhi: I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Admiral Akbar: yeah, I guess. Anyway, you guys want pie?
Dinosaur: Heck yeah!
Gandhi: It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.
Admiral Akbar: well, 1) you won't find one of those here, and 2) this is REAL pie.
Dinosaur: omnomnom
Gandhi: There is no God higher than truth.
Dinosaur: And there is no pie greater than this one!
Admiral Akbar: Thanks, guys. So, Gandhi, what do you do for a living?
Gandhi: A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.
Admiral Akbar: self made man, huh? That's cool.
Gandhi: All the religions of the world, while they may differ in other respects, unitedly proclaim that nothing lives in this world but Truth.
Admiral Akbar: are we talking about the Pie again?
Dinosaur: I ate the pie. rawr.
Gandhi: Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Admiral Akbar: uh-huh...
Gandhi: An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.
Admiral Akbar: uh-huh...
Gandhi: Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.
Admiral Akbar: I think I'm done here. Dinosaur, do you want any more pie?
Dinosaur: No, I think Gandhi and I are gonna hit the clubs.
Gandhi: But for my faith in God, I should have been a raving maniac.
Dinosaur: Oh, sorry, Gandhi's right... we're going to a rave.
FIN
Bravo zulu, Admiral.
Warmest regards, Coxswain craig
scmike said...
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
""And religion is a blanket for those that fear the unknown." Mudley DoRight.""
Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?
Firstly knowledge is not certain. You are framing an incorrect argument. Knowledge is based or demonstrated by scientific induction, which has been shown by modern probability to be the best means for acting on future events.
If you suggest that your God is the foundation of knowledge you must provide a positive ontology for this God.
AllFiredUp said...
Mudley, would it be fair for me to make a judgment of you by taking a snippet of information or just a day's worth of information from you and make a critical assessment of your entire character?
Would it be fair for me to take a small selected portion of your writing here and judge your whole nature?
I think it would be safe to say "NO!"
And if I have done this same thing, and I know I have with atheists, I apologize.
But let me reason with you.
If it's not fair to take small snippets of what you say here, not even knowing anything about you and certainly not even seeing you, and make a huge misjudgment of you...don't you think it's grossly unfair of you to do the same about God and His story as told in the Bible?
Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what was being discussed. Ray quoted proverbs 14:2 which states that while he who walks in uprightness (whatever that means, what about old men and wheelchair bound people?) fears the lord, but he who is perverse in his ways despises him.
I simply stated that if that if that is true in every case, then people who do not despise God are by the definition of proverbs 14:2 not perverse.
You have taken a snippet of scripture and you just twisted it around to suit yourself and then you go on (in other posts throughout the blog) to make a critical judgment on the character of God.
I don't see where I did that, but the biblical idea of God isn't a very nice guy.
Many atheists are doing this. Placing a blame on God whom they haven't read His WHOLE STORY.
No atheist is blaming God. They don't believe in him. and if the whole story is the bible, then yes, many of us have read His WHOLE STORY. And we completely understand what it says, what it means if he exists, and what it means if he doesn't.
Could you imagine a movie critic doing the same thing? They make a critical assessment of a movie without seeing the entire movie?
Kind of like what evangelical christians did when the golden compass was released??
That critic would be discredited, quite quickly.
Do you discredit those evangelical christians who criticized the golden compass without seeing the movie?
What you are doing is discrediting yourself, in a major way.
Please elaborate. All that i have done with any relevance to this dialogue are logically analyze a piece of scripture which was used by Ray, and gave my opinion on religion as a whole.
I am starting to not to make a huge judgment call on atheists here, it's truly a difficult thing to do - it's such an ground in problem with humanity.
What is, atheism? Religion? or making blanket statements?
But I'm going to be bold to put a challenge to you and say to you that taking a single passage and twisting it completely in reverse to point out what you feel is "truth" is about as foolish as foolish gets.
All i was doing was following the verse to a logical conclusion. If x = y, then y = x. I'm sorry if you never thought to analyze the bible in that way, but there is a lot of knowledge to be gained when you do.
Again, if proverbs 14:2 is true in every case, and all who are perverse despise God, then anyone who does not despise God is not perverse.
If all ducks have feathers, than any animal without feathers is not a duck.
This does not leave out the fact that there are other birds that have feathers, but it is still true that any animal without feathers is not a duck.
Do you see how this is a logical conclusion?
Think outside the box once in a while, you might learn something.
Please, let's use some reason here, and use logic, if indeed you want us [Christians] to equally use logic.
I submit that you are far from being logical.
Just because you use the "reverse" effect doesn't make the reversal true.
It depends on how the statement is constructed.
If you say All x's are y's, it is still logical to say that if z is NOT y, then it is also not x, since if it were x, it would be a y as well.
The negation of the second term excludes it from the first term.
What you have done is input your own biases into a scriptural passage which was meant for one way only.
Then it is not logical and it is flawed.
If every single person who is perverse in their ways despises Him, then if someone does NOT despise Him, then they are not perverse by that definition.
You have lowered yourself to quote mining the Bible.
Ray was the one that quote mined, i drew a logical conclusion based on the quote.
That's right, quote mining, the very thing you can't tolerate Christians doing to atheists.
Hear that, Ray, AFU dislikes your quote mining.
Do you realize or understand what you are doing?
More than you think ;)
Hi Ray! I hope you are doing great, Im so glad that many atheists contribute to your blog. Congrats on the typo idea, I really have most of it memorized by now!
I have a suggestion Ray
for the upcoming Atheist Bible you know that Answersingenesis.org has great resources and even has a collection of so called contradictions.
Also are there upcoming updated versions of the Evidence Bible any time soon?
Have a good new years guys
Hector
Oh and by the way. My sister thinks you and Kirk make the ultimate duo in ministry, although she was hoping to see you in FireProof.
Okay sorry I know its totally off the topic lol
OKay guys good night.
Hector and lil sis.
Vagon said:
Certainly not. However had you said:
Example 3:12 “…I look up and the sky and it will be light forever.”
Example 17:4 “The sky is dark when I raise my eyes to it.”
Then you would have an issue. Please reread, its pretty impossible to miss.
Keep in mind that I understand that there are real contradictions in the Bible, but I don't think that this is one.
This is what I get from these verses:
"If you come back to me, I won't be angry forever." Jer. 3:12
"Now that you've made it clear you won't come back to me, I will be angry forever after all." Jer. 17:4
If it had been the other way around, as in "I'll be angry forever" followed by "I won't be angry forever", then you'd have something.
Can you kinda see where I'm coming from?
jason,
""Can you explain to me how this is possible in a theistic worldview?""
Sure. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
""I'm sure you've told me before, but I've forgotten.""
Have we met? Are you the same Jason who promised not to post here anymore except to answer my questions? Just curious.
""Also, can you tell me why you think that knowledge is certain by definition?""
I don't think this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.
I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty.
""I'm reading through the Wikipedia article on knowledge now,""
This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that you are reading through that Wikipedia article. Are you?
""and there does not seem to be a widely agreed upon definition of knowledge,""
There's another knowledge claim. Are you certain that there does not seem to be a widely agreed upon definition?
""and none of the definitions offered seem to necessarily imply certainty.""
Do you know this for certain?
""You probably have better sources than I do.""
Just my handy-dandy Webster's student dictionary. Some definitions for you:
knowledge (n)--the act, fact, or state of knowing
know (v)--to perceive or understand clearly or with certainty. Take care.
G.E.,
""Well, that might be your position, but that does not mean it is true.""
Really? How do you account for truth in your worldview?
""Guys, SC Mikei is a presuppositionalist. Meaning he is a bag of rhetorical tricks. So, no matter how convincing and intelligent your answers to his questions might be, he will reject them using one of several prefabricated tricks designed to either avoid any questions you make, or deviate whatever you say into something else, or just anger you. Semantic tricks, dishonest changes of your meaning (he understands, but he does not care, he will change your meaning anyway), and lots of other "niceties.""
Thanks for the introduction, G.E. I noticed that you didn't include any examples to back up your accusations. Why not?
""You have been warned, if you engage the guy into "conversation" it will be a waste of time and energy. I call these presupps "trolls for Jesus.""
So, are you trying to demonstrate that name calling and making baseless accusations from the sidelines is a good use of time and energy? Let me know.
mudley,
""You're making an assumption as to why I don't believe in any deities.""
It's not an assumption. The reason why professed atheists deny the existence of God has been clearly revealed in the Bible.
""It is not because I am trying to avoid accountability.""
Sure it is. It's nothing new for people to deny the existence of God or to create false gods to worship so that they can be their own god. It's one of the oldest sins in the book.
""If I were trying to avoid accountability for something, then I would have to believe in whatever I was trying to hide my accountability from.""
Again, it is my position that you do know that God exists, you are merely suppressing this truth as a means to avoid accountability to Him (for now). Again, nothing new.
I said: ""It's been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason criminals can't find the police.""
You said: ""And what reason is that? Why can't criminals find the police?""
Because the police represent authority. Criminals would rather be their own authority (kinda like atheists).
""I'm sure that if a criminal were to want to turn themselves in, they could walk to a police station, confess their crime, be handcuffed, tried, and serve their sentence. This is tangible.""
I'm sure that if an "atheist" wanted to, they could surrender to God, confess and repent of their sins, put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and receive a full pardon by God. They just don't want to. Takes us right back to Proverbs 14:2, doesn't it.
""Then he didn't do a very good job.""
Truth does not equal persuasion. It is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced.
""There are many cultures within all of mankind who do not believe in the God of the bible, and Catholicism has already been surpassed by the largest growing religion in the world, Islam.""
Mudley, what people believe has absolutely nothing to do with truth. What if I told you that there are many kindergarteners who believe that 1+1 equals 6. That doesn't mean that we can't know the right answer.
""But neither of this is evidence of the existence o a deity,""
The fact that you believe in the concept of evidence (which is used to prove things) presupposes the existence of God, as it is impossible to prove anything without Him. Go ahead, give it a try.
""only that people have irrational beliefs.""
A few questions for you:
1) By what standard do you call anything irrational? How do you account for that standard?
2) How do you know that your beliefs are not, in fact, irrational?
""How do you define truth? One definition which I accept is a fact that has been verified.""
The question I would ask is: must all facts be verified in order to be true? If so, where is the verification for this fact?
I would define truth as that which is certain. Something cannot be true unless it is certain, as truth cannot also be not truth.
""Where is the verifiable evidence for the existence of your God?""
An appeal to evidence reveals an underlying belief in the concept of proof. Neither of these concepts can be accounted for apart from God.
I'll show you what I mean. Please tell us how it is possible to prove anything in your worldview.
""Back to your criminal analogy, if a criminal does not believe in police officers, whether or not they exist is irrelevant to his motives and sense of accountability.""
That's not the point of my analogy. The point is that criminals do believe in police officers and stay away from them for the same reasons professing atheists stay away from God.....unrighteousness.
""Just like that, whether or not God exists is irrelevant to my thoughts on accountability because I do not believe that I am accountable to an invisible deity.""
Again, though, what people believe has nothing to do with truth. By the way, what standard do you use to determine whether or not something is "irrelevant"?
""I am, however, accountable for my actions to my peers, family, and society.""
How do you justify accountability in an atheistic worldview? How do you go from what "is" to what should be (i.e. morality)?
""As is everyone else, including you, and our hypothetical criminal.""
How do you presume to know the condition of "everyone else" without access to universal knowledge?
I said: "It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
You said: ""I disagree.""
Thankfully, your agreement is not needed in order for this truth to be valid.
""Rebellion is a conscious act against an established order.""
I would say that WILLFULLY suppressing the truth of God's existence to avoid accountability to Him fits that definition quite nicely.
""While I may be rebelling against a religion, or a church, or the members of that church, I am not rebelling against the mythical deity which they worship any more than you are rebelling against zeus, thor, osiris, odin, etc.""
The difference is, the false gods you mention here do not exist, whereas the Christian God (that you are rebelling against) as revealed in the Bible does exist. This is easily proven by the impossibility of the contrary.
I said: "Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?"
You said: ""My comment was based on personal experience, and by listening to the majority of arguments based on fear of retribution or reward.""
A few things:
1) How do you know that the senses and reason that you use to interpret your "personal experiences" are valid?
2) Not that I grant you the validity of your senses (namely your hearing, in this case), but how do you claim to know that you have heard the "majority" of the arguments you mentioned without having access to universal knowledge?
3) Can arguments based on fear of retribution or reward be valid forms of argumentation in your worldview?
""I say that religion is a comfort blanket because theists show an innate fear of the unknown,""
Please prove this assertion. If this is merely your personal opinion (as I suspect it is), please state it as such.
""and have to find something from within their scriptures to explain what is not known.""
I would argue that without God, it is impossible to know anything at all. Watch, tell me one thing you know and how you claim to know it.
""This has been done and redone throughout time from the myths of the gods of olympus, to pele, the hawaiian goddess of fire to explain natural phenomena.""
I agree that people have willfully suppressed the truth of God's existence throughout history by creating false gods and even denying Him altogether. As I said before, idolatry is nothing new.
""People are afraid of not knowing what will happen when they die, and can not come to terms with the thought that their consciousness might just die with their bodies.""
Again, you are making another unfounded assertion. Please prove your claim.
""People are afraid of not knowing what was at the beginning, and are unhappy with the extent of current scientific explanations, such as, what came before the big bang.""
Your statement begs the question that God did not create the heavens and the earth as revealed in the Bible. On what grounds do you base this assumption?
""The answer to this question is "i don't know", and many people are uncomfortable with that.""
Not atheists. They (as well as you) seem to be quite comfortable living by blind faith.
Christians, however, do know for certain the answers to these questions.
""The truth is that people are uncomfortable with the thought that there is not some loving creator watching over them that makes everything right where they can live forever in happiness on a cloud.""
Again, you are making an appeal to truth here. I want to know how you account for truth according to your worldview. I look forward to your responses.
vagon,
I don't believe we've chatted before. Nice to meet you.
Regarding your comments:
""Firstly knowledge is not certain.""
Are you certain of this? If yes, tell me one thing you know absent certainty. If no, then you are merely making an unfounded assertion.
""You are framing an incorrect argument.""
By what standard of logic and reason is my argument "incorrect"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
""Knowledge is based or demonstrated by scientific induction, which has been shown by modern probability to be the best means for acting on future events.""
A few things:
1) Do you know for certain that knowledge is based or demonstrated by scientific induction? If so, how?
2) You are question begging by assuming your proof (namely probability) in your premise. Saying that the future will be like the past because it has been like the past, in the past, is circular reasoning.
3) Without engaging in circular reasoning, tell me how you account for the validity of the scientific method (induction) in your worldview and how you know it to be the BEST means for acting on future events.
""If you suggest that your God is the foundation of knowledge you must provide a positive ontology for this God.""
To say that I MUST do something is to hold my argument to an absolute standard of logic. What is this standard and how do you account for it?
Alright, you've convinced me Ray, I have decided to become a Hindu and devote my life to Lord Shiva.
Seriously though, what is the source on that quote, a google search only seems to turn up Sermon websites, this site was on page 1 (of 2), including presumably your inspiration for these recent posts. nlag gives he "was once approached by an atheist who had hopes of creating an anti-God society" which doesn't make sense in the slightest.
This blog was totally going downhill until Admiral Akbar showed up. You should let him do some guest posting for you Ray, he's awesome!
There five Typos.
Oh, look - I just found two more.
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." Mohandas Gandhi
Point well-taken. Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain that religious fundamentalism and all the bigotry, credulity, and general backwardness that it engenders do exist.
scmike said:
jason,
""Can you explain to me how this is possible in a theistic worldview?""
Sure. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
But how can you know that you're not mistaken about that revelation?
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
I don't know that it is. And I'm fine with that.
""I'm sure you've told me before, but I've forgotten.""
Have we met? Are you the same Jason who promised not to post here anymore except to answer my questions? Just curious.
That's me! I couldn't stay away.
""Also, can you tell me why you think that knowledge is certain by definition?""
I don't think this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.
I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty.
I can't think of anything. It's possible that I'm wrong about everything.
""I'm reading through the Wikipedia article on knowledge now,""
This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that you are reading through that Wikipedia article. Are you?
No. It's possible that I was hallucinating.
""and there does not seem to be a widely agreed upon definition of knowledge,""
There's another knowledge claim. Are you certain that there does not seem to be a widely agreed upon definition?
No. That's why I was asking about it.
""and none of the definitions offered seem to necessarily imply certainty.""
Do you know this for certain?
No. That's why I used the word "seem" in both sentences.
""You probably have better sources than I do.""
Just my handy-dandy Webster's student dictionary. Some definitions for you:
knowledge (n)--the act, fact, or state of knowing
know (v)--to perceive or understand clearly or with certainty. Take care.
I don't see how either of those necessarily imply certainty.
scmike,
I don't comment here very often any longer but I do like like to lurk around for the comedic efect.
I just wanted to let you know that you have become a case study that I use to show my kids the drastic effect of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and delusional thinking.
I always feel sorry for you when you write something.
I can also tell you that I would not want you making any important decisions for me in any manner.
Before you ask me how I account for my logic, etc, don't bother. Know matter what you say, my logic works as well as yours and probably much better because mine is based on reality.
I could say I account for my logic and reason due to revelation from the invisible midget in my closet and it would be just as valid as your failed presup philosophy.
Keep up the good work. You serve very well as an example of a person that is totally out of touch with reality.
I continue to send links to your comments to hundreds of people so they can see the face of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is dying a slow death, but dying nonetheless. The internet is to fundamentalism what the printing press was to the political reign of the catholic church, and the more you spout your lame and vague circumlocutions the sooner the end will come.
10 Reasons to Pray the Scriptures
(Author: John Piper)
Here are some of the reasons you should pray and meditate over biblical truth.
1. Biblical truth saves.
Take heed to yourself and to your doctrine; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16)
2. Biblical truth frees from Satan.
You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)
3. Biblical truth imparts grace and peace.
May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. (2 Peter 1:2)
4. Biblical truth sanctifies.
Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth. (John 17:17)
5. Biblical truth serves love.
It is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment. (Philippians 1:9)
6. Biblical truth protects from error.
Attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God...so that we may no longer be...carried to and fro by every wind of doctrine. (Ephesians 4:13-14)
7. Biblical truth is the hope of heaven.
Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. (1 Corinthians 13:12)
8. Biblical truth will be resisted by some.
The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings. (2 Timothy 4:3)
9. Biblical truth, rightly handled, is approved by God.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
10. Biblical truth: Continue to grow in it!
Grow in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 3:18)
scmike,
"How do you account for truth in your worldview?"
Let me say this, lil buddy. I have lived a quite a long life so far, and I have made countless decisions based on "truth" as I know it.
I have access to the same exact truth and knowledge as you do. There is no need to account for anything, actually.
You are basing your life on an inane philosophical artifact.
scmike: "Thanks for the introduction, G.E. I noticed that you didn't include any examples to back up your accusations. Why not?"
I expect he wanted to give you the pleasure of providing examples for him in your replies to others. Nice of you to take him up on that.
get_education said:
Guys, SC Mikei is a presuppositionalist. Meaning he is a bag of rhetorical tricks. So, no matter how convincing and intelligent your answers to his questions might be, he will reject them using one of several prefabricated tricks designed to either avoid any questions you make, or deviate whatever you say into something else, or just anger you. Semantic tricks, dishonest changes of your meaning (he understands, but he does not care, he will change your meaning anyway), and lots of other "niceties."
You have been warned, if you engage the guy into "conversation" it will be a waste of time and energy. I call these presupps "trolls for Jesus."
Hey G.E.
I wouldn't write off presup. as a "bag of prefabricated rhetorical tricks designed to avoid atheists' intellegent answers." If you remember, that is the mistake Dale made last summer when he was talking with Sye.
It seems to me that it is about taking the debate to the epistemological level and examining the validity of the presuppositions that underlie your propositions. [If I'm wrong about that, scmike, please set me straight.]
You may want to read some of their articles at Covenant Media Foundation's web site just to get a better idea of where they are coming from. (I printed out some of them for my own reading a while back, not that I have a complete grasp of it yet.)
That's just a suggestion that may help you when you exchange comments with a pre-supper. Better yet, you could just review and examine your own position in light of the questions they ask, and come up with a reasoned response. That would be better than dismissing it as mere sophistry and not engaging them in discussion, wouldn't it?
Okay, I'll butt out now, just wanted to offer you some ideas that might help.
Craig B.
Presuppers are absurdists, make no mistake about that. But modern day presupp has it's foundation in Fideism and it goes back to the pre-scientific times of Tertullian
In Tertullian's De Carne Christi (On the Flesh of Christ,) he states in DCC 5, "... the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd."
So there you have it boys and girls, some people are proud to be absurdists. Go figure.
Another issue that the presuppers don't like to talk about is the fact that they have no basis or evidence to show the possibility of the existence of their supernatural figment, thus all attempts to base belief in God using Reason are in vain and they are left with faith, which is believing in a silly idea without evidence. Pathetic, that.
scmike said...
It's not an assumption. The reason why professed atheists deny the existence of God has been clearly revealed in the Bible.
Ok, the bible makes an incorrect assumption about why I don't believe in deities, then you make an incorrect assumption that the bible contains no errors.
Sure it is. It's nothing new for people to deny the existence of God or to create false gods to worship so that they can be their own god. It's one of the oldest sins in the book.
You really are a self-righteous prat. You make assumptions about an entire group of people? You sir, are a bigot.
Again, it is my position that you do know that God exists, you are merely suppressing this truth as a means to avoid accountability to Him (for now). Again, nothing new.
Again, your position is incorrect. If you got your position from the bible, then the bible is also wrong. Just like it was about pi being 3, and about rabbits chewing cud.
Because the police represent authority. Criminals would rather be their own authority (kinda like atheists).
Ah, but you said that criminals CAN'T find police, with which i disagree.
I'm sure that if an "atheist" wanted to, they could surrender to God, confess and repent of their sins, put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and receive a full pardon by God. They just don't want to. Takes us right back to Proverbs 14:2, doesn't it.
I'm sure they could try. But i'm not sure it would do any good considering there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the bible is true, and that God and Jesus exist.
Truth does not equal persuasion. It is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced.
Rightly so. No matter how much evidence you show them, they will ignore it. And no matter how many times you try to correct their incorrect assumptions with evidence, they will still retreat to what they think they know.
Mudley, what people believe has absolutely nothing to do with truth. What if I told you that there are many kindergarteners who believe that 1+1 equals 6. That doesn't mean that we can't know the right answer.
Agreed. However, you are reading my comment out of context. I was replying to the assertion that "God had revealed himself to all mankind so we could know for certain who he is."
The fact that you believe in the concept of evidence (which is used to prove things) presupposes the existence of God, as it is impossible to prove anything without Him. Go ahead, give it a try.
You can't prove anything with OR without a Deity. Proof requires knowledge that is not based on assumptions.
If you disagree with me, then prove his existence. It should be no problem since he has revealed to you and all mankind that he exists, there should not only be evidence, but an actual proof of his existence which is absolutely undeniable.
Please present it.
A few questions for you:
1) By what standard do you call anything irrational? How do you account for that standard?
Any conclusion that is not based on evidence is irrational. If a conclusion is rational, then it must be based on evidence.
Belief in a being for which there is no evidence is irrational.
2) How do you know that your beliefs are not, in fact, irrational?
Because my beliefs are based on evidence. My lack of beliefs are based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. Just like your belief in the God of the bible is irrational, but your disbelief in the God Thor is not irrational (probably).
The question I would ask is: must all facts be verified in order to be true?
I would say yes.
If so, where is the verification for this fact?
The basic concepts of logic and reality, which are based on assumptions.
I would define truth as that which is certain. Something cannot be true unless it is certain, as truth cannot also be not truth.
I agree with that definition.
An appeal to evidence reveals an underlying belief in the concept of proof. Neither of these concepts can be accounted for apart from God.
Of course they can. This is just as lazy of an argument as intelligent design.
I'll show you what I mean. Please tell us how it is possible to prove anything in your worldview.
By working with assumptions which have not been contradicted as of yet. These assumptions are not validated by conclusions, but are supported by them. It does not mean that they are inviolable.
That's not the point of my analogy. The point is that criminals do believe in police officers and stay away from them for the same reasons professing atheists stay away from God.....unrighteousness.
But you assume that police officers are all "righteous". What about the SS's secret police? Were the people that they rounded up unrighteous? Your analogy still fails.
Again, though, what people believe has nothing to do with truth.
It does if their actions are determined by what they believe. You are STILL making the assumption that I am an atheist because I for some reason fear a being which i do not think exists.
I could make the same argument for you, in that you only believe in god because you are afraid of reality.
By the way, what standard do you use to determine whether or not something is "irrelevant"?
Whether or not it has anything to do with the conversation?? Why? How do you determine something's relevance?
How do you justify accountability in an atheistic worldview? How do you go from what "is" to what should be (i.e. morality)?
Because altruism and good behavior is beneficial for the individual and for society as a whole, the opposite is also true in that what cultures have deemed as inappropriate or bad behavior is usually bad for both the individual and society as a whole.
But morals are relative to individuals, families, and cultures, and are based on logic and altruism. Morals fit into the same sociological categories as mores and taboos.
In one society, what may be considered moral may be, in another society, considered a more.
How do you presume to know the condition of "everyone else" without access to universal knowledge?
Because you don't need access to universal knowledge when you base assumptions based on personal experience and inference.
Thankfully, your agreement is not needed in order for this truth to be valid.
Ah, if this truth can be validated, please present your proof.
I would say that WILLFULLY suppressing the truth of God's existence to avoid accountability to Him fits that definition quite nicely.
There you go again, you're working with invalid assumptions. Your universal knowledge is incomplete. Again, i am not avoiding accountability.
Let's try to drill this into your head. It seems to be a bit dense.
If i were to be avoiding accountability, then i would have to believe in God.
If i believed in God, i would know that i would not be able to avoid accountability from an omnipotent being.
Since I truly TRULY do not believe that there is any... i repeat ANY deities in this entire universe, i truly TRULY do not think that i am avoiding any accountability from any deities.
If you were to use this argument, then EVERYONE MUST believe in EVERY SINGLE deity because they are trying to avoid accountability with Thor, Osiris, Odin, Pele, etc.
The difference is, the false gods you mention here do not exist, whereas the Christian God (that you are rebelling against) as revealed in the Bible does exist. This is easily proven by the impossibility of the contrary.
Ok, let's see your proof. Please explain why it is impossible that none of the other gods exist while yours does.
A few things:
a few MORE things? great.
1) How do you know that the senses and reason that you use to interpret your "personal experiences" are valid?
Because i assume that they are.
2) Not that I grant you the validity of your senses (namely your hearing, in this case), but how do you claim to know that you have heard the "majority" of the arguments you mentioned without having access to universal knowledge?
Because I work with assumptions.
3) Can arguments based on fear of retribution or reward be valid forms of argumentation in your worldview?
No, because that is an appeal to emotion, and is a logical fallacy.
Please prove this assertion. If this is merely your personal opinion (as I suspect it is), please state it as such.
What, you mean like saying I say..." at the beginning of the sentence.... like i did?
I would argue that without God, it is impossible to know anything at all. Watch, tell me one thing you know and how you claim to know it.
I argue that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty. With or without God. I know nothing, but your presuppositional banter comes across as very pseudointellectual, pompus, annoying, and weak.
I agree that people have willfully suppressed the truth of God's existence
Please not only provide evidence, but PROOF which you have already claimed to have.
throughout history by creating false gods and even denying Him altogether. As I said before, idolatry is nothing new.
Proof please.
Again, you are making another unfounded assertion. Please prove your claim.
I'm not the one claiming to have proof, that was an assertion based on personal experience.
Your statement begs the question that God did not create the heavens and the earth as revealed in the Bible. On what grounds do you base this assumption?
On the grounds that there is no evidence to support the biblical account of creation.
Not atheists. They (as well as you) seem to be quite comfortable living by blind faith.
Actually i am very comfortable with only knowing that i do not know. It allows me to learn more, and open my mind to other possibilities. While you may "know" your God is real, you completely close your mind off to other possibilities.
Christians, however, do know for certain the answers to these questions.
Correction, they have an explanation, but their explanation is not backed up by any evidence, and any "evidence" which "supports" it is cherry picked and forced into support, while all other evidence is ignored.
Again, you are making an appeal to truth here. I want to know how you account for truth according to your worldview. I look forward to your responses.
.... an appeal to truth??? you've got to be kidding me. any argument is an appeal to truth.
See above, i'm tired of the presup crap.
It is also interesting to note that Martin Luther taught that faith and reason were antithetical, and that man must reject reason and accept faith. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." and "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has."----^ Amesbury, Richard (2005). in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cap'n (or is it Lord in this case...) Liz said "This blog was totally going downhill until Admiral Akbar showed up. You should let him do some guest posting for you Ray, he's awesome!"
Thanks, Liz!
Now that I'm popular, I'd like my first official move to change this dude scmike's name to "trap". I know a trap when I see one, and this guy can make a trap. For sure. Check out these snares:
"By what standard of logic and reason is my argument "incorrect"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?"
"You are question begging by assuming your proof (namely probability) in your premise. Saying that the future will be like the past because it has been like the past, in the past, is circular reasoning."
[in reference to providing a a positive ontology for GOD, if God is scmike's basis for logic] "To say that I MUST do something is to hold my argument to an absolute standard of logic. What is this standard and how do you account for it?"
I haven't seen evasion like that since I evaded the high magnitude firepower of a certain fully operational battle station. I'm not even going to TRY to talk to scmike because I think it would end up something like this:
ACT 1
Admiral Akbar: hi, scmike.
scmike: are you talking to me?
Admiral Akbar: uh, yeah... hi.
scmike: how do you know you are talking to me?
Admiral Akbar: huh? I'm looking at you and talking to you. You are right there. (pushes scmike) See?
scmike: how can you be sure that you *actually* touched me? What can you base that kind of certainty on?
Admiral Akbar: look, I was going to offer you this pie that Dinosaur and I couldn't finish, but it looks like you wouldn't ever *really* be sure that you *actually* ate the pie, and if you couldn't be *sure* then how could you enjoy it? Seems like a lost cause.
scmike: I'd enjoy it because my basis for being certain I ate the pie is my belief in God.
Admiral Akbar: Then I'll give God the pie, and He can tell you how it was.
Dinosaur: RAWR!
Richard Dawkins (above, from a hot air baloon): I'm up in a balloooooooooooooon!
Who needs that? I mean, help me out guys!
It's a Trap,
AA
P.S. I had to look up the word "ontology".
SC Mikei,
Thanks for the introduction, G.E. I noticed that you didn't include any examples to back up your accusations. Why not?
Because I know you will do that yourself. Just as you have already done. Vagon will notice at some point.
So, are you trying to demonstrate that name calling and making baseless accusations from the sidelines is a good use of time and energy? Let me know.
We have been here already SC Mkei, and you always show everybody that these are not baseless accusations, nor name-calling, but honest conclusions.
Keep the demonstrations coming Mikei!
G.E.
jason,
I said: "Sure. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them."
You said: ""But how can you know that you're not mistaken about that revelation?""
Because God has revealed them to is in ways that we can be certain of them via natural and special revelation. Do you dispute this possibility?
I said: "Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?"
You said: ""I don't know that it is. And I'm fine with that.""
Two questions:
1)Are you certain that you don't know that it is?
2)Are you certain that you're fine with that?
(Note: Can you see the inconsistency of making knowledge claims and then claiming that you can't know anything for certain yet?)
I asked: "Have we met? Are you the same Jason who promised not to post here anymore except to answer my questions? Just curious."
You said: ""That's me! I couldn't stay away.""
Not a problem. It's just that you never answered my questions.
I said: "I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty."
You said: ""I can't think of anything. It's possible that I'm wrong about everything.""
Jason, I appreciate this admission (I assume you're being sincere). I hope you can see that even your claim here presupposes your ability to arrive at certainty, as you are claiming to know that it is possible that you could be wrong about everything.
As I said, it is impossible to know something absent certainty and it is impossible to have certainty without God.
I said: "This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that you are reading through that Wikipedia article. Are you?"
You said: ""No. It's possible that I was hallucinating.""
If you were, how would you know?
I asked: "Do you know this for certain?"
You said: ""No. That's why I used the word "seem" in both sentences.""
Surely by now you can see my point that each knowledge claim you make presupposes certainty, no?
I submitted these definitions: "knowledge (n)--the act, fact, or state of knowing
know (v)--to perceive or understand clearly or with certainty. Take care."
You replied: ""I don't see how either of those necessarily imply certainty.""
Jason, the definition of the word "know" contains the word CERTAINTY. It can't be any more plain than that. Take care.
Admiral Akbar,
Ray indeed owes you thanks for making his blog interesting and funny. Probably he'll just give God all the credit though.
Hey, is there any pie left? You didn't give it all to God, did you? I'd really like some. It's OK if you gave it to Dawkins, though.
"Presuppositionalism is an ingenious, elaborate mental trap by which some otherwise extremely bright people manage to keep their minds locked inside the hardcore Christian box."
--Diane Vera
Looks like AA's right. It's a trap.
Admiral Akbar FTW.
froggie,
""I just wanted to let you know that you have become a case study that I use to show my kids the drastic effect of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and delusional thinking.""
I'm glad your comments to me have been able to serve a useful purpose after all. :)
""Before you ask me how I account for my logic, etc, don't bother. Know matter what you say, my logic works as well as yours and probably much better because mine is based on reality.""
Too bad you have zero justification for this statement as an atheist.
""I could say I account for my logic and reason due to revelation from the invisible midget in my closet and it would be just as valid as your failed presup philosophy.""
Thanks for showing us the absurd lengths that atheists must go to in order to account for logic and reason. That's one of the best I've seen so far!! Priceless!
""Keep up the good work. You serve very well as an example of a person that is totally out of touch with reality.""
Since you believe that we both evolved, how do you know that I didn't evolve right and you're not actually the one out of touch with reality? This should be good.
""I continue to send links to your comments to hundreds of people so they can see the face of fundamentalism.""
Great!! I'm grateful for the exposure of our respective worldviews!!
""Fundamentalism is dying a slow death, but dying nonetheless. The internet is to fundamentalism what the printing press was to the political reign of the catholic church, and the more you spout your lame and vague circumlocutions the sooner the end will come.""
I'd say the same thing if I was in your shoes, Dale. Declaring one's opponent to be defeated is usually a sure sign that the opposite is true. Nice bluff, though. Thanks for the confirmation!
froggie,
""Let me say this, lil buddy.""
Go ahead, Skipper. ;)
""I have lived a quite a long life so far, and I have made countless decisions based on "truth" as I know it.""
And you have done so with zero justification whatsoever, as you hold a worldview in which truth is not possible. Yet another demonstration of the inconsistencies of your worldview.
""I have access to the same exact truth and knowledge as you do.""
I don't doubt that. However, only one of us can account for the existence of these concepts. Don't you find that a wee bit odd?
""There is no need to account for anything, actually.""
Especially when you're content living by blind faith. Best wishes!
stranger.strange.land,
""It seems to me that it is about taking the debate to the epistemological level and examining the validity of the presuppositions that underlie your propositions. [If I'm wrong about that, scmike, please set me straight.]""
Nope. You're right on the money. God Bless. :)
chris b,
I wrote: "Thanks for the introduction, G.E. I noticed that you didn't include any examples to back up your accusations. Why not?"
You said: ""I expect he wanted to give you the pleasure of providing examples for him in your replies to others. Nice of you to take him up on that.""
So, you're admitting that G.E.'s accusations of me are baseless, and you're OK with that? How nice.
By the way, what have you done with G.E.?????
froggie,
""Another issue that the presuppers don't like to talk about is the fact that they have no basis or evidence to show the possibility of the existence of their supernatural figment, thus all attempts to base belief in God using Reason are in vain and they are left with faith, which is believing in a silly idea without evidence. Pathetic, that.""
Looks like you provided no evidence to support YOUR silly idea. Oooops. :)
scmike said...
froggie,
""Another issue that the presuppers don't like to talk about is the fact that they have no basis or evidence to show the possibility of the existence of their supernatural figment, thus all attempts to base belief in God using Reason are in vain and they are left with faith, which is believing in a silly idea without evidence. Pathetic, that.""
Looks like you provided no evidence to support YOUR silly idea. Oooops. :)
You're the one that's making a claim for which there is no evidence.
Since no evidence has been presented to confirm the existence of any deities, let alone the deity of the bible, a rational person has no choice but to assume that this supernatural being is a figment of a believer's imagination.
If someone believes something for which there is no evidence, then that belief is irrational.
You still have yet to provide any evidence, and until you can provide evidence of a deity's existence then your presuppositional arguments are moot.
Cap'n Noble asked, "Hey, is there any pie left? You didn't give it all to God, did you? I'd really like some. It's OK if you gave it to Dawkins, though."
I'm of the opinion that there's enough pie for everyone.
*Speaking* of Dawkins, he didn't want any pie (I think he's British!).
I mean, help me out guys?
It's a Trap.
AA
You know what I learned today? Absolute certainty makes a person insufferable, arrogant and smug. I'm not absolutely certain of that, but I've seen substantial evidence of it. Of course I'm just working on the assumption that insufferableness (it's a word, I looked it up), arrogance and smugness exist.
Happy New Year!
mudley,
""Ok, the bible makes an incorrect assumption about why I don't believe in deities, then you make an incorrect assumption that the bible contains no errors.""
Naturally I disagree with YOUR two assumptions here, but tell me this: what standard of logic and reason do you use to determine whether an assumption is "correct" or not? Can incorrect assumptions be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?
""You really are a self-righteous prat. You make assumptions about an entire group of people? You sir, are a bigot.""
Naturally I disagree with your assumption about me, but by what standard of morality do you condemn self-righteousness and bigotry as "wrong" in your worldview (or is it?)?
""Again, your position is incorrect. If you got your position from the bible, then the bible is also wrong.""
Please prove this.
While you're at it, please tell me how you account for the standard by which you call anything "right" or "wrong". It is my position that these concepts cannot exist in an atheistic universe and therefore must be borrowed from the Christian worldview.
I said: "Truth does not equal persuasion. It is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced."
You said: ""Rightly so. No matter how much evidence you show them, they will ignore it. And no matter how many times you try to correct their incorrect assumptions with evidence, they will still retreat to what they think they know.""
That's the best summary of an atheistic worldview that I have seen. Bravo, Mudley!
I said: ""Mudley, what people believe has absolutely nothing to do with truth. What if I told you that there are many kindergarteners who believe that 1+1 equals 6. That doesn't mean that we can't know the right answer.""
You said: ""Agreed. However, you are reading my comment out of context. I was replying to the assertion that "God had revealed himself to all mankind so we could know for certain who he is.""
Do you dispute the possibility that God could do this?
""You can't prove anything with OR without a Deity. Proof requires knowledge that is not based on assumptions.""
What you may not realize is that, according to you, your very statements above cannot be proven and are, in fact, just assumptions which could be false for all you know.
""If you disagree with me, then prove his existence.""
Sure. The proof of God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything (as you have just demonstrated).
Surely you can see the inconsisency of admitting that proof cannot exist in your worldview and then asking me for proof, no?
""It should be no problem since he has revealed to you and all mankind that he exists, there should not only be evidence, but an actual proof of his existence which is absolutely undeniable.""
There is plenty of evidence to prove God's existence. However, I know that any evidence presented to you or I will be interpreted via our respective presuppositions.
So, the question is, which of our presuppositions can account for knowledge and the absolute laws of logic and reason that we are both using to have this discussion? It is my position that none of these things can be accounted for apart from the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. This fact has been demonstrated over and over again on this very blog (and in this very thread).
I said: "A few questions for you:
1) By what standard do you call anything irrational? How do you account for that standard?""
You answered: ""Any conclusion that is not based on evidence is irrational.""
Where is the evidence to support the above conclusion? If you have none, then by your own standard, it is irrational.
""If a conclusion is rational, then it must be based on evidence.""
Still waiting on the evidence to support this conclusion.
Besides, you have yet to account for the standard by which you call anything "rational" or the validity of the concept of evidence in your worldview? What are you waiting for?
I asked: "2) How do you know that your beliefs are not, in fact, irrational?"
You said: ""Because my beliefs are based on evidence.""
Please provide the evidence to support your belief that God does not exist.
""My lack of beliefs are based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.""
The fact that you must borrow the concepts of evidence and proof from the Christian worldview since yours cannot account for them (as you have admitted) IS evidence to the contrary.
Not to mention the fact that you are using absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason,which cannot be accounted for in your worldview, to hold this discussion. Odd, huh?
""Just like your belief in the God of the bible is irrational,""
Problem is Mudley, you have already admitted that it is impossible to prove anything in your worldview. By your own admission, your statement above is merely an unverifiable faith-based assertion.
I asked: "The question I would ask is: must all facts be verified in order to be true?"
You said: "I would say yes."
How do you know this?
I asked: "If so, where is the verification for this fact?"
You said: ""The basic concepts of logic and reality, which are based on assumptions.""
Would those be "assumptions" that are formed using logic and reality?
If so, you are arguing that logic and reality are based on logic and reality. Surely you can see the problem with that?
I said: "I would define truth as that which is certain. Something cannot be true unless it is certain, as truth cannot also be not truth."
You said: ""I agree with that definition.""
Great!! So how is certainty possible in your worldview?
I said: ""I'll show you what I mean. Please tell us how it is possible to prove anything in your worldview.""
You said: ""By working with assumptions which have not been contradicted as of yet.""
You just agreed with me above that truth is CERTAIN by definition and that truth cannot be not truth (i.e. it cannot be contradicted).
Something that is true must be absolutely true. If it can be proven false, it was never true to start with. Remember, what people believe to be true and what IS true are two different things.
""These assumptions are not validated by conclusions, but are supported by them. It does not mean that they are inviolable.""
Give me an example of something that you know to be true that could be false.
I said: "Again, though, what people believe has nothing to do with truth."
You said: ""It does if their actions are determined by what they believe. You are STILL making the assumption that I am an atheist because I for some reason fear a being which i do not think exists.""
Nope. I do not believe that you fear God, as that is the beginning of wisdom. It is my position that you willfully (and foolishly)suppress the truth of God's existence.
This is evidenced by the way you continue to borrow concepts (logic, reason, proof, knowledge, truth, etc.) from my worldview that you cannot account for in your own, while continuing to deny their very foundation.
""I could make the same argument for you, in that you only believe in god because you are afraid of reality.""
But we both know that you could never prove this to be true (by your own admission).
I asked: "By the way, what standard do you use to determine whether or not something is "irrelevant"?"
You said: ""Whether or not it has anything to do with the conversation?? Why? How do you determine something's relevance?""
I use absolute, immaterial, laws of logic and reason that reflect the character and nature of God. How do you account for these absolute laws that you use to determine "relevance" in your worldview?
I asked: "How do you justify accountability in an atheistic worldview? How do you go from what "is" to what should be (i.e. morality)?"
You said: ""Because altruism and good behavior is beneficial for the individual and for society as a whole,""
How do you know what constitutes "good" behavior as opposed to "bad" behavior without an absolute standard? Also, how do you know whether something is "beneficial" or "harmful" to society?
Is survival of the individual at all costs the ultimate goal of mankind or survival of the society? How do you know?
""the opposite is also true in that what cultures have deemed as inappropriate or bad behavior is usually bad for both the individual and society as a whole.""
Without an absolute standard, no one could call anything good or bad. It would all be a matter of personal preference.
""But morals are relative to individuals, families, and cultures, and are based on logic and altruism.""
Neither of which can be accounted for in an atheistic universe. Without an absolute standard, altruism would is a meaningless term. There would only be that which "is", not that which "should be", which was my point.
I asked: ""How do you presume to know the condition of "everyone else" without access to universal knowledge?""
You said: ""Because you don't need access to universal knowledge when you base assumptions based on personal experience and inference.""
You do if your claim is regarding that which pertains to "everyone else". Surely you aren't claiming to have personally examined "everyone else"....are you?
""Ah, if this truth can be validated, please present your proof.""
The proof is that without God it is impossible to prove anything. You have already demonstrated this to be true.
""Since I truly TRULY do not believe that there is any... i repeat ANY deities in this entire universe, i truly TRULY do not think that i am avoiding any accountability from any deities.""
The fact that you continue to appeal to concepts that you can't account for in your worldview is further proof of your willful suppression. You see, my argument is not just that you can't account for these things, but that Christianity can and does.
""If you were to use this argument, then EVERYONE MUST believe in EVERY SINGLE deity because they are trying to avoid accountability with Thor, Osiris, Odin, Pele, etc.""
Again, what people believe has nothing to do with what is true.
""Ok, let's see your proof. Please explain why it is impossible that none of the other gods exist while yours does.""
Proof is for those who hold a worldview in which proof is possible. I'm sure you would agree that it would be pointless to offer you proof after you have admitted that proof is not possible in your worldview. Perhaps you'd care to rethink your position on this?
I asked: "1) How do you know that the senses and reason that you use to interpret your "personal experiences" are valid?"
You said: ""Because i assume that they are.""
Really?? You KNOW your senses and reasoning are valid because you ASSUME they are?? Sounds like you trust these things purely on blind faith.
I asked: "2) Not that I grant you the validity of your senses (namely your hearing, in this case), but how do you claim to know that you have heard the "majority" of the arguments you mentioned without having access to universal knowledge?""
You said: ""Because I work with assumptions.""
How do you know that any of these assumptions are valid if you can't prove anything in your worldview? Blind faith?
I asked: "3) Can arguments based on fear of retribution or reward be valid forms of argumentation in your worldview?"
You said: ""No, because that is an appeal to emotion, and is a logical fallacy.""
By what absolute standard of logic is it a logical fallacy?
""I argue that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty.""
Are you certain of this, or could it be false?
""With or without God. I know nothing,""
Do you know that you know nothing or could this also be false and you could, in fact, know something?
""I'm not the one claiming to have proof, that was an assertion based on personal experience.""
You are the one, however, who continues to ask for proof while claiming that it is not possible in your worldview. Don't you see the problem with that?
I said: "Your statement begs the question that God did not create the heavens and the earth as revealed in the Bible. On what grounds do you base this assumption?"
You said: ""On the grounds that there is no evidence to support the biblical account of creation.""
How do you know that there is NO evidence without absolute knowledge. Even if you did have absolute knowledge, you still could not prove your statement due to the fact that proof is not compatible with your worldview. Nice try!
""Actually i am very comfortable with only knowing that i do not know.""
You have already admitted that you can't know anything for 100%. Therefore, you can't know for certain that you don't know. Perhaps the Bible is correct and you do know?
""It allows me to learn more, and open my mind to other possibilities. While you may "know" your God is real, you completely close your mind off to other possibilities.""
That's like saying that if I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+2=?, you hold an intellectually superior position to me. I have the right answer. You may wish to wait around and hope for the possibility that someone may someday come up with another answer, but you do so on purely on blind faith. That has been my point all along.
""Correction, they have an explanation, but their explanation is not backed up by any evidence, and any "evidence" which "supports" it is cherry picked and forced into support, while all other evidence is ignored.""
Well, let's hear your contrary claim for the existence of truth, proof, and the absolute laws of logic and reason. Then we can compare claims and see whose is locigally supported. Sound good?
"".... an appeal to truth??? you've got to be kidding me. any argument is an appeal to truth.""
I know. I want to know how you account for the concept of truth (certainty) in your worldview. All you have been able to tell me so far is that you are certain that certainty is not possible, which is self-refuting. Perhaps you should give this some serious thought?
SCMike,
"Looks like you provided no evidence to support YOUR silly idea. Oooops."
That is very disengenuous of you.
I have no idea of exactly what idea you are referring to as I covered several.
You often do that when I show how your argument is flawed.
I said,
"I have access to the same exact truth and knowledge as you do."
You said,
"I don't doubt that. However, only one of us can account for the existence of these concepts."
You say you can account for your logic which is the same as my logic thus making your argument moot and sensless.
That's like saying that we both build a house to the exact same specifications with the same craftmanship and you run around telling everybody that your house is better than mine because you get the logic to make that idiotic statement from your supernatural figment.
That is exactly what you and Sye are doing and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Presupp is a failed philosophical artifact most used by people who crave attention.
ACT 1
Admiral Akbar: hi, scmike.
scmike: are you talking to me?
Admiral Akbar: uh, yeah... hi.
scmike: how do you know you are talking to me?
Admiral Akbar: huh? I'm looking at you and talking to you. You are right there. (pushes scmike) See?
scmike: how can you be sure that you *actually* touched me? What can you base that kind of certainty on?
Admiral Akbar: look, I was going to offer you this pie that Dinosaur and I couldn't finish, but it looks like you wouldn't ever *really* be sure that you *actually* ate the pie, and if you couldn't be *sure* then how could you enjoy it? Seems like a lost cause.
scmike: I'd enjoy it because my basis for being certain I ate the pie is my belief in God.
Admiral Akba, that's an almost perfect description of how SCMike acts but it needs more smugness. Add a few happy face smileys. And the word "Priceless!". And increase the punctuation but adding four exclamation marks to a sentence!!!! And remember Sye doesn't like to answer questions, he likes to ask them.
@scmike:
I replied to your last post to me, but it apparently didn't go through for some reason only Ray knows. I'm not going to retype it, but it might be on my work computer, so maybe I'll try again on Friday.
Ray, do you have any idea why my last post didn't show up?
mudley,
""Since no evidence has been presented to confirm the existence of any deities,""
Making an absolute truth claim, while holding to a worldview that denies absolutes and can't account for truth, probably won't do much to help your cause, but it does serve to demonstrate just a few of the many inconsistencies in an atheistic worldview. Keep it up!
""let alone the deity of the bible, a rational person has no choice but to assume that this supernatural being is a figment of a believer's imagination.""
The major problem here is that you are using logic and reason to try and undermine the only possible source of logic and reason, which is self-refuting, of course.
By the way, how do you know that you are in fact thinking rationally as opposed to irrationally?
""If someone believes something for which there is no evidence, then that belief is irrational.""
Uh, where is the evidence to support the belief that "if someone believes something for which there is no evidence, then that belief is irrational"? Without evidence, this belief is irrational according to your own standard.
""You still have yet to provide any evidence,""
How do you know for certain I haven't provided any evidence? Perhaps I have and you have simply rejected it due to your presupposition that God does not exist.
""and until you can provide evidence of a deity's existence then your presuppositional arguments are moot.""
Just because you don't like the evidence presented to you doesn't mean that no evidence has been presented.
I could just as easily say that until you account for the certainty of knowledge and the standard of logic and reason you are using to call any argument "moot", your arguments are merely baseless assertions for which you have zero justification to make. How's that??
noble,
I don't believe we've spoken before. It's nice to meet you.
Regarding your comment:
""You know what I learned today?""
Learning presupposes logic, reason, and knowledge. How do you account for any of these things in your worldview. I look forward to your response.
Happy New Year to you, as well!!
chris mackey,
""Admiral Akba, that's an almost perfect description of how SCMike acts but it needs more smugness. Add a few happy face smileys. And the word "Priceless!". And increase the punctuation but adding four exclamation marks to a sentence!!!! And remember Sye doesn't like to answer questions, he likes to ask them.""
Uh, priceless!!!! :) :) :) :)
How's that? ;)
P.S. It seems you are mistaking confidence for smugness. It happens quite often (especially from those who can't know anything for certain). Take care. :)
@mudley--
Boy, scmike really hit you with enough snow to ski on, didn't he?
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.
That would be the unchanging Allah then wouldn't it?
froggie,
I said: "Looks like you provided no evidence to support YOUR silly idea. Oooops."
You said: ""That is very disengenuous of you.
I have no idea of exactly what idea you are referring to as I covered several.""
I was simply pointing out that you failed to provide evidence to support your idea that "they are left with faith, which is believing in a silly idea without evidence."
This makes you guilty of doing what you are falsely accusing Christians of doing and places your comment in the realm of faith.
Thought you might like to know.
""You often do that when I show how your argument is flawed.""
You still haven't accounted for the standard of logic and reason by which you call any argument flawed. Don't worry, I know why.
""You say you can account for your logic which is the same as my logic thus making your argument moot and sensless.""
Not so. My argument is that the Christian worldview can and does account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason, while the atheist worldview cannot and does not.
The fact that you continue to dodge this question demonstrates the truth of my argument. Thanks.
""That's like saying that we both build a house to the exact same specifications with the same craftmanship and you run around telling everybody that your house is better than mine because you get the logic to make that idiotic statement from your supernatural figment.""
Actually, it's more like us both going to Lowe's and buying building supplies to build our homes and then you denying that Lowe's exists while using their materials.
Surely you agree that it would be more than appropriate to ask how you account for the building materials you're using if you're going to deny that Lowe's exists.
""Presupp is a failed philosophical artifact most used by people who crave attention.""
Well, I will admit that atheists love to give presuppositional arguments plenty of attention. It's no secret that they hone in on these arguments because they are most devastating to their worldview.
The fact that these arguments drew you out of "lurking" mode only serves to further validate my point. Neat, huh?
@Chris Mackey--
Admiral Akba, that's an almost perfect description of how SCMike acts but it needs more smugness. Add a few happy face smileys. And the word "Priceless!". And increase the punctuation but adding four exclamation marks to a sentence!!!! And remember Sye doesn't like to answer questions, he likes to ask them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sye, scmike, what's the difference? Both presuppositional trolls. Compare their comments; they show the same style and deploy the same convoluted rhetorical yoga; which is all their apologetic is, really.
"Presup: I have a car (religion) I want to sell you. It's really keen!"
Atheist: Yeah? OK, lemmie have a look at it...
Presup: Woah, hold it rite there. First "justify" auto mechanics. Then maybe I'll let you look it over. Yeah, OK.
You'll have fun with them. I know I do!
The pastor and associate pastor of the church I attend regularly, disciple me and some other college aged folk like myself. I am beginning to wonder what the point is to discipling if they do not teach us how to evangelize in the process. Equipping ourselves to be fishers of men should be a part of the discipleship process.
Jesus made fishers of men out of uneducated but experienced seamen. He did not make a bunch of intellectuals who have been discipled to know how to 'REALLY believe in Jesus.'Jesus made fishers of men!
If any of you who do not believe in God, were to actually see God face to face and returned to earth, you still would not believe He exists because you would think it was a dream, or you'd explain it away with science or the faith you have now, whether your faith is in text books or a coke bottle. And if you who do not believe were to see God and did not return to earth, God would send you to Hell because you lived in rebelion against Him. Luke 16:19-31 expains what I am saying. God is against the Proud at heart but embraces the humble at heart. The Law gets rid of pride. Not self esteem.
scmike said:
Learning presupposes logic, reason, and knowledge. How do you account for any of these things in your worldview.
Why to they need to be accounted for?
Christopher Geiser said...
The pastor and associate pastor of the church I attend regularly, disciple me and some other college aged folk like myself. I am beginning to wonder what the point is to discipling if they do not teach us how to evangelize in the process. Equipping ourselves to be fishers of men should be a part of the discipleship process.
Jesus made fishers of men out of uneducated but experienced seamen. He did not make a bunch of intellectuals who have been discipled to know how to 'REALLY believe in Jesus.'Jesus made fishers of men!
Hey Christopher.
I hope that in time that evangelism training will be included in your discipleship class.
For now, I would say, "Just go with what you've got."
The ninth chapter of John may be an encouragement. I love it where the man who had been born blind says to the Pharisees, "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." Then, after being questioned, he asked them, "..will ye also be his disciples?"
In Christ's care,
Craig Boyd
adam nardoli,
""That would be the unchanging Allah then wouldn't it?""
Hi Adam. Are you a Muslim?
captain howdy,
""Presup: I have a car (religion) I want to sell you. It's really keen!"
Atheist: Yeah? OK, lemmie have a look at it...
Presup: Woah, hold it rite there. First "justify" auto mechanics. Then maybe I'll let you look it over. Yeah, OK.""
I have a more fitting scenario:
Christian: Hey, nice car you've got there. I have one just like it.
Atheist: Really?
Christian: Yeah, Chevrolet makes a great car, don't you think?
Atheist: I don't believe in Chevrolet!
Christian: But you're driving one of their vehicles, it says so right on the car.
Atheist: That doesn't prove anything. I want evidence!
Christian: OK, here's the owners manual from my car. It's the same as the one from your car. Look, right here it says Chevrolet on the front and gives an exact description of the entire car inside.
Atheist: That doesn't prove anything. That manual was written by men. If Chevrolet exists, I want the CEO to come here and tell me so himself.
Christian: I don't think that the CEO of a major corporation is going to come all the way out here just to prove to you that his corporation exists, especially when we both have these owners' manuals and are driving cars made by Chevrolet.
Atheist: If I can't talk to the CEO, then neither he nor Chevrolet exists.
Christian: How about this, we can go down to the local Chevy dealership and let you talk to some of the representitives there. They can verify the existence of their corporation and even tell you all about the CEO.
Atheist: Nah. They're probably all just as delusional as you.
I'm leaving. ***gets in car***.
Christian: But how do you explain the existence of this car you're driving if you don't believe in Chevrolet?
Atheist: I don't know and neither do you, but one day we may find the answer. ***drives away***
Christian: Stares in disbelief as the atheist drives away in a car that should not exist according to his professed beliefs.
I'm heading out of town for a couple of days with no internet access. I will try to catch up on any missed comments upon returning.
Happy New Year to all!
Christopher Geiser said:
If any of you who do not believe in God, were to actually see God face to face and returned to earth, you still would not believe He exists because you would think it was a dream, or you'd explain it away with science...
Right. It could well be a hallucination. However, there are much more convincing things God could do to convince me of his existence. It wouldn't take much, and they would be very easy for him. But He doesn't do them, at least not for me, no matter how much I ask.
{Hi Adam. Are you a Muslim?}
Yes. Allah is the basis for all reason.
scmike said:
I have a more fitting scenario:
Christian: Hey, nice car you've got there. I have one just like it.
Atheist: Really?
Christian: Yeah, Chevrolet makes a great car, don't you think?
Atheist: I don't believe in Chevrolet!
Christian: But you're driving one of their vehicles, it says so right on the car.
Atheist: That doesn't prove anything. I want evidence!
Christian: OK, here's the owners manual from my car. It's the same as the one from your car. Look, right here it says Chevrolet on the front and gives an exact description of the entire car inside.
Atheist: That doesn't prove anything. That manual was written by men. If Chevrolet exists, I want the CEO to come here and tell me so himself.
Christian: I don't think that the CEO of a major corporation is going to come all the way out here just to prove to you that his corporation exists, especially when we both have these owners' manuals and are driving cars made by Chevrolet.
Atheist: If I can't talk to the CEO, then neither he nor Chevrolet exists.
Christian: How about this, we can go down to the local Chevy dealership and let you talk to some of the representitives there. They can verify the existence of their corporation and even tell you all about the CEO.
Atheist: Nah. They're probably all just as delusional as you.
I'm leaving. ***gets in car***.
Christian: But how do you explain the existence of this car you're driving if you don't believe in Chevrolet?
Atheist: I don't know and neither do you, but one day we may find the answer. ***drives away***
Christian: Stares in disbelief as the atheist drives away in a car that should not exist according to his professed beliefs.
If you had even 10% as much evidence that God exists as you do that Chevy exists, I'd be able to take you seriously. All you do is say you have evidence, but never show it. And then you assume your conclusion.
Christopher Geiser:
If any of you who do not believe in God, were to actually see God face to face and returned to earth, you still would not believe He exists because you would think it was a dream, or you'd explain it away with science or the faith you have now,
I think this is something you made up about atheists without actually talking to any. If I were to actually see God face to face I would believe. Yes, it would be tempting to think it was a dream or hallucination but the powerful nature of the encounter would override any doubts. If I were abducted by aliens I would believe in UFOs. Although in that case it might be appropriate to consider seeking psychiatric care.
whether your faith is in text books or a coke bottle.
Once again, faith is not in a text book. Coke bottle? Don't put that coke bottle garbage in our lap- that is Ray & Kirk's obession.
Don't be so quick to make judgements about the objects of your evangelical efforts.
Chris b said: ""I expect he wanted to give you the pleasure of providing examples for him in your replies to others. Nice of you to take him up on that.""
SC Mikei answered: So, you're admitting that G.E.'s accusations of me are baseless, and you're OK with that? How nice.
So Mikei, besides all the other examples you gave, here it is one that could not be clearer. You know what Chris meant, yet you change his meaning, and I warned (among other things):
dishonest changes of your meaning (he understands, but he does not care, he will change your meaning anyway)
Priceless!! :-D
(yeah, now go ahead with Sye's "clear as mud" rhetoric)
G.E.
Hi Craig (Stranger),
Happy new year.
I am sorry to tell you this, but the first time I argued with another presupp, Sye, I got interested to see where the guy was leading (never having heard of presupping before). So, I answered some of his questions to explore his arguments. His questions were charged questions (these questions are almost always exemplified with "have you stop beating your wife?"), but I had not noticed yet. I got quite surprised that he, apparently brilliant at first, would intermix different realms of abstractions and realities just looking for a way of ridiculing my answer in dishonest ways.
Later on I just warned others about his tricks (and he would provide examples with gusto, just as SC Mike does).
It is all dishonest rhetoric Craig. Loaded/charged questions, viciously circular arguments, special pleading, semantic trickery, and the like.
Try and follow what SC Mike does and you will see for yourself. It is refined rhetoric whose main basis is the expectation that the ability to notice the changes in realms of discourse and the veiled tricks (when veiled) is not that abundant. So, he knows, that even if in the end the atheists note the tricks, the Christians will not, and it will be very hard to explain the trickery to the rest of the people because we do not know where to start the explanation, and because he can always use those explanations to confuse whomever else is reading and is not prepared to notice the dishonest tactics.
Sorry for such a long note. But I have come to respect you a lot, and had to answer you.
Thanks for the notes about where to find more information of presupping Craig. But, setting the dishonest rhetoric apart, it all reduces to a convoluted God-of-the-gaps argument.
G.E.
Jason, I can see what you mean. Unfortunately God is describing a character, I am merciful, not I will be. Greek and Hebrew both have an understanding of tenses, why wouldn't they use the appropriate tense?
Insert apologetics here about poetic language etc, but for me its just another example of an errant book.
scmike said...
I don't believe we've chatted before. Nice to meet you.
And you. Regarding your comments:
Are you certain of this?
No.
If no, then you are merely making an unfounded assertion.
Induction is a valid foundation for my assertion.
By what standard of logic and reason is my argument "incorrect"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
Do you suggest that we know everything that will occur? If we don't then you agree that knowledge isn't certain and we have no argument. Your argument is with my use of induction, which does not require certainty.
A few things:
1) Do you know for certain that knowledge is based or demonstrated by scientific induction? If so, how?
No, but it is extremely probable.
2) You are question begging by assuming your proof (namely probability) in your premise.
I used probability to justify induction. My argument is not circular. By contrast you are question begging by assuming your particular God exists.
Saying that the future will be like the past because it has been like the past, in the past, is circular reasoning.
A reason to doubt an outcome is not a reason to reject the outcome in of itself.
3) Without engaging in circular reasoning, tell me how you account for the validity of the scientific method (induction) in your worldview and how you know it to be the BEST means for acting on future events.
In order for point 3 to be correct you require point 2 to be correct, which it is not. Induction is already justified through probability.
To say that I MUST do something is to hold my argument to an absolute standard of logic. What is this standard and how do you account for it?
You are avoiding the question, I have provide my standard, it is induction.
It is clear from your response that you either have little understanding of the 'problem' of induction or are intellectually dishonest. Firstly you are looking for certainty, when induction is probabilistic. Secondly you assume that the 'problem' of induction justifies questioning induction itself. Finally you are attempting to avoid your own question.
My positive ontology for induction is based on probability, which is mathematically deduced.
You do not have positive ontology for your own reasoning. Unless you can provide a positive ontology for your particular God, you are basing your arguments on false logic.
If any hardcore atheist would ever be converted to Christianity, that would be a miracle, because I can not perceive it happening, but God does impossible things to Glorify himself. I will pray that God would show mercy onto atheists and let them live a long life, so they may have the continual chance to recant of their rebellion.
Are you atheists defending yourselves and arguing with us Christians so you people can change our minds, or what? God has already performed the miracle on us Christians by converting us from the bondage of rebellion, which you guys seem to be in right now. Us Christians are willing to give our lives for Jesus. We do not want you people to go to eternal Hellfire. Believe it or not, but we Christians care about you. We pray for unsaved people everyday for God to perform the miracle of conversion onto rebels. I think you guys should stop being so arrogant and humble yourselves and recant of your rebellion.
Christopher Geiser said...
I will pray that God would show mercy onto atheists and let them live a long life, so they may have the continual chance to recant of their rebellion.
This is a nice thought Christopher. Thank you.
G.E.
Hi G.E.
Well scmike's style of argumentation isn't natural for me, but I am going to explore it further. Hey, maybe I've use presup all along and just not realized it. ???
Craig B.
Atheists argue intellectually so they can defend themselves, but do atheists also debate so that us Christians will change their mind? I seriously do not know. Answer anyone?
Christopher Geiser said:
Are you atheists defending yourselves and arguing with us Christians so you people can change our minds, or what? God has already performed the miracle on us Christians by converting us from the bondage of rebellion, which you guys seem to be in right now. Us Christians are willing to give our lives for Jesus. We do not want you people to go to eternal Hellfire. Believe it or not, but we Christians care about you. We pray for unsaved people everyday for God to perform the miracle of conversion onto rebels. I think you guys should stop being so arrogant and humble yourselves and recant of your rebellion.
Hi Christopher. I wouldn't actually say I'm defending myself; more like defending reason. Aw, it's too bad scmike isn't here to ask me how I account for reason in my worldview. *sniff*
I've thought about why I comment on Ray's blog and I think it comes down to a couple of reasons. Number one is I enjoy a good debate. If I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't put the effort into it that I do. The deeper reason is that I think that irrational beliefs are harmful to individuals and society as a whole and, yes I do hope that some readers will change their minds. It may be unlikely that hard core Christians like some of the posters here will change, but statistically it is much more likely for a Christian to convert to atheism than the other way around. If nothing else, I'd like to make you think about your beliefs. I'm sorry that your religion causes you the pain of of believing that people you love and care about will suffer for eternity. I don't buy your "rebellion" nonsense, but think about this: sometimes the rebels are the good guys.
Jason corrected me (rightly) by saying "Those are brackets, geinus!
That's not how you spell "genius" Enistein! :)
There is not an eternal punishment for not being an atheist. Their is, however, a consequence for continually breaking the Creator's Laws and thinking nothing of it. I assume you all have heard Ray Comfort's message. So I can't fathom why you wouldn't want to flee from the possible wrath to come. Judgment Day will come.
@ Get_Education
Sorry for the short reply to yesterday. I only had a couple of minutes before the computer timed out. (My e-machine is inop. right now, and I have to use the library's system. :( )
Thank you for your thoughts. I will consider them. I certainly don't want to participate in anything that has to do with trickery or deceitful tactics, but I am not yet convinced that pre-sup is that. I realise that if one is totally committed to evidentialism and Aristotleian logic presup looks like "foul play." If that is true, I certainly would be "lying for Jesus" if I used it, and I don't want to dishonor the One who I love so much.
Looking at the debate the other day from the sidelines though, it sure seemed like the A's imploded. The ad hommenims and replies like, "I don't need to give an account for why I believe that to be true" didn't seem like good answers.
Anyway, I guess there will be more of that coming up. I'd like to be able to throw in some questions for both sides.
Take care, my friend.
Craig B.
Christopher Geiser:
There is not an eternal punishment for not being an atheist. Their is, however, a consequence for continually breaking the Creator's Laws and thinking nothing of it. I assume you all have heard Ray Comfort's message. So I can't fathom why you wouldn't want to flee from the possible wrath to come. Judgment Day will come.
Since there are thousands of other gods posited to exist, chances are very good that you have chosen the wrong one. You're playing the lottery with your eternal fate. Atheists simply haven't bought a ticket. That doesn't mean you will win, or even than you have a reasonable chance of winning.
Chris (from Oz) said:
Jason corrected me (rightly) by saying "Those are brackets, geinus!
That's not how you spell "genius" Enistein! :)
I loled! I think I'm going to say "Enistein" from now on.
Math teachers are not seen as narrow-minded when they say there is only one answer to 2+2.
There IS only one way to have God's wrath removed from your head. The Bible says there is only one way. I will not tell any of you how, because you are proud and arrogant. Religion is man's effort to get right with God. But man is imperfect and cannot get right with a Perfect God. Only God can do what is necessary to allow people to escape eternal Hellfire. God cannot let imperfect people into His presence. God sees pagans' good acts as filthy menstrual cloths.
Hi Craig (Stranger),
Not a problem with the short post. Presupping uses lots of tricks. Dishonest ones at that.
Now, I did insult Sye more than once, and I am not sorry. Why? Because he is so blatantly dishonest, that is why. I do not remember if I have insulted SC Mike. I have called him dishonest, but that has not being an insult, but a description.
Thanks for listening to me. SC Mikei was very clearly dishonest in the example I pointed out.
As I said, sometimes the tricks are too hard to note unless you are well prepared.
Some atheists get into the insulting (which is not the same as the ad homs. Ad hominem is when people infer an argument is false by attacking the person who make the argument. Think of Ray insisting on Darwin being racist, which, true or not, has no bearing on whether evolution is true or false). Sorry, atheists might get into insulting because SC Mike starts showing very little intention to understand and rather starts his rhetorical trickery. At some point atheists can lose patience. Imagine that every time you answered one question I made I changed your meaning to ridicule you. You would lose patience, and perhaps dismiss me as some arrogant and dishonest bag of tricks. This is what I found these guys to be. Dishonest bad of rhetorical tricks. This is what they are.
I do know where these guys come from. Maybe the first proponents of the presupping ideas were honest (I have no idea), but these guys are not.
G.E.
Christopher Geiser said:
Math teachers are not seen as narrow-minded when they say there is only one answer to 2+2.
They can also demonstrate that answer.
Oh Craig,
I hope your machine can be fixed at a reasonable price.
G.E.
Craig,
In case this was not clear SC Mike said:
SC Mikei answered: So, you're admitting that G.E.'s accusations of me are baseless, and you're OK with that? How nice.
When it is clear that Chris agreed that I gave no examples (not that my claims were baseless). Not only that, as another part of the trickery he adds
and you are OK with that?
So that the Christians will conclude that Chris is at fault (further distraction from Chris's true meaning at the same time, and enforcement of a negative perception of Chris, and of myself by the way).
And then finishes with that:
How nice.
To re-emphasize. And add a touch of irony. (Which, might prompt people to answer in a hurry and thus open themselves for further treachery. This kind f rhetoric is aimed mainly at discrediting the person, rather than the position of the person.)
Dishonest rhetoric. Now, once, I could say it was an honest mistake of understanding, but they always do this kind of trick. Always. With all the additions. Remember that I warned about this very issue.
Best regards my friend,
G.E.
@scmike--
captain howdy,
I have a more fitting scenario:
Christian: Hey, nice car you've got there. I have one just like it.
Atheist: Really?
Christian: Yeah, Chevrolet makes a great car, don't you think?
Atheist: I don't believe in Chevrolet!
...and...
I'm heading out of town for a couple of days with no internet access. I will try to catch up on any missed comments upon returning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi, scmike. Hope you had a good new years, you pre-sup you.
Take your time and travel safe if your out on the roads. I wasn't really going to take your reply very seriously anyway. I mean, when your rebuttal starts out with " Chevrolet makes a great car, don't you think?"...
Oh, yeah--tell Sye I said Hye!
noble,
""Why to they need to be accounted for?""
I just want to know how you justify absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason, as well as the ability to know things for certain in your worldview.
It is my position that none of these things make sense outside of the Christian worldview, and cannot be accounted for apart from God. Go ahead, give it a try.
adam nardoli,
""Yes. Allah is the basis for all reason.""
How do you know about Allah?
jason,
""If you had even 10% as much evidence that God exists as you do that Chevy exists, I'd be able to take you seriously.""
The very senses, reason, and logic that you use to examine evidence are proof of God's existence. You use these things with zero justification, as they cannot be accounted for in your worldview. Hence, the point of my analogy.
G.E,
""You know what Chris meant, yet you change his meaning,""
Sorry, G.E. Chris's statement plainly shows that he was in agreement with me that you provided zero examples to back up your baseless accusations.
Try as you might, you can't wiggle out of this one. Can't blame ya for tryin' though. :)
vagon,
Hello again.
You said: ""Firstly knowledge is not certain.""
I asked: "Are you certain of this?"
You answered: ""No.""
Thank you for the admission. That means knowledge could be certain then. Correct?
You said: ""Induction is a valid foundation for my assertion.""
Induction is defined as "the process of arriving at a general conclusion from observation of particular facts" and presupposes the uniformity of nature.
I have a couple of questions for you regarding this:
1) On what grounds do you proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past?
2) How do you know that the senses and reasoning you use to interpret your observations of facts are reliable?
I asked: ""By what standard of logic and reason is my argument "incorrect"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?""
You said: ""Do you suggest that we know everything that will occur?""
No. Only God has absolute knowledge.
""If we don't then you agree that knowledge isn't certain and we have no argument.""
Are you certain that if we don't then I agree that knowledge isn't certain and we have no argument?
My argument is not that we can know all things, but that God (who does know all things) has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. Surely you agree that this is possible, no?
You said: ""Your argument is with my use of induction, which does not require certainty.""
Are you certain that your use of induction does not require certainty?
I asked: "1) Do you know for certain that knowledge is based or demonstrated by scientific induction? If so, how?"
You answered: ""No, but it is extremely probable.""
Vagon, surely you can see by now that making knowledge claims while denying the possibility of certainty is self-refuting, no?
You see, I could simply ask you how you know for certain that it is extremely probable that knowledge is based on induction.
If you are honest, you would be forced to admit that you don't know this for certain (since you have embraced the self-refuting position that certainty is not possible). That means it could also be highly probable that knowledge is NOT based on induction.
I said: ""2) You are question begging by assuming your proof (namely probability) in your premise.""
You said: ""I used probability to justify induction. My argument is not circular.""
Sure it is. You are basically saying that "the future will be like the past because the future has been like the past, in the past. Can't get more circular than that.
""By contrast you are question begging by assuming your particular God exists.""
No. This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, as God is the necessary precondition for the existence of logic, reason, and knowledge. None of these concepts can be accounted for apart from Him.
I said: "Saying that the future will be like the past because it has been like the past, in the past, is circular reasoning."
You said: "A reason to doubt an outcome is not a reason to reject the outcome in of itself."
I want to know what justification you have to assume the outcome of the future being like the past in the first place.
I said: "3) Without engaging in circular reasoning, tell me how you account for the validity of the scientific method (induction) in your worldview and how you know it to be the BEST means for acting on future events."
You said: ""In order for point 3 to be correct you require point 2 to be correct, which it is not. Induction is already justified through probability.""
I'm sure you by now you can see the problem with saying the future will be like the past because it has been like the past. I trust no further comments on this are needed.
I said: "To say that I MUST do something is to hold my argument to an absolute standard of logic. What is this standard and how do you account for it?"
You said: ""You are avoiding the question, I have provide my standard, it is induction.""
I have already demonstrated to you that you are attempting to use induction without any justification whatsoever.
Besides, induction presupposes absolute laws of logic and reason, which is question begging.
I want to know how you account for the absolute laws of logic and reason that make induction possible and by which I MUST provide a positive ontology of God.
You said: ""It is clear from your response that you either have little understanding of the 'problem' of induction or are intellectually dishonest.""
Nope. I understandstand induction just fine, and I hold a worldview which can account for its validity.
You do not.
""Firstly you are looking for certainty, when induction is probabilistic.""
Are you certain that induction is probabilistic? If so, you refute yourself. If not, you refute yourself.
You said: ""Secondly you assume that the 'problem' of induction justifies questioning induction itself.""
Are you certain that I assume this?
I do not question induction, as it makes sense in my worldview. As a Christian, I proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past based on the promises of Almighty God.
I simply want to know on what grounds you assume the future to be like the past. Blind faith?
You said: ""My positive ontology for induction is based on probability, which is mathematically deduced.""
According to you, though, you are not certain of this and the exact opposite could be true. Isn't that right?
You said: ""You do not have positive ontology for your own reasoning.""
This is just another unjustified knowledge claim on your part. Perhaps I do have positive ontology for my own reasoning.
You said: ""Unless you can provide a positive ontology for your particular God, you are basing your arguments on false logic.""
Question begging. You are assuming that I have not provided a positive ontology for God. How do you presume to know this absent certainty?
Plus, you still have not accounted for the absolute standard of logic and reason by which you call any logic "false". I'd really like to know how you account for these things if you'd care to give it another shot without the circularity.
P.S. If you can't account for these things, just say so, as that is my point. Take care.
scmike said:
jason,
""If you had even 10% as much evidence that God exists as you do that Chevy exists, I'd be able to take you seriously.""
The very senses, reason, and logic that you use to examine evidence are proof of God's existence. You use these things with zero justification, as they cannot be accounted for in your worldview. Hence, the point of my analogy.
Oh.
scmike said:
I just want to know how you justify absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason, as well as the ability to know things for certain in your worldview.
It is my position that none of these things make sense outside of the Christian worldview, and cannot be accounted for apart from God. Go ahead, give it a try.
Interesting. How do you account for God in your worldview?
Hi SC Mikei,
And another note to Craig (Stranger in strange land)
Sorry, G.E. Chris's statement plainly shows that he was in agreement with me that you provided zero examples to back up your baseless accusations.
(Note Craig that now he changes he meaning back.)
Yes, Chris agreed that I provided zero examples in my warning, not that the warning was baseless.
(He might now play with both definitions as in "semantic tricks," which is also part of the warning.)
Try as you might, you can't wiggle out of this one. Can't blame ya for tryin' though. :)
Again, no need to wiggle out of this. As I and Chris said, I expected you to be so kind and provide examples with gusto, which you continue to do.
In your own words:
Priceless!! :-D
G.E.
Craig,
Let me make it even clearer:
Sorry, G.E. Chris's statement plainly shows that he was in agreement with me that you provided zero examples to back up your baseless accusations.
See that:
1. The agreement was on me providing zero examples, not in the accusations being baseless. Both are not the same, and Mike knows it. He just will pretend that it is obvious that no examples mean baseless.
2. He insists on the accusation being baseless despite he was happy to provide the examples himself, which he has done in at least two threads so far. This was a "have you stopped beating your wife" argument.
Try as you might, you can't wiggle out of this one. Can't blame ya for tryin' though. :)
3. Here note his choice of words too. He again indulges into a "have you stopped beating your wife" argument by implying I am trying to disguise a "mistake" despite he knows it was not a mistake. Despite he has provided the examples yet again.
4. Also see how he adds that final touch for further irritation with the last sentence, again trying to imply I feel in some kind of trouble (yet another "have you stopped beating your wife" argument).
So, SC Mike makes instant ad hominems and instant strawmen of what I say or state. Bag of dishonest rhetorical tricks.
G.E.
Scmike,
Welcome back.
”That means knowledge could be certain then. Correct?”
Looking for certainty is one of the problems with your argument; you need to look for probability.
”Induction is defined as "the process of arriving at a general conclusion from observation of particular facts" and presupposes the uniformity of nature.”
The Uniformity of Nature (UON) is only a necessary but not sufficient justification for induction. Your attempt to solve the ‘problem’ of induction is missing the point. Your approach focuses on a circular relationship between UON and induction when the real concern is the relationship between sample and population.
”I have a couple of questions for you regarding this:
1) On what grounds do you proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past?”
Probability.
”2) How do you know that the senses and reasoning you use to interpret your observations of facts are reliable?”
My senses tell me you are arguing with me, therefore my senses can interpret facts. These axioms are defended through retortion. Any attempt to refute them must rely upon them. This is basic metaphysics.
”You said: ""Do you suggest that we know everything that will occur?"
No. Only God has absolute knowledge.”
This is not a rational grounds for justification, it is an unfounded assertion and an appeal to magic for which you have not provided and cannot provide a positive ontology.
”Are you certain that if we don't then I agree that knowledge isn't certain and we have no argument?”
We’ve covered this, its adds nothing to your position and highlights your problem of looking for certainty.
”My argument is not that we can know all things, but that God (who does know all things) has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. Surely you agree that this is possible, no?”
Surely you don’t need to resort to rhetoric? This depends on your definition of God. You assume the Christian God so it is extremely probable that it is not possible.
”Are you certain that your use of induction does not require certainty?”
We’ve covered this, its adds nothing to your position and highlights your problem of looking for certainty.
”Vagon, surely you can see by now that making knowledge claims while denying the possibility of certainty is self-refuting, no?
You see, I could simply ask you how you know for certain that it is extremely probable that knowledge is based on induction.”
Surely you don’t need to resort to rhetoric? We’ve covered this, its adds nothing to your position and highlights your problem of looking for certainty. There is nothing refutable about a mathematically deduced theory: probability. This is hinged on a deductive axiomatic system.
If you are honest, you would be forced to admit that you don't know this for certain (since you have embraced the self-refuting position that certainty is not possible). That means it could also be highly probable that knowledge is NOT based on induction.
Incorrect. The probability of an event occurring does not change without a change in the sample.
You are basically saying that "the future will be like the past because the future has been like the past, in the past. Can't get more circular than that.
You are making a fundamental error in approaching the 'problem' of induction. This also highlights your problem of looking for certainty. Furthermore you exhibit no understanding probability.
”""By contrast you are question begging by assuming your particular God exists.""
No. This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, as God is the necessary precondition for the existence of logic, reason, and knowledge. None of these concepts can be accounted for apart from Him.”
You have not provided a positive ontology. You are trying to provide an ontology for immateriality that doesn’t steal from materiality and demonstrably cannot.
At this point it is clear your arguments will continue to be repeated, despite my providing the clear error in your thinking. Where they are not repeated I will address them.
”I want to know how you account for the absolute laws of logic and reason that make induction possible and by which I MUST provide a positive ontology of God.”
Again you make a basic error in metaphysics: you ignore the fact that the universe is a singular constant. Your suggestion that there could be 'different laws of logic' is unsubstantiated. Logic is accounted for by one law with multiple representations in storage media including brains themselves.
Nope. I understandstand induction just fine, and I hold a worldview which can account for its validity. You do not.
You demonstrably do not.
I will outline now the points I have made and if you would like to continue this commentary I suggest you learn and understand them, before continually making the same errors in thinking you have already displayed several times:
1)You look for certainty where there is none, do not ask for it again.
2)You ignore the relationship between sample and population and instead focus on the UON/induction circularity.
3)Your attempt to solve the ‘problem’ of induction assumes a uniformity of God, which has far greater problems than even the errant UON justification.
If you ignore these points it will be made abundantly clear that you have a fundamental lack of understanding in what is an age-old, complex matter. If you have a fundamental lack of understanding in these matters you have no place debating them.
@scmike--
noble,
""Why to they need to be accounted for?""
I just want to know how you justify absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason, as well as the ability to know things for certain in your worldview.
It is my position that none of these things make sense outside of the Christian worldview, and cannot be accounted for apart from God. Go ahead, give it a try.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a complete dodge of noble's question. All you're doing is repeating your challenge he "justify" logic without Jesus.
I'll ask it again, and save noble the trouble:
Why do they need to be accounted for?
So, logic and reason can't just always have existed? Why not? Because if they did always exist in and of themselves, there's no need to "justify" them, is there?
You see where I'm going with this? By demanding the atheist "justify" logic, you automatically--and very dishonestly--define logic as something needing a cause. You guys make it appear as if you just want to have an honest discussion and then you play these rhetorical games. It's why you guys get branded as trolls so often.
Besides, the roots of logic and philosophy don't go back to ancient Palestine, do they? They go back to ancient Greece and long predate Christianity. I don't think this lends much support to your claim that logic stem from your religion. I don't recall Epicurus described as a Christian. Here's what he had to say about God:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
He died in 270 BC. Know what the "BC" stand for?
@scmike--
You said to Jason:
The very senses, reason, and logic that you use to examine evidence are proof of God's existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did you prove that? I must have missed it.
Seems to me that senses, reason and logic are proof of the existence of senses, reason and logic.
G.E.,
""Now, I did insult Sye more than once, and I am not sorry. Why? Because he is so blatantly dishonest, that is why.""
OK. The false accusations are getting ridiculous. First you level them at me, and now Sye, who isn't even participating in this thread. I challenge you to provide ANY evidence to back up your unwarranted allegations.
""I do not remember if I have insulted SC Mike. I have called him dishonest, but that has not being an insult, but a description.""
As I have told you before, G.E., accusations without evidence are nothing but wishful thinking. You have already demonstrated this to be the case regarding your allegations. Keep it up!
(I should probably also let you know that "dishonesty" presupposes the existence of truth, which can't be accounted for in your worldview.)
""Thanks for listening to me. SC Mikei was very clearly dishonest in the example I pointed out.""
Already refuted this one for you.
""Some atheists get into the insulting (which is not the same as the ad homs. Ad hominem is when people infer an argument is false by attacking the person who make the argument.""
Trying to convince us that your ad-homs are not ad-homs is a sure sign that they are! We all know what those signify.....
""At some point atheists can lose patience.""
Which is a sure sign of weak argument.
""Imagine that every time you answered one question I made I changed your meaning to ridicule you.""
Revealing the self-refuting nature of an atheistic worldview is a far cry from changing the meaning of anything (although, I do understand why you don't like having the inconsistencies of your worldview exposed).
""You would lose patience, and perhaps dismiss me as some arrogant and dishonest bag of tricks.""
Nope. I would simply disengage myself from the conversation.
Resorting to name calling and false accusations only serves to demonstrate that the arguments I have presented are valid and insurmountable by sound argumentation. Hence, your desperate attempts to belittle and insult.
Having the safety blanket of atheism removed from you is no doubt unpleasant, but remember: the truth only hurts when it should. It is for your own good. Take care.
jason,
Christopher Geiser said: ""Math teachers are not seen as narrow-minded when they say there is only one answer to 2+2.""
You said: ""They can also demonstrate that answer.""
Seems math teachers and Christians have something in common then!
G.E.,
""Yes, Chris agreed that I provided zero examples in my warning, not that the warning was baseless.""
I hate to break it to you G.E., but a warning with no justification IS a baseless warning. Take care.
G.E.,
""Craig,
Let me make it even clearer:
Sorry, G.E. Chris's statement plainly shows that he was in agreement with me that you provided zero examples to back up your baseless accusations.
See that:
1. The agreement was on me providing zero examples, not in the accusations being baseless. Both are not the same, and Mike knows it. He just will pretend that it is obvious that no examples mean baseless.
2. He insists on the accusation being baseless despite he was happy to provide the examples himself, which he has done in at least two threads so far. This was a "have you stopped beating your wife" argument.
Try as you might, you can't wiggle out of this one. Can't blame ya for tryin' though. :)
3. Here note his choice of words too. He again indulges into a "have you stopped beating your wife" argument by implying I am trying to disguise a "mistake" despite he knows it was not a mistake. Despite he has provided the examples yet again.
4. Also see how he adds that final touch for further irritation with the last sentence, again trying to imply I feel in some kind of trouble (yet another "have you stopped beating your wife" argument).
So, SC Mike makes instant ad hominems and instant strawmen of what I say or state. Bag of dishonest rhetorical tricks.
G.E.""
My little sister used to like to watch a show called "the Wiggles". You remind me of them. :)
Noble,
""Interesting. How do you account for God in your worldview?""
God is not accounted for IN my worldview, He is the foundation OF my worldview (just as the foundation of your worldview is "not God").
The Christian God is absolute, immaterial, universal and the necessary precondition for logic, reason, and knowledge, as it is by Him and through Him that all things exist (proven by the impossibility of the contrary).
Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?
I just know that I do not want to bet my life on whether Hell exists or not. If it doesn't exist then I am fine, but if Hell exists and I don't believe in God, then I am screwed. I would also be screwed without Jesus' resurrection.
scmike said about get education:
My little sister used to like to watch a show called "the Wiggles". You remind me of them. :)
A devastating rebuttal. You might as well give it up G.E. I mean, how can you possibly refute scmike's little sister's TV show?
Word verification is oinkin
Hey everybody!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that scmike's and everyone else's arguments are fundamentally the same. Using my best Indigo Montoya voice: Lemme esplain - no wait, there is no enough time for that - lemme summup:
everyone else: we assume empirical evidence to be true, so we hang our assumptions of logic and generally how the world works on those, because we can see them and test them.
scmike: I assume God to be true, so I hang my assumptions of logic and generally how the world works on Him, because I believe in Him.
This argument seems silly. I mean, we're all assuming something? Am I right?! I, for one, assume it's a trap.
let me illustrate it another way:
ACT 1:
scmike: account for truth and logic in your worldview.
everyone else: we use the phyisical evidence that we can measure, and the bredth of our intelect to descern results and understand the natrual processes we witness.
Admiral Akbar: I like pie.
Dinosaur: me too! Rawr.
scmike: (ignoring Admiral Akbar and Dinosaur) well, you can't be sure of your senses or your ability to discern.
everyone else: true. we make an assumption based on the idea that this is the best current method for discerning truth. So you have a better option?
Admiral Akbar: so... no pie then?
Dinosaur: I don't think they're listening to us... HEY! WE HAVE PIE! YOU WANT?
scmike: (ignoring the offers of pie) I do have a better method. I assume the presence of God, so I can account for truth and logic based on the fact that He exists and is perfect. Sweet, huh?
everyone else: but... didn't you just assume that there was a God? That doesn't help you in this argument, because you're just assuming something different than we are. That assumption alone can't make you more right, more logical, or more ...
Admiral Akbar & Dinosaur: PIE!
scmike: I have God. He's a better assumption.
everyone else: How?
scmike: He is.
everyone else: ... how?
scmike: how is He NOT?! GOCHA!
everyone else: Admiral Akbar, Dinosaur, didn't you say you had pie?
Dinosaur: Sho Nuf!
Admiral Akbar: GUYS, LOOK OUT! DAWKINS IS OUT OF CONTROL!
Richard Dawkins (from an out of control hot air ballon): I'm OUT OF CONTROL in a BALLOOOOOOOOOOON!
I mean, help me out guys?
It's a trap,
AA
scmike said:
God is not accounted for IN my worldview, He is the foundation OF my worldview
Isn't the foundation of a thing also part of that thing?
(just as the foundation of your worldview is "not God").
That sounds pretty silly when you say it like that. How could the absence of something be the foundation of a worldview?
The Christian God is absolute, immaterial, universal and the necessary precondition for logic, reason, and knowledge, as it is by Him and through Him that all things exist (proven by the impossibility of the contrary).
Isn't that begging the question? You're asserting that it's impossible for God not to exist, therefore God exists?
Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?
You still haven't told why you think an accounting is necessary.
vagon,
""Looking for certainty is one of the problems with your argument; you need to look for probability.""
Surely you can see the problem with this statement? Are you certain that I need to look for probability? If so, you are refuted. If not, you are (yet again) refuted.
""The Uniformity of Nature (UON) is only a necessary but not sufficient justification for induction.""
How do you account for the uniformity of nature (which makes induction possible) in your worldview?
I asked: "1) On what grounds do you proceed with the expectation that the future will be like the past?"
You answered: ""Probability.""
I have demonstrated the hopeless circularity of using probability to prove probability already. Sadly, it would seem to no avail.
I asked: "2) How do you know that the senses and reasoning you use to interpret your observations of facts are reliable?"
You answered: ""My senses tell me you are arguing with me, therefore my senses can interpret facts.""
How do you know this without first assuming the reliability of your senses? On what grounds do you assume that your senses and reason are reliable without using your senses and reason?
""These axioms are defended through retortion. Any attempt to refute them must rely upon them.""
This begs the question that God could not reveal things to us directly, apart from our senses.
I said: "Only God has absolute knowledge."
You responded: ""This is not a rational grounds for justification, it is an unfounded assertion and an appeal to magic for which you have not provided and cannot provide a positive ontology.""
Sorry. I don't believe in magic. My argument is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible to know anything unless it is revealed by a Being who knows everything.
You are welcome to posit your contrary claim for the existence of knowledge so that we can compare. I would welcome that.
I said: "Are you certain that if we don't then I agree that knowledge isn't certain and we have no argument?"
You said: ""We’ve covered this, its adds nothing to your position and highlights your problem of looking for certainty.""
Again, making any knowledge claim presupposes that certainty is possible. Otherwise, you must admit that both of your above statements could be false. You are refuted again.
You see, Vagon, without certainty, you have no position from which to attack any of my arguments. I hope that you will rethink your position on this.
I said: "My argument is not that we can know all things, but that God (who does know all things) has revealed some things to us so that we can know them for certain. Surely you agree that this is possible, no?"
You said: ""Surely you don’t need to resort to rhetoric?""
You mean like that? :)
""This depends on your definition of God. You assume the Christian God so it is extremely probable that it is not possible.""
Extremely "probable" based on what? Probability? You're joking right?
I asked: "Are you certain that your use of induction does not require certainty?"
You replied: ""We’ve covered this, its adds nothing to your position and highlights your problem of looking for certainty.""
It Seems that Noble isn't the only one who likes to play dodgeball. ;)
I explained: "Vagon, surely you can see by now that making knowledge claims while denying the possibility of certainty is self-refuting, no?
You see, I could simply ask you how you know for certain that it is extremely probable that knowledge is based on induction."
You replied: ""Surely you don’t need to resort to rhetoric?""
Like that (again)?
""We’ve covered this, its adds nothing to your position and highlights your problem of looking for certainty.""
Nice dodge.
""There is nothing refutable about a mathematically deduced theory: probability. This is hinged on a deductive axiomatic system.""
Are you certain that there is NOTHING refutable about a mathematically deduced theory?
According to you, the validity of probability is based on......you guessed it, probability. Yikes!!
I said: "If you are honest, you would be forced to admit that you don't know this for certain (since you have embraced the self-refuting position that certainty is not possible). That means it could also be highly probable that knowledge is NOT based on induction."
You said: ""Incorrect.""
Which of course presupposes a standard of "correctness" (i.e. certainty).
""The probability of an event occurring does not change without a change in the sample.""
Is this certainly true, or only probable?
If the latter, how do you know that the probability of an event occurring CANNOT change (ever) without a change in the sample, as this statement can only be proven with access to universal knowledge.
I said: "You are basically saying that "the future will be like the past because the future has been like the past, in the past. Can't get more circular than that."
You said: ""You are making a fundamental error in approaching the 'problem' of induction. This also highlights your problem of looking for certainty. Furthermore you exhibit no understanding probability.""
But you could be wrong about all that. Right?
You said: ""By contrast you are question begging by assuming your particular God exists.""
I responded: "No. This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, as God is the necessary precondition for the existence of logic, reason, and knowledge. None of these concepts can be accounted for apart from Him."
You then said: ""You have not provided a positive ontology.""
Again, since you can't be certain of this, it could be false.
Besides, Ontology presupposes absolute laws of logic which you have not (and I submit, cannot) account for in your worldview.
I said: "I want to know how you account for the absolute laws of logic and reason that make induction possible and by which I MUST provide a positive ontology of God."
You said: ""Again you make a basic error in metaphysics: you ignore the fact that the universe is a singular constant.""
Please prove this.
""Your suggestion that there could be 'different laws of logic' is unsubstantiated.""
I never suggested this. I just want to know how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic in your worldview. You dodged the question yet again.
""Logic is accounted for by one law with multiple representations in storage media including brains themselves.""
Did laws of logic exist before there was "storage media" (i.e. brains) to contain them? Are they material?
I said: "Nope. I understandstand induction just fine, and I hold a worldview which can account for its validity. You do not."
You said: ""You demonstrably do not.""
We both know that you could be wrong about that, though. Right?
""I will outline now the points I have made and if you would like to continue this commentary I suggest you learn and understand them, before continually making the same errors in thinking you have already displayed several times:""
Please prove that I have made any "errors" in thinking. You have asserted this over and over, but have provided no proof for your assertions. This places your assertions in the realm of faith.
""1)You look for certainty where there is none, do not ask for it again.""
I understand why you do not like having your knowledge claims challenged, as you have proven that you have zero justification for them.
If you continue to make unjustified knowledge claims, I will continue to challenge them. If that is cause for you to bow out of this discussion, so be it.
""2)You ignore the relationship between sample and population and instead focus on the UON/induction circularity.""
Just pointing out the absurdity of trying to justify probability and induction with probability and induction.
""3)Your attempt to solve the ‘problem’ of induction assumes a uniformity of God, which has far greater problems than even the errant UON justification.""
I have no "problem" with induction, as I hold to a worldview which accounts for it.
It is you that cannot logically account for the validity of induction in your worldview (as you have demonstrated several times). Hence, the "problem".
""If you ignore these points it will be made abundantly clear that you have a fundamental lack of understanding in what is an age-old, complex matter.""
I have addressed your points. You just don't like the answers that you have been given and I know why.
""If you have a fundamental lack of understanding in these matters you have no place debating them.""
I understand these matters just fine. In fact, the very concept of debate presupposes my worldview, as "debating" requires truth, reason, and logic which you have yet to account for. Cool, huh?
captain howdy,
""That's a complete dodge of noble's question. All you're doing is repeating your challenge he "justify" logic without Jesus.""
Hey, I just want to know how he justifies using concepts in his (and your) worldview that do not comport with his worldview (or yours).
""I'll ask it again, and save noble the trouble:
Why do they need to be accounted for?""
Because you hold a worldview in which concepts such as logic, reason, and truth cannot exist. I want to know how you justify using these concepts in a worldview that does not allow for them.
""So, logic and reason can't just always have existed?""
Sure they have...as part of the character and nature of God. I want to know how you account for logic and reason apart from God. So far, no dice.
""Why not? Because if they did always exist in and of themselves, there's no need to "justify" them, is there?""
Prove your "if".
""You see where I'm going with this? By demanding the atheist "justify" logic, you automatically--and very dishonestly--define logic as something needing a cause.""
Alright. Let's hear your account for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic. It seems like you're trying to argue that they exist because "they just do". Not very much of an argument.
""You guys make it appear as if you just want to have an honest discussion and then you play these rhetorical games.""
Since an "honest discussion" presupposes the worldview that you are arguing against, how do you figure that?
""It's why you guys get branded as trolls so often.""
I'll gladly tolerate the persecution in order to present the truth to you. :)
""Besides, the roots of logic and philosophy don't go back to ancient Palestine, do they? They go back to ancient Greece and long predate Christianity.""
Actually, the source of logic and reason is the character and nature of Almighty God, who is the foundation of the Christian worldview. See, you learned something!
""I don't recall Epicurus described as a Christian. Here's what he had to say about God:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?""
Problem is, Epicurus presupposed the existence of God by referring to "evil". Without an absolute standard of good (i.e. God), what is "evil"?
captain howdy,
""Where did you prove that? I must have missed it.""
Nope, you got it. The very concept of proof presupposes the existence of God, for without Him you can't prove anything.
""Seems to me that senses, reason and logic are proof of the existence of senses, reason and logic.""
***See above***
Take care.
I would rather look like a fool for believing in Christianity for a short period of time, than to possibly look like a fool for an eternity, because of my unbelief.
What this debate really comes down to, is either side choosing to say that they are wrong. To be willing to do that would be a seemingly foolish thing to do, from both sides. But it would be wise to come to the side that says there will be right just eternal punishment of one who doesn't cross over. If atheism said there is just eternal punishment that is right for my unbelief in atheism, I would cross over. But my belief says atheists will be eternally punished. So I will flee from such a belief.
@scmike--
Welcome back, dood. See you survived the holidays.
OK; let's see what you got--
captain howdy,
""Where did you prove that? I must have missed it.""
Nope, you got it. The very concept of proof presupposes the existence of God, for without Him you can't prove anything.
""Seems to me that senses, reason and logic are proof of the existence of senses, reason and logic.""
***See above***
Take care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, I see. 'God exists because He has to exist.'
Seems simple enough.
Admiral Akbar,
I don't believe that we have had the pleasure of conversing before. Pleased to meet you.
Before we get started, may I say that I appreciate your wit and sense of humor. They are refreshing, indeed.
Regarding your comments:
""Correct me if I'm wrong,""
OK. You're wrong! :)
""but it seems that scmike's and everyone else's arguments are fundamentally the same.""
Not so. Though all the Christians on this blog are arguing for the existence of God, our methods differ dramatically. Most of the arguments I've seen presented are "evidential" arguments while I am arguing "presuppositionally".
""Using my best Indigo Montoya voice: Lemme esplain - no wait, there is no enough time for that - lemme summup:""
:D
""everyone else: we assume empirical evidence to be true,""
I would ask what justification you have for assuming empirical evidence to be true. What did you see, hear, touch, taste, or smell that told you this?
Also, it would be interesting to hear how you presume to know what "everyone else" assumes. Surely you're not claiming to have examined the assumptions of "everyone else".....are you?
""so we hang our assumptions of logic and generally how the world works on those, because we can see them and test them.""
With what do you see and test empirical evidence with if not reason and logic? What you are actually saying is that you hang your assumptions of logic on logic.
Humorous, yes. Logical, no.
""scmike: I assume God to be true, so I hang my assumptions of logic and generally how the world works on Him, because I believe in Him.""
Not quite. I presuppose that God exists and is the foundation for all logic, reason, and knowledge.
My presupposition is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, as no other worldview can account for absolute, universal, immaterial entities (such as laws of logic) or the certainty of knowledge (as has been demonstrated numerous times on this very thread).
""This argument seems silly.""
Well, here is your opportunity to refute me. By what absolute standard do you call any argument "silly"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to my argument (or any argument, for that matter)?
""I mean, we're all assuming something? Am I right?!""
Correct. We all hold presuppositions which determine how we interpret evidence and form conclusions.
The difference is, my presupposition that God (as revealed in the Bible) exists accounts for the very logic and reason that we are using to hold this discussion, whereas the atheists' presupposition that God does not exist does not and cannot account for these things. In fact, atheism undermines the very foundation of logic and reason, making it an absurd and illogical worldview.
""I, for one, assume it's a trap.""
What is the basis for your assumption?
""let me illustrate it another way:
Act I.......""
Pretty funny stuff. Again, I really appreciate your sense of humor. :)
Nevertheless, your entire illustration begs the question by assuming that God could not reveal Himself to us in ways that we can be certain of His existence. Take care.
Noble,
I said: "(just as the foundation of your worldview is "not God")."
You answered: ""That sounds pretty silly when you say it like that.""
It is.
""How could the absence of something be the foundation of a worldview?""
Not only is it the foundation of the atheistic worldview, but atheists even try (unsuccessfully, I might add) to defend this ridiculous position with logic and reason that they can't account for. Weird, huh?
""Isn't that begging the question? You're asserting that it's impossible for God not to exist, therefore God exists?""
The fact is, all arguments contain presuppositions. My presupposition is that God exists, and is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. The argument looks like this:
1) God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic and reason (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2) Laws of logic and reason exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
By the way, in accusing me of "begging the question" you are appealing to an absolute standard of logic and reason which you must borrow from my worldview.
Borrowing concepts from my worldview to try and disprove my worldview is, of course, self-refuting.
I said: "Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?"
You said: ""You still haven't told why you think an accounting is necessary.""
Because, we are both using logic and reason to hold this discussion, and we both claim to know things. I want to know how you justify these concepts in a worldview that does not allow for them. I have given you my justification (even though you may not like it). Now, what is yours?
Noble, I know why you are continuing to avoid these questions. Again, if you can't justify absolute laws of logic and reason in your worldview (which seems to be the case), just say so, as that is my point. Take care.
G.E.
I wasn't singling you out. I was thinking about the A's comments in general.
I do remember the thing about Darwin and racism. I had to jump in and defend you there because I know that you often use understatement in your comments. (you said racism is stupid.) I thought that it was unfair to interpret that as your not being strong against racism.
Shouldn't be much more than $50 to fix my computer. He is only charging me for parts (new power supply and ethernet card) not labor.
I don't have time right now to carefully review the presup conversation from the last 2 days on this thread. I saw bits of it. Thanks.
Hey Craig,
I know you were not singling me out.
If you meant that you did not pretend to make me a target for SC mikei, do not worry, he tries and tries and just continues to demonstrate what I said. So, not a problem. All his "explanations" are clear cut to me for what they are. I do not care the least. What I explained to you is what matters to me. That you would be able to see by yourself that he complied with my predictions is also clear to most, except those oblivious to the rhetoric. I do not care about those.
See, for instance, how he equated "baseless" with "zero examples" as I predicted. He conveniently forgets that previous experience counts as "base." And that I counted on him giving examples. Which he did.
And yes, often people give arguments that are not thought carefully, and they fall into the traps. That does not require a lot of dishonesty (other than setting the trap by asking rhetorical, hyperloaded, questions). That only requires him to wait until the unprepared say what he expects them to say. If they do provide good answers, then he uses more evident tricks.
In summary, I knew he would come back with his rhetoric against me, but it was worth it if you had at least a glimpse of his dishonesty.
Now, mind you. I do not mind you believing that the argument that logic comes from God is valid. That is fine by me, and I also grant that the first proponents of the idea might have been honest when they proposed it. All I am saying is that Sye and SC Mike (those I know so far), have transfixed whatever the idea was, into this bag of dishonest rhetoric.
G.E.
SC Mikei,
Do not worry about Sye, he knows what I have concluded about him. I am not taking advantage of him not reading this because I have told him this to his very ... face, so to speak.
G.E.
scmike said...
"Are you certain that I need to look for probability? If so, you are refuted. If not, you are (yet again) refuted."
Lets try a different approach, because you continue to fail to understand probability. Why do I need to be certain?
"How do you account for the uniformity of nature (which makes induction possible) in your worldview?"
Why should induction account for the UON?
"I have demonstrated the hopeless circularity of using probability to prove probability already. Sadly, it would seem to no avail."
Unfortunately not. You've demonstrated a fantastic ability to ignore the theory of probability. Probability isnt used to justify probability, it is justified by mathematical deduction which is defended axiomatically. Your failure to understand this in no way makes it untrue.
In contrast I have shown that you have no reason to believe that your God is any better than any other or even exists at all, because you cannot provide a positive ontology without stealing from materialism.
"How do you know this without first assuming the reliability of your senses? On what grounds do you assume that your senses and reason are reliable without using your senses and reason?"
This is basic metaphysics. If you do not have the capacity to understand how argument is defended by retortion you need more help than I can provide.
"This begs the question that God could not reveal things to us directly, apart from our senses"
This is absolute nonsense.
1. How can anything be revealed to a person without that person sensing it?
2. What is your positive ontology for God?
"Sorry. I don't believe in magic. My argument is proven by the impossibility of the contrary."
Here you show you dont understand that appealing to the immaterial is an appeal to magic. You then make an unfounded assertion, which is demonstrably false seeing as I have provided a highly possible solution that is contrary to your iron age belief system.
"It is impossible to know anything unless it is revealed by a Being who knows everything."
This is an unfounded assertion and an appeal to magic.
"You are welcome to posit your contrary claim for the existence of knowledge so that we can compare. I would welcome that."
Do you have problems with comprehension? I have provided induction supported by the mathematically deduced theory of probability as the basis of knowledge.
"Without certainty, you have no position from which to attack any of my arguments."
This is an unfounded assertion. You make judgements using probability all the time, why should this be any different?
""Surely you don’t need to resort to rhetoric?"
You mean like that? :)"
I was hoping the irony wouldn't escape you :)
"Like that (again)?
Oops maybe it did :(
Extremely "probable" based on what?
Maths.
"It Seems that Noble isn't the only one who likes to play dodgeball. ;)"
Are you referring to your inability to meet the obvious need for a positive ontology for your God?
I'm not sure how avoiding repetition is a dodge. I already showed that your UON circularity issue was a red herring, there is no need to repeat. By contrast your repetition of this argument demonstrates your misunderstanding of the 'problem' of induction.
Are you certain that there is NOTHING refutable about a mathematically deduced theory?
Is this a serious question? I hope you think about how ridiculous you sound asking this.
According to you, the validity of probability is based on......you guessed it, probability. Yikes!!
According to me? Probability is based on mathematical deduced axioms. Didn't you read your own sentence above?
Which of course presupposes a standard of "correctness" (i.e. certainty).
I have provided a standard if correctness. With it you can say who is correct by looking at past events, based on fact. From using induction we can predict future events.
You said: ""Again you make a basic error in metaphysics: you ignore the fact that the universe is a singular constant.""
Please prove this.
Come on man, you cannot be that daft, this is basic level established metaphysics. This universe impacts on similar brains in a similar fashion. If it doesn't we couldn't have this argument, its defended by the very fact we are having this argument.
I never suggested this. I just want to know how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic in your worldview. You dodged the question yet again.
That wasn't a dodge, its just at this stage I cant tell if you're being serious or not. I don't account for immaterial laws of logic. I account for the material laws of logic through thought itself. i.e. if I'm incorrect it doesn't matter because it has no baring on anything I can comprehend anyhow.
Can I suggest you take an introductory course on philosophy?
There are some fundamental ideas you're lacking and if you are going to discuss Hume's more complex 'problem' you are trying to walk before you crawl.
We both know that you could be wrong about that, though. Right?
You're getting it! But here's a tip as probability reaches 1 it becomes efficient and socially acceptable for people make 'certainty' statements.
Please prove that I have made any "errors" in thinking. You have asserted this over and over, but have provided no proof for your assertions. This places your assertions in the realm of faith.
I demonstrated this to you in the three points that followed. I'll reiterate:
1st error. You look for certainty where there is none. If you are not intellectually dishonest you will agree that there is no event that is certain.
2nd error. You continually bring up the circularity issue when I have demonstrated a non-circular solution to a mathematical deduced theory.
3rd error. You offer as a solution something for which (even by your own standards of logic) you cannot provide a positive ontology. Frankly assuming that the solution to the 'problem' of induction is the Uniformity of God is comical.
Asking me to provide my ontology, ignoring the solution I provide and not offering your own is both intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
Here are some questions you need to ask yourself, if you are intellectually honest:
-Do you know what the 'arguing to inductive uncertainy' fallacy is?
-Do you really understand what the 'problem' is?
-Have you actually read Hume?
-Do you really understand the methods science use to deal with the 'problem'?
ACT1
Admiral Akbar: BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Dinosaur, am I right?
Dinosaur: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Admiral Akbar (catching his breath): I know, I know... he said "My presupposition is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, as no other worldview can account for absolute, universal, immaterial entities (such as laws of logic) or the certainty of knowledge (as has been demonstrated numerous times on this very thread)."
Dinosaur: I KNOW! HAHAHAHAHAH! I guess all you have to do is make something up!
Admiral Akbar: Also I think he thinks I'm going to argue with him.
Dinosaur: uh oh... you're pretty dumb, are you even going to try? You aren't good at that. In fact, you're terrible.
Admiral Akbar: well, he *wants* me to. I'll do a little, and then he'll get bored. You know, like when you feed a stray cat. They go way after, right?
Cap'n scmike...
Ok, here goes.
I said: "everyone else: we assume empirical evidence to be true"
you said: "I would ask what justification you have for assuming empirical evidence to be true. What did you see, hear, touch, taste, or smell that told you this?
Also, it would be interesting to hear how you presume to know what "everyone else" assumes. Surely you're not claiming to have examined the assumptions of "everyone else".....are you?"
I reply: well, for one I didn't I was speaking for 'everyone else' that has been arguing with you. 3rd party here. And how do I presume to know what 'everyone else' assumes? I read and tried to sum it up. If I misrepresented 'everyone else', I'm sure they'll call me out. They'd better, I mean, I'm Admiral Akbar!
I said: "This argument seems silly."
you said: "Well, here is your opportunity to refute me. By what absolute standard do you call any argument "silly"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to my argument (or any argument, for that matter)?"
I reply: I meant the whole act of arguing this is silly. The only thing that makes basing your 'worldview' on the existence of God better than what people arguing with you have based their 'worldview' on SEEMS to be that you say it's better. K. I don't want to argue that with you. I love pie. It makes my 'worldview' better than yours because I think it tastes good. Try arguing that! It would be RIDICULOUS! I assume silly = ridiculous.
I said: "I, for one, assume it's a trap."
you said: "What is the basis for your assumption?"
I reply: uh... it was a trap. Rent episode 6.
ACT2
Admiral Akbar: wow, dinosaur, that took a lot out of me. I don't think I should do that again.
Dinosaur: want some pie?
Admiral Akbar: yeah.
Dinosaur: Hey Admiral, what happens if he wants to argue more?
Admiral Akbar: Well, Dinosaur, I think he'll be disappointed. Smarter people than me have tried and it just goes in circles.
Dinosaur: So I guess you'll loose! HA HA! Rawr!
Admiral Akbar: YEAH! HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I'm a looser!
I mean, help me out guys?
It's a Trap,
AA
scmike, I am a little short of time right now but I want to quickly point out that in your most recent quoting of me you left out the question I asked about whether the foundation of your worldview (God) is actually part of your worldview. If you are taking the position that things must be accounted for in order to use them, then how can you then say that God does not need to be accounted for?
@scmike--
captain howdy,
""That's a complete dodge of noble's question. All you're doing is repeating your challenge he "justify" logic without Jesus.""
Hey, I just want to know how he justifies using concepts in his (and your) worldview that do not comport with his worldview (or yours).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I rather think I understand my own worldview a bit better than you. I have made no such assertion as you suggest. Of course logic and reason exist. I'll even use an example: It's not logical or reasonable to believe people can fly. Do you believe you're going to fly, mike? Like in the rapture? If you do, please describe the logic you used to come to such a strange belief. For the record, that's the 8,888th time I've asked you that question without an answer from you.
""So, logic and reason can't just always have existed?""
Sure they have...as part of the character and nature of God. I want to know how you account for logic and reason apart from God. So far, no dice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why isn't it possible logic and reason have always existed on their own because that's the nature of reality? Just because you say so?
""Why not? Because if they did always exist in and of themselves, there's no need to "justify" them, is there?""
Prove your "if".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer the question, please.
""You see where I'm going with this? By demanding the atheist "justify" logic, you automatically--and very dishonestly--define logic as something needing a cause.""
Alright. Let's hear your account for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic. It seems like you're trying to argue that they exist because "they just do". Not very much of an argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not saying they exist because they just do. What I'm saying is that it's possible that the logic and reason we see are just part of the fabric of our universe, like the 3 dimensions we recognize. You haven't provided any evidence at all against this possibility, and until you do, your demand that I "justify" or "account for" these things is at the very least premature. (I'm curious about something. Instead of all this "account for the laws of logic" soft shoe you guys like to hit us with, why not just ask instead "Why is there something instead of nothing?" That's what your whole apologetic distills down to, it seems to me.)
""It's why you guys get branded as trolls so often.""
I'll gladly tolerate the persecution in order to present the truth to you. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, yes. Christians and persecution. Let me ask a question, tho. Since you claim to be in contact with a God who wants to relate to me, why doesn't He tell me all this Himself? You know, directly, visibly and audibly, so that everybody else can hear and see Him too? I only bring this up because it would save all of God's long suffering servants the persecution of being disagreed with that way. I mean, why do I have to get all this swell info from one of his press agents, like Benny Hinn or Ray Comfort or you? I find it interesting your God has one thing in common with every other religion's God: Every God needs a spokesman. Nobody's God can just appear before the rest of us in fiery glory and talk to us. I wonder why?
""Besides, the roots of logic and philosophy don't go back to ancient Palestine, do they? They go back to ancient Greece and long predate Christianity.""
Actually, the source of logic and reason is the character and nature of Almighty God, who is the foundation of the Christian worldview. See, you learned something!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can insist all you like that logic and reason are Christian in origin, but it is a historical fact that these concepts first appeared in ancient Greece hundreds of years prior. And if you're wrong about a verifiable historical fact like that, I wonder what else you're wrong about? (I just noticed something: Presups are fun!)
Problem is, Epicurus presupposed the existence of God by referring to "evil". Without an absolute standard of good (i.e. God), what is "evil"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Epicurus didn't pose this dilemma to disprove the existence of God. He did it to show that if God and evil exist, then God is either not omnipotent, malevolent or both.
I asked: Isn't that begging the question? You're asserting that it's impossible for God not to exist, therefore God exists?
scmike admitted: The fact is, all arguments contain presuppositions. My presupposition is that God exists, and is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. The argument looks like this:
1) God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic and reason (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2) Laws of logic and reason exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
You have just given a great illustration of question-begging. Your premise is the same as your conclusion. Congratulations!
By the way, in accusing me of "begging the question" you are appealing to an absolute standard of logic and reason which you must borrow from my worldview.
Borrowing concepts from my worldview to try and disprove my worldview is, of course, self-refuting.
But we've just established that your worldview is based on faulty logic. You account for logic by making up a thing called God which you define as something that accounts for logic.
Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?"
You still haven't told why you think an accounting is necessary.
Because, we are both using logic and reason to hold this discussion, and we both claim to know things. I want to know how you justify these concepts in a worldview that does not allow for them. I have given you my justification (even though you may not like it). Now, what is yours?
No, you haven't given a justification. You have given a circular argument. You are the one who insists that accounting for logic and reason is necessary in order to use them, but you cannot account for them without begging the question.
Noble, I know why you are continuing to avoid these questions.
Why?
captain howdy,
""Welcome back, dood. See you survived the holidays.""
Just barely! How about you?
""Ah, I see. 'God exists because He has to exist.'""
Actually, it's more like this: God exists AND he has to exist.
""Seems simple enough.""
Doesn't it, though. Take care Capt. :)
stranger.strange.land,
""I don't have time right now to carefully review the presup conversation from the last 2 days on this thread. I saw bits of it. Thanks.""
If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. I'd be happy to provide you with some great resources if you'd like to learn more about presuppositional apologetics. God Bless.
G.E.,
""Do not worry about Sye, he knows what I have concluded about him. I am not taking advantage of him not reading this because I have told him this to his very ... face, so to speak.""
Hmmmm.....still no examples to support your baseless accusations. Thought so.
Thanks for the verification!
No body in this day and age has ever seen Abraham Lincoln. We have pictures, speeches, witnesses, and maybe a body. Despite the evidence, an arrogant person could say that Lincoln's existence can not be proven until we actually see him in person alive, and feel the bullet wound in his head. The same is true with the first moon landing and many other things that we have never seen before. Even if a person does see something rather strange or miraculous, he might say, "I can't believe my eyes!" or "That is unbelievable!" This principle is explained in Luke 16:19-31.
Christopher Geiser said:
No body in this day and age has ever seen Abraham Lincoln. We have pictures, speeches, witnesses, and maybe a body. Despite the evidence, an arrogant person could say that Lincoln's existence can not be proven until we actually see him in person alive, and feel the bullet wound in his head. The same is true with the first moon landing and many other things that we have never seen before. Even if a person does see something rather strange or miraculous, he might say, "I can't believe my eyes!" or "That is unbelievable!" This principle is explained in Luke 16:19-31.
Therefore Christianity is true?
Jason said:
"Christopher Geiser said:
No body in this day and age has ever seen Abraham Lincoln. We have pictures, speeches, witnesses, and maybe a body. Despite the evidence, an arrogant person could say that Lincoln's existence can not be proven until we actually see him in person alive, and feel the bullet wound in his head. The same is true with the first moon landing and many other things that we have never seen before. Even if a person does see something rather strange or miraculous, he might say, "I can't believe my eyes!" or "That is unbelievable!" This principle is explained in Luke 16:19-31.
Therefore Christianity is true?"
Of course Christianity is true, just like Abraham Lincoln's existence is true and so is the lunar landing.The evidence is there to prove Christianity's truths, the same way the evidence is there for Lincon's existence and the lunar landing.
Christopher Gieser said:
Of course Christianity is true, just like Abraham Lincoln's existence is true and so is the lunar landing.The evidence is there to prove Christianity's truths, the same way the evidence is there for Lincon's existence and the lunar landing.
Finally a Christian with evidence of the supernatural!
Show me Chris where's the evidence?
@scmike--
Captain Howdy: ""Seems simple enough.""
scmike: Doesn't it, though. Take care Capt. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, but when I said that, was I talking about your religion? Or was I talking about you?
Sorry, man. I'm just goofin' on ya.
You know, if being a Christian is what rocks your world, have at it, mike. But for me too? I don't even think so. I don't worship anything that drowns kittens, thanks Allah same.
scmike said...
I said: "Are you certain that I need to look for probability? If so, you are refuted. If not, you are (yet again) refuted."
You said: ""Lets try a different approach, because you continue to fail to understand probability.""
C'mon Vagon, are you certain that I fail to understand probability? If not, then you must admit that your assertion could be (read: is) completely false.
""Why do I need to be certain?""
I'm not sure if you know it or not, but this very question (as well as all the others in this post) assumes your ability to know things for certain.
Otherwise, what is the purpose of asking me to tell you anything if you are incapable of knowledge (which is certain by definition)?
""Why should induction account for the UON?""
Induction doesn't account for the UON, it presupposes it. Without the uniformity of nature, induction is not possible.
I want to know how you justify induction in your worldview. So far, you have told me that you expect the future to be like the past because it has been like the past, which is hopelessly circular.
I said: "I have demonstrated the hopeless circularity of using probability to prove probability already. Sadly, it would seem to no avail."
You said: ""Unfortunately not. You've demonstrated a fantastic ability to ignore the theory of probability. Probability isnt used to justify probability, it is justified by mathematical deduction which is defended axiomatically.""
Problem is, without certainty, you are forced to admit that the above statements could in fact be false.
How do you know they aren't?
""Your failure to understand this in no way makes it untrue.""
The fact that "truth" presupposes certainty does, though. How do you prove anything true in your worldview absent certainty?
""In contrast I have shown that you have no reason to believe that your God is any better than any other or even exists at all,""
Actually, all you have shown is that you must borrow concepts such as certainty, truth, logic, reason, and induction from my worldview because you cannot account for them in your own. I am quite pleased with this demonstration.
""because you cannot provide a positive ontology without stealing from materialism.""
Or perhaps the opposite is true. According to your professed beliefs, you would be forced to admit this possibility.
So, let's have it. How do you know that I cannot provide a positive ontology for God without stealing from materialism? Let me know.
I asked: "How do you know this without first assuming the reliability of your senses? On what grounds do you assume that your senses and reason are reliable without using your senses and reason?"
You answered: ""This is basic metaphysics. If you do not have the capacity to understand how argument is defended by retortion you need more help than I can provide.""
Or, perhaps this is NOT basic metaphysics and I DO have the capacity to understand how argument is defended with retortion. Which is it, and how do you know?
I said: "This begs the question that God could not reveal things to us directly, apart from our senses"
You said: ""This is absolute nonsense.""
Or perhaps it's not. Right?
By the way, by what standard of logic and reason do you call anything "absolute nonsense". How do you justify absolutes in your worldview?
""1. How can anything be revealed to a person without that person sensing it?""
This is only possible via Divine revelation. Do you deny this possibility? If so, through which of your senses did you gain the revelation that all knowledge must be gathered through the senses?
""2. What is your positive ontology for God?""
Your continual appeal to ontology (which presupposes the existence of absolute laws of logic and reason) IS a positive ontology for God, as these laws cannot be accounted for apart from God.
P.S. What is the positive ontology for ontology, or do you just assume it to be valid?
I said: "Sorry. I don't believe in magic. My argument is proven by the impossibility of the contrary."
You said: ""Here you show you dont understand that appealing to the immaterial is an appeal to magic.""
Problem is, any argument you make (including the one above) is an appeal to immaterial laws of logic and reason and presupposes the immaterial concept of proof. Guess you'd better get your hat and wand ready!
""You then make an unfounded assertion, which is demonstrably false seeing as I have provided a highly possible solution that is contrary to your iron age belief system.""
Calling my assertion "unfounded" is yet another appeal to immaterial laws of logic and reason. Know any good card tricks?
Why can "unfounded assertions" not be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?
I said: "It is impossible to know anything unless it is revealed by a Being who knows everything."
You said: ""This is an unfounded assertion and an appeal to magic.""
Wow, another appeal to immaterial laws of logic. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Amazing Vagon!
I said: "You are welcome to posit your contrary claim for the existence of knowledge so that we can compare. I would welcome that."
You said: ""Do you have problems with comprehension? I have provided induction supported by the mathematically deduced theory of probability as the basis of knowledge.""
And I have shown you numerous times that, because induction presupposes probability and probability presupposes induction, this argument is hopelessly circular.
Besides, one must first assume that induction/probability is a valid means of gaining knowledge BEFORE using it. Since induction/probability presupposes knowledge, how then can it be the basis of all knowledge?
I said: "Without certainty, you have no position from which to attack any of my arguments."
You said: ""This is an unfounded assertion.""
Are you certain? Thanks for proving my point, by the way!
""You make judgements using probability all the time,""
C'mon Vagon, you can do better than that! If you can't know anything for certain, then you surely can't know for certain that I make judgments using probability all the time.
I asked: "Extremely "probable" based on what?"
You said: "Maths."
Great! So how do you account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of mathematics in your worldview?
I said: "It Seems that Noble isn't the only one who likes to play dodgeball. ;)"
You said: ""Are you referring to your inability to meet the obvious need for a positive ontology for your God?""
Nope, I'm referring to your constant dodging of the questions you can't answer (not that I mind, as you are only demonstrating my point for me).
Besides, if all things must be validated via a positive ontology, please provide a positive ontology for the existence of ontology itself. Otherwise, it doesn't exist, according to your logic.
""I'm not sure how avoiding repetition is a dodge.""
Of course not. You have already admitted that you can't be sure of anything. :)
I asked: "Are you certain that there is NOTHING refutable about a mathematically deduced theory?"
You replied: ""Is this a serious question?""
Depends on whether or not you can know anything to be true? Can you?
""I hope you think about how ridiculous you sound asking this.""
Afraid to answer that one, huh? I know why. ;)
I said: "According to you, the validity of probability is based on......you guessed it, probability. Yikes!!"
You said: ""According to me? Probability is based on mathematical deduced axioms.""
Would those be uncertain mathematical axioms, or certain ones? Let me know.
I said: "Which of course presupposes a standard of "correctness" (i.e. certainty)."
You said: ""I have provided a standard if correctness. With it you can say who is correct by looking at past events, based on fact. From using induction we can predict future events.""
So how do you know that induction and probability are, themselves, "correct" means of arriving at truth. Blind faith?
You said: ""Again you make a basic error in metaphysics: you ignore the fact that the universe is a singular constant.""
I said: ""Please prove this.""
You responded: ""Come on man, you cannot be that daft, this is basic level established metaphysics.""
Would that be the metaphysics that have been certainly established or only probably established? Let me know.
""This universe impacts on similar brains in a similar fashion.""
If it doesn't we couldn't have this argument, its defended by the very fact we are having this argument.""
The problem is, you don't know any of this for certain, and every bit of it could be false according to your own admission.
Besides, how do you know for certain we're even having this argument?
I said: "I never suggested this. I just want to know how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic in your worldview. You dodged the question yet again."
You said: ""That wasn't a dodge, its just at this stage I cant tell if you're being serious or not.""
Nor could you ever tell at any stage, as you have admitted that you can't know anything for certain.
""I don't account for immaterial laws of logic. I account for the material laws of logic through thought itself.""
If laws of logic are material, can you show me where they are so I can have a look at them?
""i.e. if I'm incorrect it doesn't matter because it has no baring on anything I can comprehend anyhow.""
How could you ever be "incorrect" about anything if laws of logic and reason are material and therefore not universal and absolute, as you have posited. It seems that you don't live consistently with your professed beliefs.
I said: "We both know that you could be wrong about that, though. Right?"
You said: ""You're getting it! But here's a tip as probability reaches 1 it becomes efficient and socially acceptable for people make 'certainty' statements.""
Are you certain of that, or could it be false? How could anyone know for certain that the probability of any event is 1, if it is only probable?
I said: "Please prove that I have made any "errors" in thinking. You have asserted this over and over, but have provided no proof for your assertions. This places your assertions in the realm of faith."
You said: ""I demonstrated this to you in the three points that followed. I'll reiterate:
1st error. You look for certainty where there is none. If you are not intellectually dishonest you will agree that there is no event that is certain.""
So, you want me to declare for certain that no event is certain? Sorry, that's your self-refuting argument, not mine.
""2nd error. You continually bring up the circularity issue when I have demonstrated a non-circular solution to a mathematical deduced theory.""
However, according to your professed beliefs, math itself cannot be certain and is therefore based on probability. Your argument boils down to: probability is verified by probability. If that ain't circular, I don't know what is!!
""3rd error. You offer as a solution something for which (even by your own standards of logic) you cannot provide a positive ontology.""
Again, Vagon, this very discussion, as well as ontology, presupposes absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic which cannot be accounted for apart from God (as you have demonstrated quite nicely).
""Frankly assuming that the solution to the 'problem' of induction is the Uniformity of God is comical.""
Only probably comical, though. Right?
""Asking me to provide my ontology, ignoring the solution I provide and not offering your own is both intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.""
I would say that appealing to absolute laws of logic, reason, and morality while simultaneously trying to undermine their very source is the epitomy of dishonesty and hypocricy.
""Here are some questions you need to ask yourself, if you are intellectually honest:
-Do you know what the 'arguing to inductive uncertainy' fallacy is?
-Do you really understand what the 'problem' is?
-Have you actually read Hume?
-Do you really understand the methods science use to deal with the 'problem'?""
Again, the fact that you feel that I NEED to do anything serves to demonstrate my worldview (as do each of the questions you presented).
Look, Vagon, I see no point in wasting any more time answering questions, and addressing unjustified knowledge claims as long as you continue to hold to the self-refuting position that you can't know anything.
If you'd care to rethink your position, I'll be more than happy to continue this discussion, as proceeding to try and exchange ideas with one who can't arrive at truth is a fruitless (not to mention exhausting) endeavor. I hope you'll reconsider.
Noble,
""scmike, I am a little short of time right now""
No problem at all. I definitely understand.
"" but I want to quickly point out that in your most recent quoting of me you left out the question I asked about whether the foundation of your worldview (God) is actually part of your worldview. If you are taking the position that things must be accounted for in order to use them, then how can you then say that God does not need to be accounted for?""
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Noble. My statement was only meant to clarify that God is the basis of my worldview and the foundation of my reasoning and logic.
The existence of God is my presupposition, just as an atheist holds the presupposition that God does not exist. The question then becomes: which worldview is internally consistent with its professed presuppositions? In order to determine this, it is necessary to give an accounting of the concepts and beliefs within our respective worldviews to see if they agree and are logically defensible.
It is my position that only the Christian worldview can account for the necessary preconditions of reason, logic, truth, knowledge, intelligibility, and a host of other things, as none of these concepts make sense apart from God. Hope this helps.
Christopher Geiser said:
Of course Christianity is true, just like Abraham Lincoln's existence is true and so is the lunar landing.The evidence is there to prove Christianity's truths, the same way the evidence is there for Lincon's existence and the lunar landing.
Then can you give me evidence that Christianity is true? The same kind of evidence we have for the existence of Lincoln and the moon landing?
S.C.Mike
Thanks. My email address is on my profile.
Craig B.
Noble,
I said: ""1) God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic and reason (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2) Laws of logic and reason exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.""
You said: ""You have just given a great illustration of question-begging. Your premise is the same as your conclusion. Congratulations!""
Any ultimate authority claim has a degree of circularity to it, as it must be self-verifying. For instance, most atheists will claim their own ability to reason autonomously as their ultimate authority.
One would then have to ask them by what authority they use their ability to reason as their ultimate authority?
The answer boils down to:
"I reason that my reasoning is my ultimate authority", which is hopelessly circular. This view is also completely arbitrary and is not law-like in nature and loses any degree of necessity.
In order to be valid, an ultimate authority must claim itself to be an ultimate authority and then prove itself internally.
The Christian God does so in that He accounts for the existence of the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that we are both using to hold this discussion and by which you are evaluating my arguments, whereas no other worldview can or does.
I said: "By the way, in accusing me of "begging the question" you are appealing to an absolute standard of logic and reason which you must borrow from my worldview.
Borrowing concepts from my worldview to try and disprove my worldview is, of course, self-refuting."
You said: ""But we've just established that your worldview is based on faulty logic.""
Calling my logic "faulty" only serves to demonstrate that you are holding my arguments to an absolute, universal standard of logic that you cannot account for in your worldview. This only serves to confirm the truth and validity of my position.
""You account for logic by making up a thing called God which you define as something that accounts for logic.""
Now that's question begging! You are assuming that God does not exist and is not the foundation of logic. What is the basis for THAT assumption?
I asked: "Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?"
You said: ""You still haven't told why you think an accounting is necessary.""
Guess you're content with dodgeball, then. Have it your way.
I said: ""Because, we are both using logic and reason to hold this discussion, and we both claim to know things. I want to know how you justify these concepts in a worldview that does not allow for them. I have given you my justification (even though you may not like it). Now, what is yours?
You said: ""No, you haven't given a justification.""
Oh, I gave one, and your inability/refusal to account for absolute laws of logic and reason in your worldview only validates it. Much obliged!
""You have given a circular argument.""
By what standard of logic? We both know that you are making this statement with zero justification.
By the way, why can't "circular arguments" be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?
""You are the one who insists that accounting for logic and reason is necessary in order to use them, but you cannot account for them without begging the question.""
I have never said that you must account for laws of logic before using them. However, if you are going to accuse me of begging the question, you do need to justify the foundation from which you are making that claim, otherwise it is merely a baseless assertion.
It is my position that atheists use logic and reason all the time, they just can't justify what they are doing. You continue to demonstrate this fact quite nicely. Gracias!
P.S. Do you have a problem with this argument?:
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal
I said: "Noble, I know why you are continuing to avoid these questions."
You asked: ""Why?""
Because they expose the absurdity of a worldview that denies God. Take care.
captain howdy,
Captain Howdy: ""Seems simple enough.""
scmike: "Doesn't it, though. Take care Capt. :)"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capt. howdy: ""Ah, but when I said that, was I talking about your religion? Or was I talking about you?
Sorry, man. I'm just goofin' on ya.""
:D
""You know, if being a Christian is what rocks your world, have at it, mike. But for me too? I don't even think so. I don't worship anything that drowns kittens, thanks Allah same.""
I pray that you don't carry that attitude to your grave, Capt. Otherwise, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Take care, friend.
stranger.strange.land,
I sent you an email. Did it get there OK?
scmike said...
”Otherwise, what is the purpose of asking me to tell you anything if you are incapable of knowledge (which is certain by definition)?”
I am and have been trying to show you knowledge is not certain, it is enough to be close to certain. An overly simple analogy is that you are not certain you wont be mugged, yet you walk down the street. Are you certain of anything scmike? If so how can you be?
”Induction doesn't account for the UON, it presupposes it. Without the uniformity of nature, induction is not possible.
I want to know how you justify induction in your worldview. So far, you have told me that you expect the future to be like the past because it has been like the past, which is hopelessly circular.”
Perhaps I have been unclear so let me again restate that you have confused my stance as circular when it is not, it is defended axiomatically. A reason to doubt the uniformity of nature is not a reason to doubt an outcome. We have outcomes/facts which we record and it is upon these that induction and probability and so on that we work off. Those facts tend to indicate a uniformity of nature certainly, but as you point out to rely on the uniformity of nature solely is not sufficient justification of induction. The sufficient justification comes from the use of probability.
”Problem is, without certainty, you are forced to admit that the above statements could in fact be false.
How do you know they aren't?
But you also have that problem. Instead we rightly assume they approach 100% certainty because to do otherwise is inefficient or absurd. In fact you don’t have an alternative. If you think that maths is logical (even under the faulty assumption of God given logic) that same logic compels you to see that induction is defended by probability.
""Your failure to understand this in no way makes it untrue.""
The fact that "truth" presupposes certainty does, though. How do you prove anything true in your worldview absent certainty?
We are compelled to believe certain things are “true” because these expressions reflect proximity to 100% likelihood. Now if we agree on logical principles and accept that certain things can be ‘proven’ you can say they are true. If it is widely accepted that something is ‘proven’ or ‘true’ it is up to someone else to falsify it. How do you prove anything is true without a positive ontology for your first cause?
Actually, all you have shown is that you must borrow concepts such as certainty, truth, logic, reason, and induction from my worldview because you cannot account for them in your own. I am quite pleased with this demonstration.
You are pleased that you break the very same logic you espouse? That’s called hypocrisy, I hope you enjoy it.
So, let's have it. How do you know that I cannot provide a positive ontology for God without stealing from materialism? Let me know.
Is there a point? You will claim that I don’t know. If you agree to the logic for which you pretend to ascribe to, I can show you.
The vast majority of your remaining arguments rely on the certainty principle which I have time and again proven to be a fallacy. Where they are not, or I deem them worthy of further comment, I will address them.
Or, perhaps this is NOT basic metaphysics and I DO have the capacity to understand how argument is defended with retortion. Which is it, and how do you know?
Are you suggesting we do not have an agreed set of logic and that you do not abide by those laws of logic?
This is only possible via Divine revelation. Do you deny this possibility? If so, through which of your senses did you gain the revelation that all knowledge must be gathered through the senses?
This is an extraordinary and unfounded assertion, it deserves the same amount of attention as someone suggesting they are the third coming of Jesus. The onus is on them to provide the evidence, in this case you have none.
”Your continual appeal to ontology (which presupposes the existence of absolute laws of logic and reason) IS a positive ontology for God, as these laws cannot be accounted for apart from God.
P.S. What is the positive ontology for ontology, or do you just assume it to be valid?”
The laws of logic are accounted for in the neuro-receptors of many people’s brains. They exist as chemicals and the reactions of these chemicals, these are tested and shown independently of you or me. I could even give this law weight, but it wouldn’t be meaningful.
Now what is your positive ontology for God? Your above is not a positive ontology it begs the question and has been demonstrably challenged by a more likely solution.
If your God is so self evident and commonsensical, how come you cannot provide a positive ontology for him?
Problem is, any argument you make (including the one above) is an appeal to immaterial laws of logic and reason and presupposes the immaterial concept of proof. Guess you'd better get your hat and wand ready!
You have asserted the laws of logic are immaterial. This is an unfounded assertion which has been shown to be ignorant of the fact these laws exist materially; as chemical reactions. For your claim to be true you must prove that an idea can exist outside brain.
Know any good card tricks?
Not really, I never liked getting praise for appealing magic, it seems so blatantly dishonest :)
Why can "unfounded assertions" not be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?
Because then I would act absurdly, which is counter-productive to what I experience as pleasure.
Wow, another appeal to immaterial laws of logic. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Amazing Vagon!
Glad I amaze you, but its not much of a complement, you’re impressed by an iron-age myth and Van Tillian/Calvinist Pre-sup. To prove ideas are immaterial you must show how an idea can exist without a brain.
I asked: "Extremely "probable" based on what?"
You said: "Maths."
Great! So how do you account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of mathematics in your worldview?
I asked: "Are you certain that there is NOTHING refutable about a mathematically deduced theory?"
You replied: ""Is this a serious question?""
Depends on whether or not you can know anything to be true? Can you?
""I hope you think about how ridiculous you sound asking this.""
Afraid to answer that one, huh? I know why. ;)
I said: "According to you, the validity of probability is based on......you guessed it, probability. Yikes!!"
You said: ""According to me? Probability is based on mathematical deduced axioms.""
Would those be uncertain mathematical axioms, or certain ones? Let me know.
I guess I knew it would come to this. According to your own world view math is a deductive system. If this is incorrect you are crazy by definition. Mathematical truths are necessary because we define numbers a priori. There is no problem of deduction for reason: it doesn’t depend on UON and is both a necessary and sufficient justification for ideas that are tautologically true.
Besides, how do you know for certain we're even having this argument?
Its defended by the very fact we are having it, if we’re not then your points don’t matter anyway.
If laws of logic are material, can you show me where they are so I can have a look at them?
You could observe them, but I’m not sure you could look at them without damaging the person thinking them. You could always settle for reading them or some other storage medium.
How could you ever be "incorrect" about anything if laws of logic and reason are material and therefore not universal and absolute, as you have posited. It seems that you don't live consistently with your professed beliefs.
Excellent so you now know why I as correct as anyone can be, and why you are still so lacking. The reason you could be incorrect is that you are not willing to learn. I was once incorrect and ignorant of these facts too, why aren’t you willing to learn? What happened to that Christian humility?
So, you want me to declare for certain that no event is certain? Sorry, that's your self-refuting argument, not mine.
In that case show me what you are certain of and how you are certain of it.
You offer as a solution something for which (even by your own standards of logic) you cannot provide a positive ontology.""
Again, Vagon, this very discussion, as well as ontology, presupposes absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic which cannot be accounted for apart from God (as you have demonstrated quite nicely).
Your own logical laws demand you provide a positive ontology for your “account”, do so.
Look, Vagon, I see no point in wasting any more time answering questions, and addressing unjustified knowledge claims as long as you continue to hold to the self-refuting position that you can't know anything.
Is it really that it’s a waste of time or is it that you’re really not prepared for this argument and you need a way to escape?
Let’s see if you’ll ignore my requests and simply focus on already defeated concepts according to your own laws of logic and confirm that I’ve demonstrated according to your own logic you have no idea what you’re talking about:
If you don’t agree, please state how logic is not material and can exist outside of a brain.
If you don’t agree show me how you can be certain of anything.
Please provide a positive ontology for your God.
Please show how mathematics is not inductive.
If you can’t you must concede these points. If you continue along the same lines as you have, then you have been exposed as someone who never grasped the issue in the first place.
Take care,
Vagon.
@scmike--
I pray that you don't carry that attitude to your grave, Capt. Otherwise, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Take care, friend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So easy to say. So difficult to prove.
Besides, whether He's really there or not is irrelevant anyway. Any deity that willfully drowns kittens and innocent children is unworthy of worship.
Or to put it another way, I wouldn't worship your God even if you could prove He was real. If you want to frolic with Jesus on an island of pleasure while all around you 98.6% of the human race is screaming in agony and fear--that's your business. I could never worship the torturer of some of my own loved ones. You look forward to it.
And that, my friend, is the difference between you and me. You chose safety and pleasure. I cast my lot with the human race, regardless of the consequences.
I think that difference says something about each of us.
scmike said:
Any ultimate authority claim has a degree of circularity to it, as it must be self-verifying. For instance, most atheists will claim their own ability to reason autonomously as their ultimate authority.
One would then have to ask them by what authority they use their ability to reason as their ultimate authority?
What do you mean by "ultimate authority"?
The answer boils down to:
"I reason that my reasoning is my ultimate authority", which is hopelessly circular. This view is also completely arbitrary and is not law-like in nature and loses any degree of necessity.
Why do I need an ultimate authority?
In order to be valid, an ultimate authority must claim itself to be an ultimate authority and then prove itself internally.
Why?
The Christian God does so in that He accounts for the existence of the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that we are both using to hold this discussion and by which you are evaluating my arguments, whereas no other worldview can or does.
By what means does God do this?
Calling my logic "faulty" only serves to demonstrate that you are holding my arguments to an absolute, universal standard of logic that you cannot account for in your worldview. This only serves to confirm the truth and validity of my position.
No, it demonstrates that I am using a standard of logic that we presumably both agree to.
You account for logic by making up a thing called God which you define as something that accounts for logic.
Now that's question begging! You are assuming that God does not exist and is not the foundation of logic. What is the basis for THAT assumption?
I don't assume that God does not exists, nor do I assume that God does exist. Do you really believe those are the only two options?
"Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?"
You still haven't told why you think an accounting is necessary.
Because, we are both using logic and reason to hold this discussion, and we both claim to know things. I want to know how you justify these concepts in a worldview that does not allow for them. I have given you my justification (even though you may not like it). Now, what is yours?
No, you haven't given a justification.You have given a circular argument.
By what standard of logic? We both know that you are making this statement with zero justification.
By the standard of logic that we both agree exists.
By the way, why can't "circular arguments" be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?
Can they be used in your worldview?
I have never said that you must account for laws of logic before using them. However, if you are going to accuse me of begging the question, you do need to justify the foundation from which you are making that claim, otherwise it is merely a baseless assertion.
Do you consider begging the question to be a logical fallacy?
P.S. Do you have a problem with this argument?:
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal
I have no problem with it.
Noble, I know why you are continuing to avoid these questions.
Why?
Because they expose the absurdity of a worldview that denies God. Take care.
Why would I care about that? I don't hold a worldview that denies God.
I'm going to be out of town for a couple days and probably won't reply to anything until Monday.
Get_Education
I hear what you are saying about the way in which the debate is carried out. Let me give you a quote from one of those articles I printed out. This is Dr. Greg Bahnsen:
We should look at 1 Peter 3:15 again and notice a few things it does not say.
It does not say that believers are supposed to take the initiative and start arrogant arguments with unbelievers, telling them that we have all the answers. We certainly should not encourage a "I'll prove it to you" spirit, an attitude which relishes refutation....
...The text also indicates that the spirit in which we offer our apologetic answer is one of "gentleness and respect." It is not pugnacious and defensive. It is not a spirit of one-up-manship.
...believers [are] not responsibe to persuade anybody who challenges or questions their faith. We can offer sound reasons to the unbeliever, but we cannot make him or her subjectively believe those reasons...only God can open the heart. It is not in our ability, and not our responsibility, to regenerate the dead heart and give sight to the blind eyes of unbelievers. That is God's gracious work.
I think that is good advice, and I intend to follow it.
As I have said before on this blog, "I'm here for the evangelism." If there is anything I can use by way of apologetics to clear away an obstacle that is causing a person to not receive Christ, then that's what I want to do.
Take care, and have a great week-end.
Craig B.
vagon,
""I am and have been trying to show you knowledge is not certain, it is enough to be close to certain.""
Are you certain, or could this be false?
""An overly simple analogy is that you are not certain you wont be mugged, yet you walk down the street.""
Are you certain of this, or could it be false?
""Are you certain of anything scmike? If so how can you be?""
Yes. Certainty is only possible through divine revelation. God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
""Perhaps I have been unclear so let me again restate that you have confused my stance as circular when it is not, it is defended axiomatically.""
Would those be axioms void of certainty? If so, how can you be certain that your stance is axiomatically defended?
""A reason to doubt the uniformity of nature is not a reason to doubt an outcome.""
Are you certain of this, or could it be false?
""We have outcomes/facts which we record and it is upon these that induction and probability and so on that we work off.""
And those would be outcomes/facts void of certainty. Right? You crack me up!
""Those facts tend to indicate a uniformity of nature certainly,""
So, uncertain facts indicate uncertain certainty? Let me guess, you are certainly uncertain of this. Right? Priceless!
""but as you point out to rely on the uniformity of nature solely is not sufficient justification of induction.""
Correct. The only sufficient justification for assuming induction (i.e. the future will be like the past) is Divine revelation from God. Otherwise, how do you claim to know anything about the future? Crystal Ball?
""The sufficient justification comes from the use of probability.""
Question Begging.
I said: ""Problem is, without certainty, you are forced to admit that the above statements could in fact be false.""
You said: ""But you also have that problem.""
Are you certain of this, or could it be false?
""Instead we rightly assume they approach 100% certainty because to do otherwise is inefficient or absurd.""
Are you certain of this, or could it be false?
""In fact you don’t have an alternative.""
If you can't be certain of anything, you certainly can't know what I have. Good one!
""If you think that maths is logical (even under the faulty assumption of God given logic) that same logic compels you to see that induction is defended by probability.""
Question Begging (x2).
I said: "The fact that "truth" presupposes certainty does, though. How do you prove anything true in your worldview absent certainty?"
You said: ""We are compelled to believe certain things are “true” because these expressions reflect proximity to 100% likelihood.""
You are confusing knowledge with belief. I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing you know to be true absent certainty.
""Now if we agree on logical principles and accept that certain things can be ‘proven’ you can say they are true.""
What people believe to be true and what actually IS true are two completely different things. Again, you are confusing the concepts of knowledge and belief.
""If it is widely accepted that something is ‘proven’ or ‘true’ it is up to someone else to falsify it.""
Are you certain of this, or could it be false?
""How do you prove anything is true without a positive ontology for your first cause?""
How do you prove ontology to be valid (or anything else for that matter) without certainty, as proof presupposes certainty.
""You are pleased that you break the very same logic you espouse? That’s called hypocrisy,""
No, holding my arguments to an absolute standard of logic and then denying its existence is hypocrisy.
I said: "So, let's have it. How do you know that I cannot provide a positive ontology for God without stealing from materialism? Let me know.""
You said: ""Is there a point?""
Just to show that you have zero foundation on which to base your knowledge claims. Thanks.
""You will claim that I don’t know.""
That is your argument, not mine.
""If you agree to the logic for which you pretend to ascribe to, I can show you.""
I agree to absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that reflect the character and nature of God. Anything you want to "show" me presupposes these laws and, therefore, the existence of God.
Using logic to try and undermine the very source of logic is woefully self-refuting (as I'm sure you've gathered by now).
""The vast majority of your remaining arguments rely on the certainty principle which I have time and again proven to be a fallacy.""
Sigh. We both know that all this could be (read: is) false, though. Right?
""Where they are not, or I deem them worthy of further comment, I will address them.""
What an honorable debater, you are.
One question though. How do you know for certain you will address them? Couldn't you be wrong about that? Let me know.
""Are you suggesting we do not have an agreed set of logic and that you do not abide by those laws of logic?""
Let's see if we agree. I am using the absolute, immaterial, and universal laws of logic that reflect God's character and nature. How about you?
I said: "This is only possible via Divine revelation. Do you deny this possibility? If so, through which of your senses did you gain the revelation that all knowledge must be gathered through the senses?"
You said: ""This is an extraordinary and unfounded assertion, it deserves the same amount of attention as someone suggesting they are the third coming of Jesus.""
So, you have no answer then? Thought so.
""The onus is on them to provide the evidence, in this case you have none.""
Which of your senses told you that? This should be good.
""The laws of logic are accounted for in the neuro-receptors of many people’s brains. They exist as chemicals and the reactions of these chemicals,""
Would those be random chemical reactions? If so, why aren't there billions of differing laws of logic? If there were, how would we know which ones were logical?
""these are tested and shown independently of you or me.""
And what are they tested and shown with, if not logic? You're arguing that logic is tested with logic. Nice.
""I could even give this law weight, but it wouldn’t be meaningful.""
I agree, as "meaning" assumes uniform laws of logic and the existence of certainty, which you have claimed are not possible in your worldview. However, you have also demonstrated that you don't live this way.
""Now what is your positive ontology for God? Your above is not a positive ontology it begs the question and has been demonstrably challenged by a more likely solution.""
The very absolute laws of logic that you continue to try to use against my arguments and ontology itself are proof of God's existence.
""If your God is so self evident and commonsensical, how come you cannot provide a positive ontology for him?""
This very statement assumes God's existence and is therefore self-refuting.
""You have asserted the laws of logic are immaterial. This is an unfounded assertion which has been shown to be ignorant of the fact these laws exist materially; as chemical reactions.""
Tell me where you have seen the laws of logic; or do you just believe this by faith?
""For your claim to be true you must prove that an idea can exist outside brain.""
Huh?? Laws of logic are not ideas, as ideas themselves require logic in order to exist. Laws of logic are prescribed to us by God as the standard by which He expects us to think. They exist outside of human minds, as is proven by the law of non-contradiction.
Tell me, Vagon, could the universe have been both the universe and not the universe at the same time and in the same way before humans existed?
""Know any good card tricks?
Not really, I never liked getting praise for appealing magic, it seems so blatantly dishonest :)""
As does appealing to an absolute standard of morality that can't be accounted for in your worldview.
I said: "Why can "unfounded assertions" not be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?"
You said: ""Because then I would act absurdly,""
But, what is absurdity, without an absolute standard of logic? According to your arbitrary standard, what may be absurd to you could be completely logical to someone else, and you would have no grounds to tell them otherwise.
""which is counter-productive to what I experience as pleasure.""
Counter-productive to what purpose? Is pleasure and happiness the ultimate goal of mankind, or is it survival at all costs? How do you know?
""To prove ideas are immaterial you must show how an idea can exist without a brain.""
Question Begging. Plus, that is not my claim.
I asked: "Great! So how do you account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of mathematics in your worldview?"
You said: ""I guess I knew it would come to this.""
You KNEW it, huh? Thought so.
""According to your own world view math is a deductive system. If this is incorrect you are crazy by definition. Mathematical truths are necessary because we define numbers a priori.""
So, how do you know those definitions are themselves "correct" if certainty is not possible, as you have claimed?
How do you know that "mathematical truths" won't change tomorrow? If they did, how would you decide which ones were true as opposed to untrue?
""There is no problem of deduction for reason: it doesn’t depend on UON and is both a necessary and sufficient justification for ideas that are tautologically true.""
Did you reason this?
I asked: "Besides, how do you know for certain we're even having this argument?"
You said: ""Its defended by the very fact we are having it,""
Thanks for that one! Priceless!!
I asked: "If laws of logic are material, can you show me where they are so I can have a look at them?"
You said: ""You could observe them,""
If you've never observed them, how do you know they can be observed?
""but I’m not sure you could look at them without damaging the person thinking them. You could always settle for reading them or some other storage medium.""
Great! Point me to them.
I asked: "How could you ever be "incorrect" about anything if laws of logic and reason are material and therefore not universal and absolute, as you have posited. It seems that you don't live consistently with your professed beliefs."
You said: ""Excellent so you now know why I as correct as anyone can be, and why you are still so lacking.""
Quick question. If you can't know anything for certain, how do you know that you're as correct as anyone can be and that I'm lacking anything? Surely you'd agree that you could be wrong about both of these things, no?
""The reason you could be incorrect is that you are not willing to learn.""
Well, since learning presupposes knowledge (which is certain by definition), it would seem that this concept is not even possible in your worldview. How do you justify THAT?
""I was once incorrect and ignorant of these facts too,""
How do you know for certain that you're not incorrect and ignorant now? You could be, couldn't you?
""why aren’t you willing to learn?""
Question begging.
""What happened to that Christian humility?""
It's right here! Christian humility is acknowledging God as the source of all reason and logic, rather than denying Him and trying to be one's own god.
""In that case show me what you are certain of and how you are certain of it.""
I am certain that God exists by the impossibility of the contrary.
I am also certain that your question above is another example of question begging, as it assumes the possibility of certainty. You're too much!!
I said: "Look, Vagon, I see no point in wasting any more time answering questions, and addressing unjustified knowledge claims as long as you continue to hold to the self-refuting position that you can't know anything."
You asked: ""Is it really that it’s a waste of time.""
Well, not a total waste. It is highly beneficial for others to see a worldview without God exposed for what it really is.
""Let’s see if you’ll ignore my requests and simply focus on already defeated concepts according to your own laws of logic and confirm that I’ve demonstrated according to your own logic you have no idea what you’re talking about:""
Problem is, confirmation of anything requires certainty. You have refuted yourself yet again. Thanks.
""If you don’t agree, please state how logic is not material and can exist outside of a brain.""
Law of non-contradiction.
""If you don’t agree show me how you can be certain of anything.""
How do you know that I haven't shown you already?
""Please provide a positive ontology for your God.""
Since ontology presupposes God, it IS proof of the existence God.
""Please show how mathematics is not inductive.""
Sure. Laws of math (addition, subtraction, etc.) apply apart from human minds. Just ask the dinosaurs.
""If you can’t you must concede these points.""
Must I? By what standard?
""If you continue along the same lines as you have, then you have been exposed as someone who never grasped the issue in the first place.""
You could be wrong about that though. Right?
You're too much, Vagon!! Take Care.
scmike,
The issue of certainty is at the base level, but I think you know this - you're just intellectually dishonest or a victim of conformity bias.
Once you get over the fact I could be an illusion in your brain a lot of other things are certain.
If you believe that this forum and I are not an illusion, then you and everyone else here who uses logic can see that mathematics is defended by tautological deduction.
Its axiomatic and correct by definition, whether you like it or not. From this we have probability, from probability we have induction.
You've been exposed scmike. You're dishonest to the point that by your own standards you have no positive ontology for the entire basis of your own argument.
Congratulations, every logical person here can see you are wilfully ignorant and a demonstrable hypocrite.
vagon,
""If you believe that this forum and I are not an illusion, then you and everyone else here who uses logic can see that mathematics is defended by tautological deduction.
Its axiomatic and correct by definition, whether you like it or not.""
So, this is what your arguments have been reduced to, huh? "It's just that way, whether you like it or not"? Nice.
If that's what this has been reduced to, then "God exists whether you like it or not". How's that?
""You've been exposed scmike. You're dishonest to the point that by your own standards you have no positive ontology for the entire basis of your own argument.
Congratulations, every logical person here can see you are wilfully ignorant and a demonstrable hypocrite.""
You're too funny, Vagon!! By your own admission, you can't be certain of any of this, therefore the exact opposite could be (read: is)true. Priceless!!
Seriously though, thanks again for showing everyone what a worldview without God looks like! The demonstration is much appreciated!
I will continue to pray that you will come to your senses and stop suppressing the blatant truth of God's existence before it's too late. Take care.
@scmike--
You said to Vagon:
I will continue to pray that you will come to your senses and stop suppressing the blatant truth of God's existence before it's too late. Take care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a thought: Why not pray that He steps out from those spiritual bushes He's hiding behind and reveals Himself for all to see. Then we wouldn't need sales reps like you or Ray! After all, nobody argues about the existence of trees. You don't need to make some convoluted presuppositional argument to demonstrate the existence of the earth, do you?
c. howdy said:
Here's a thought: Why not pray that He steps out from those spiritual bushes He's hiding behind and reveals Himself for all to see. Then we wouldn't need sales reps like you or Ray! After all, nobody argues about the existence of trees. You don't need to make some convoluted presuppositional argument to demonstrate the existence of the earth, do you?
This is a really good point. The existence of scmike may be evidence of God's nonexistence.
noble,
I just realized that I overlooked your post from Jan. 9 (9:55 am). I will try to respond shortly.
captain howdy,
""After all, nobody argues about the existence of trees.""
Nobody, huh? How do you know THAT?
Absolute knowledge?
""You don't need to make some convoluted presuppositional argument to demonstrate the existence of the earth, do you?""
Nope. I would SIMPLY argue that without God, you can't know anything for certain, much less that earth, trees, or "convoluted" arguments exist. Piece O' Cake!
scmike
"So, this is what your arguments have been reduced to, huh? "It's just that way, whether you like it or not"? Nice."
This is why you fail in your argument. This is a clear foundation of the same logic which you pretend to ascribe to. Not only whether you like it or not, but whether I like it or not as well.
If that's what this has been reduced to, then "God exists whether you like it or not". How's that?
The difference is your particular God is in no way defended a priori and you cant even provide a positive ontology for him. Logic is.
You're too funny, Vagon!! By your own admission, you can't be certain of any of this, therefore the exact opposite could be (read: is)true. Priceless!!
That's right. But its highly probable. Whereas all you are left with (by your own standard of logic) is hypocracy. At least you find it funny, but my guess is most think its embarrassing.
Seriously though, thanks again for showing everyone what a worldview without God looks like! The demonstration is much appreciated!
Any time, seriously.
I will continue to pray that you will come to your senses and stop suppressing the blatant truth of God's existence before it's too late. Take care.
Thanks scmike I hope one day you will start to see reason, before you realise you've wasted at least a seventh of your only life on false pretences.
@scmike--
captain howdy,
""After all, nobody argues about the existence of trees.""
Nobody, huh? How do you know THAT?
Absolute knowledge?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you deny it? Do you know of anyone who denies the existence of trees? I don't. You know why? Because there is direct observational and empirical evidence that trees exist. They meet all the standards of evidence for their existence that all parties--even presups--agree to. Nobody has to craft goofy rhetorical arguments for the existence of trees because their existence isn't in dispute. This is not the case with God, I don't believe.
""You don't need to make some convoluted presuppositional argument to demonstrate the existence of the earth, do you?""
Nope. I would SIMPLY argue that without God, you can't know anything for certain, much less that earth, trees, or "convoluted" arguments exist. Piece O' Cake!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simple is right. That's not an argument, it's an unsupported claim. Unless you believe in an invisible man in the sky with magic powers, you are incapable of determining that trees or the earth exist--is that it?
The fact is that the reason you have to forge these goofy presuppositional word games is because from all appearances, God isn't really there. Nobody has to play these kinds of rhetorical games to support the idea that trees exist or the earth exists, because there is plenty of observational evidence in support of these things.
If God was really there, and revealed himself in fiery glory for all to see on a daily basis, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because there would be no need for it. The fact that you have to attempt to make the case that God really does exist is because it appears as if he really doesn't.
Oh--As an aside, I think that of all the arguments you try to make to shore up the idea that your religion is actually logical, my favorite is your assertion that all logic and reason is a direct product of Christianity. You assert this in spite of the fact that the laws of logic were worked out by the ancient Greeks hundreds of years before the appearance of Jesus on the historical scene. This means that your assertion flies in the face of established historical fact--and yet you continue to make it. How can you justify that practice? It seems highly dishonest to me.
scmike said:
""What do you mean by "ultimate authority"?""
Foundation.
""Why do I need an ultimate authority?""
Otherwise, you have no basis or justification for anything you claim to know, apart from yourself. This makes all your statements and claims purely subjective (i.e. meaningless), if there is no foundation/authority to support them.
Vagon provided a perfect example of this, when he used the "whether you like it or not" argument. This line of reasoning basically boils down to "because I said so" and is an appeal to oneself as an ultimate authority. Again, purely subjective.
I said: ""In order to be valid, an ultimate authority must claim itself to be an ultimate authority and then prove itself internally.""
You said: ""Why?""
Otherwise it is illogical, and therefore invalid.
I said: "The Christian God does so in that He accounts for the existence of the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that we are both using to hold this discussion and by which you are evaluating my arguments, whereas no other worldview can or does."
You said: ""By what means does God do this?""
By His absolute, immaterial, and universal nature. Laws of logic and reason are a direct reflection of these aspects of God.
I said: "Calling my logic "faulty" only serves to demonstrate that you are holding my arguments to an absolute, universal standard of logic that you cannot account for in your worldview. This only serves to confirm the truth and validity of my position."
You said: ""No, it demonstrates that I am using a standard of logic that we presumably both agree to.""
Let's see if we agree. I am using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of God. You?
""I don't assume that God does not exists, nor do I assume that God does exist. Do you really believe those are the only two options?""
Neutrality is a myth. One either assumes God as the foundation of logic and reason, or they don't.
You have demonstrated that you don't.
I asked: "Now, are you going to tell me how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason apart from God or will you keep playing dodgeball?"
You said: ""You still haven't told why you think an accounting is necessary.""
Sure I have. It is my position that you hold to a worldview in which absolute, immaterial, universal entities (such as laws of logic) are not possible and must be borrowed from my worldview in order for you to use them.
If you intend to use these laws against any of my arguments, you're going to have to explain how they make sense in your worldview. Otherwise, your claims carry zero authority, and only serve to validate my point.
So, how about it? How do you account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that you are using to evaluate my arguments? I won't get my hopes up for an answer.
I said: "Because, we are both using logic and reason to hold this discussion, and we both claim to know things. I want to know how you justify these concepts in a worldview that does not allow for them. I have given you my justification (even though you may not like it). Now, what is yours?"
You said: ""No, you haven't given a justification.""
Of the two of us, I am the only one who has provided a claim for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason so far. Where is your justification for these laws, or don't you have one?
""You have given a circular argument.""
Again, Noble, by what standard of logic is my argument circular? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to my argument?
You said: ""By the standard of logic that we both agree exists.""
If we both agree that we are using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of GOD, how do you explain your foolish denial of His existence?
I asked: "By the way, why can't "circular arguments" be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?"
You asked: ""Can they be used in your worldview?""
Virtuously circular arguments, yes. Viciously circular arguments, no.
I said: "I have never said that you must account for laws of logic before using them. However, if you are going to accuse me of begging the question, you do need to justify the foundation from which you are making that claim, otherwise it is merely a baseless assertion."
You asked: ""Do you consider begging the question to be a logical fallacy?""
Yes, and I have justification for this because of the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that make sense in my worldview.
Now, what is the foundation for your accusation that my argument begs the question, or don't you have one?
I asked: ""P.S. Do you have a problem with this argument?:
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal""
You said: ""I have no problem with it.""
I didn't think you would. However, no one could ever prove the first premise of that argument.
Why all the fuss about the first premise of my argument for God (which, by the way, is proven by the impossibility of the contrary)? I bet I know.
""Why would I care about that? I don't hold a worldview that denies God.""
No? Wasn't it you who wrote this?:
""Hi Christopher. I wouldn't actually say I'm defending myself; more like defending reason. Aw, it's too bad scmike isn't here to ask me how I account for reason in my worldview. *sniff*
I've thought about why I comment on Ray's blog and I think it comes down to a couple of reasons. Number one is I enjoy a good debate. If I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't put the effort into it that I do. The deeper reason is that I think that irrational beliefs are harmful to individuals and society as a whole and, yes I do hope that some readers will change their minds. It may be unlikely that hard core Christians like some of the posters here will change, but statistically it is much more likely for a Christian to convert to atheism than the other way around. If nothing else, I'd like to make you think about your beliefs. I'm sorry that your religion causes you the pain of of believing that people you love and care about will suffer for eternity. I don't buy your "rebellion" nonsense, but think about this: sometimes the rebels are the good guys.""
Refusing to acknowledge God as the foundation of all logic and reason by willfully suppressing the truth of His existence IS denying Him. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him, and reveals the unrighteousness of those who do it.
vagon,
I said: "So, this is what your arguments have been reduced to, huh? "It's just that way, whether you like it or not"? Nice."
You said: ""This is why you fail in your argument.""
Still waiting for you to point me to those material, non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic by which my argument "fails". So far, no dice.
""This is a clear foundation of the same logic which you pretend to ascribe to.""
Sorry, the foundation of my reason and logic is Almighty God.
""Not only whether you like it or not, but whether I like it or not as well.""
Your foundation for logic and reason is your own subjective ability to reason, as is evidenced by your "because I said so" argument. Hardly the same thing.
""The difference is your particular God is in no way defended a priori and you cant even provide a positive ontology for him. Logic is.""
Since neither ontology or logic can be accounted for without God, I would say that they provide a great a priori defense for God!
What is your a priori defense for logic apart from God?
I said: "You're too funny, Vagon!! By your own admission, you can't be certain of any of this, therefore the exact opposite could be (read: is)true. Priceless!!"
You said: ""That's right.""
Knew it!!
""But its highly probable.""
Based on what? So far, you have posited that probability is based on mathematics, which itself must be based on probability, if certainty is not possible in your worldview.
If you ever decide to rethink this absurd position, then I'd like to know how you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of mathematics in an atheistic worldview.
Either way, you've got some explaining to do. Take care.
captain howdy,
I said: "Nobody, huh? How do you know THAT?
Absolute knowledge?""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You asked: ""Do you deny it? Do you know of anyone who denies the existence of trees? I don't.""
Settle down there, Capt.! I just want to know how you justify making absolute statements, as an atheist. That's all.
No, I don't know of anyone personally who denies the existence of trees, but I do know people who deny the existence of their Creator. Does that count?
""You know why? Because there is direct observational and empirical evidence that trees exist.""
Now, if only you could justify the validity of the senses and reason you use to "observe" empirical evidence. Maybe some day, huh? ***scmike whistling "When you wish upon a star"***
""They meet all the standards of evidence for their existence that all parties--even presups--agree to.""
Still claiming absolute knowledge while holding to a worldview which denies absolutes, huh? You kidder, you!!
By the way, the standard of evidence you're referring to, that wouldn't be a universal standard, would it? Just curious.
""Nobody has to craft goofy rhetorical arguments for the existence of trees because their existence isn't in dispute.""
Gotta love those atheists and their absolute claims. Funny stuff!!
""This is not the case with God, I don't believe.""
No dispute here, as everyone knows God exists. Some just willfully suppress this truth. Amen, Capt.?
You said: ""You don't need to make some convoluted presuppositional argument to demonstrate the existence of the earth, do you?""
I said: "Nope. I would SIMPLY argue that without God, you can't know anything for certain, much less that earth, trees, or "convoluted" arguments exist. Piece O' Cake!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, you said: ""Simple is right. That's not an argument, it's an unsupported claim.""
Kind of like your unsupported claim that my argument is not an argument? C'mon, Capt., you did that on purpose didn't you?
""Unless you believe in an invisible man in the sky with magic powers, you are incapable of determining that trees or the earth exist--is that it?""
Where'd you get that from? It surely wasn't me!
My argument is that without God (who is not a man nor practices magic), you can't know anything for certain. I mean, c'mon, haven't you been reading Vagon's arguments.....Yeesh!!
""The fact is that the reason you have to forge these goofy presuppositional word games is because from all appearances, God isn't really there.""
ALL appearances, huh? You are too, too much!
""Nobody has to play these kinds of rhetorical games to support the idea that trees exist or the earth exists, because there is plenty of observational evidence in support of these things.""
Only if I grant you the validity of your senses and reasoning (I don't, by the way), which you cannot account for apart from God.
""If God was really there, and revealed himself in fiery glory for all to see on a daily basis, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because there would be no need for it.""
Hmmmm.....fiery glory on a daily basis, huh? You mean like a giant ball of fire in the sky that would appear each day giving off tremendous amounts of light and heat? You're right, something like that would be impossible to miss or to take for granted. Oh well.
""The fact that you have to attempt to make the case that God really does exist is because it appears as if he really doesn't.""
Really? How about this: the fact that atheists have to attempt to make the case that God really DOES NOT exist is because it appears as if He really does. Touche'!!
""Oh--As an aside, I think that of all the arguments you try to make to shore up the idea that your religion is actually logical, my favorite is your assertion that all logic and reason is a direct product of Christianity.""
Glad you like it!! I'm kind of partial to it myself!
""You assert this in spite of the fact that the laws of logic were worked out by the ancient Greeks hundreds of years before the appearance of Jesus on the historical scene.""
One question. How do you suppose those nifty Greeks "worked out" the laws of logic without using an overriding standard of logic?
I wonder, could they have been both Greek and not Greek at the same time and in the same way before they "worked out" the law of non-contradiction?
""This means that your assertion flies in the face of established historical fact--and yet you continue to make it.""
C'mon, C.H.! I've already told you that absolute laws of logic and reason are a direct reflection of God (as revealed in the Bible), who is the foundation of the Christian worldview.
The fact that you have failed to grasp this so far is not my fault (I mean, you seem like a smart enough guy and all?).
""How can you justify that practice?""
Are you still a shoplifter?
""It seems highly dishonest to me.""
Ah, arbitrary standards of morality. Gotta love 'em.
scmike said...
"still waiting for you to point me to those material, non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic by which my argument "fails". So far, no dice."
Do you really expect someone to show neuro-chemical reactions to you? You really have sunk to new lows in intellectual dishonesty. Meanwhile you haven't met my primary demand for (by your own laws of logic) a positive ontology for your particular God. I'll take that as a concession unless you do so in your next reply.
Sorry, the foundation of my reason and logic is Almighty God.
Then your logic fails because it is not in any way justified. But I think we already knew that ;)
Your foundation for logic and reason is your own subjective ability to reason,
Please demonstrate how your foundation is not subject to your own subjective reasoning. If you cannot you are a hypocrite. Again.
as is evidenced by your "because I said so" argument. Hardly the same thing.
Remember we are both subject to the same rules of logic despite how you think they've been given. You cant escape it.
Your attempt to change my argument to 'because I said so" is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. Everyone can see my posts so you are also demonstrably sloppy in your methods.
""The difference is your particular God is in no way defended a priori and you cant even provide a positive ontology for him. Logic is.""
"Since neither ontology or logic can be accounted for without God, I would say that they provide a great a priori defense for God!
I'd laugh if people like you weren't trying to stop stem cell research.
What is your a priori defense for logic apart from God?
We're defending it now by the very fact we are having an argument, you philosophical dunce.
""But its highly probable.""
Based on what? So far, you have posited that probability is based on mathematics, which itself must be based on probability, if certainty is not possible in your worldview.
Get over it, I've already justified it. Certainty is possible if you accept that we are arguing as a sign of existence. Here you have two options:
1. If you do not believe we are arguing, then stop and go on living absurdly.
2. If you do, concede that this is evidence of logic and that by that same logic, and we can agree with certainty that mathematics is defended tautologically.
@scmike--
No, I don't know of anyone personally who denies the existence of trees, but I do know people who deny the existence of their Creator. Does that count?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, if your creator is a tree, I suppose it counts. Do you worship trees?
""You know why? Because there is direct observational and empirical evidence that trees exist.""
Now, if only you could justify the validity of the senses and reason you use to "observe" empirical evidence. Maybe some day, huh? ***scmike whistling "When you wish upon a star"***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you deny that our senses are a valid means of learning about the world around us? If you don't deny it, then what reason is there to "justify" their "validity"? And what does that phrase even mean, anyway?
""They meet all the standards of evidence for their existence that all parties--even presups--agree to.""
Still claiming absolute knowledge while holding to a worldview which denies absolutes, huh? You kidder, you!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did you get the idea I deny absolutes? I don't deny absolutes. In fact, I'll even give you an example of one: Christians believe they're going to fly when the rapture comes, because it's what the Bible says. Do you deny this? Do you believe you're going to fly, mike? If you do, what were the laws of logic and reason you employed to lead you to that conclusion?
""Nobody has to craft goofy rhetorical arguments for the existence of trees because their existence isn't in dispute.""
Gotta love those atheists and their absolute claims. Funny stuff!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My guess would be that you were still on the ground when you wrote that, which kind of suggests you haven't been raptured yet.
""This is not the case with God, I don't believe.""
No dispute here, as everyone knows God exists. Some just willfully suppress this truth. Amen, Capt.?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I want to bring your attention to a tree in my front yard, all I'd need to do is point to it. No word games would be necessary, because it would be in plain sight. Point to God--show us where He is so that all can visibly see and audibly hear Him. You can't, hence the word games.
Then, you said: ""Simple is right. That's not an argument, it's an unsupported claim.""
Kind of like your unsupported claim that my argument is not an argument? C'mon, Capt., you did that on purpose didn't you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I merely made the observation that you offered no support for your claim that God is necessary for logic & reason to apply to these questions.
""Unless you believe in an invisible man in the sky with magic powers, you are incapable of determining that trees or the earth exist--is that it?""
Where'd you get that from? It surely wasn't me!
My argument is that without God (who is not a man nor practices magic), you can't know anything for certain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, but He is invisible? Hence the need for goofy apologetics.
""Nobody has to play these kinds of rhetorical games to support the idea that trees exist or the earth exists, because there is plenty of observational evidence in support of these things.""
Only if I grant you the validity of your senses and reasoning (I don't, by the way), which you cannot account for apart from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps if you accepted the evidence your senses and reason provide you, you wouldn't need to join a cult. You accept the validity of the senses when you walk down the street; otherwise you'd have been killed by wandering into traffic long ago. But when it comes to the apparent absence of God, all of a sudden the senses are no longer reliable.
""If God was really there, and revealed himself in fiery glory for all to see on a daily basis, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because there would be no need for it.""
Hmmmm.....fiery glory on a daily basis, huh? You mean like a giant ball of fire in the sky that would appear each day giving off tremendous amounts of light and heat? You're right, something like that would be impossible to miss or to take for granted. Oh well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That big, fiery thing in the sky is God? You're a sun worshipper? Hey, is there a hotline I can call for turning in heretics? I wonder if there's a reward...
""The fact that you have to attempt to make the case that God really does exist is because it appears as if he really doesn't.""
Really? How about this: the fact that atheists have to attempt to make the case that God really DOES NOT exist is because it appears as if He really does. Touche'!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, that's the beauty of atheism. The apparent absence of God pretty much speaks for itself.
""Oh--As an aside, I think that of all the arguments you try to make to shore up the idea that your religion is actually logical, my favorite is your assertion that all logic and reason is a direct product of Christianity.""
Glad you like it!! I'm kind of partial to it myself!
""You assert this in spite of the fact that the laws of logic were worked out by the ancient Greeks hundreds of years before the appearance of Jesus on the historical scene.""
One question. How do you suppose those nifty Greeks "worked out" the laws of logic without using an overriding standard of logic?
~~~~~~~~~
Which is completely beside the point, of course. It's not a question of whether the Greeks just made up the laws of logic or whether those laws reflect objective reality. The point I was making was that you claim that logic is a product of the Christian worldview when it's a historical fact that those laws were worked out by a different culture hundreds of years before Christ appeared on the scene. Your evasiveness says something about your intellectual honesty, I think. So does the fact that you repeat this false claim even after I've thoroughly refuted it.
You're trying to sell me something--in this case, your religion. If you have to BS me into buying it, what does that say about your religion? Or you, for that matter?
""This means that your assertion flies in the face of established historical fact--and yet you continue to make it.""
C'mon, C.H.! I've already told you that absolute laws of logic and reason are a direct reflection of God (as revealed in the Bible), who is the foundation of the Christian worldview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
See my previous comment.
""It seems highly dishonest to me.""
Ah, arbitrary standards of morality. Gotta love 'em.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Especially when they're so obviously true you don't even bother to try to deny them.
vagon,
I said: "still waiting for you to point me to those material, non-absolute, non-universal laws of logic by which my argument "fails". So far, no dice."
You said: ""Do you really expect someone to show neuro-chemical reactions to you?""
You made the claim. Prove it or retract it.
""You really have sunk to new lows in intellectual dishonesty.""
Again, prove this claim or retract it, please.
""Meanwhile you haven't met my primary demand for (by your own laws of logic) a positive ontology for your particular God.""
Sure I have. You just don't like what was presented to you.
Besides, you still haven't told me on what grounds you assume the validity of ontology as a means of proving anything. If you are honest, you will admit that you trust it on blind faith, with zero justification.
""I'll take that as a concession unless you do so in your next reply.""
And you'll do so with zero foundation in rationality or certainty. I am pleased with that.
I said: "Sorry, the foundation of my reason and logic is Almighty God."
You said: ""Then your logic fails because it is not in any way justified.""
It is justified by the very absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic you are trying to apply to my argument.
""But I think we already knew that ;)""
Not for certain, though. Right?
I said: "Your foundation for logic and reason is your own subjective ability to reason,"
You said: ""Please demonstrate how your foundation is not subject to your own subjective reasoning. If you cannot you are a hypocrite. Again.""
No problem. God is the foundation of my reasoning, as my ability to reason is a gift from Him. I can know this for certain by Divine revelation.
Now, how do you know that your reasoning is valid apart from your reasoning?
""Remember we are both subject to the same rules of logic despite how you think they've been given. You cant escape it.""
Would those be the non-absolute, non-universal "rules" that you have posited?
If so, then we are NOT both subject to the same rules of logic and I CAN escape it. You should have no problem with that statement if you truly believe that the laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction) aren't univeral and don't necessarily apply to me.
Plus, I create a new "rule" of logic that states anyone who argues as you do, is arguing fallaciously. Wow, creating arbitrary rules of logic is fun!!
""Your attempt to change my argument to 'because I said so" is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.""
Sorry, that's what your argument was reduced to. Not that I agree with your accusation, but how can I be "intellectually dishonest" if "rules" of logic don't necessarily apply to our discussion, as you have asserted?
Besides, according to my rule of logic, you're still arguing fallaciously!! Remember?
""Everyone can see my posts so you are also demonstrably sloppy in your methods.""
Then, I'm NOT demonstrably sloppy in my methods. According to you, this argument is equally valid.
""I'd laugh if people like you weren't trying to stop stem cell research.""
Not that I agree with you, but is stopping stem cell research absolutely "wrong" in your worldview? Why?
""We're defending it now by the very fact we are having an argument,""
How do you know that this argument is not one of the exceptions in which the non-absolute, non-universal "rules" of logic do not apply?
""you philosophical dunce.""
Wow, an ad-hom! I have come to expect those when people start to run out of arguments. Thanks!
You said: ""But its highly probable.""
I said: "Based on what? So far, you have posited that probability is based on mathematics, which itself must be based on probability, if certainty is not possible in your worldview."
You responded: ""Get over it, I've already justified it.
Certainty is possible if you accept that we are arguing as a sign of existence.""
Problem is, one would first have to know for certain that the senses and reason used to reach the conclusion that an argument is taking place are reliable.
Otherwise, it could never be known for certain that there is arguing going on, and therefore it could not be known for certain that there is existence.
Tell me Vagon, how do you know that your senses and reason are reliable apart from God?
""Here you have two options:
1. If you do not believe we are arguing, then stop and go on living absurdly.
2. If you do, concede that this is evidence of logic and that by that same logic, and we can agree with certainty that mathematics is defended tautologically.""
Actually, I reject your false dichotomy and choose option #3: God has revealed some things to us in ways that we can know them for certain. Do you deny this possibility?
I said:
Why do I need an ultimate authority?
scmike said:
Otherwise, you have no basis or justification for anything you claim to know, apart from yourself. This makes all your statements and claims purely subjective (i.e. meaningless), if there is no foundation/authority to support them.
I would say your claims are just as subjective as mine. All you've done is invented an ultimate authority and named it God. It still comes from you. Can you demonstrate that subjective claims are meaningless? Can you demonstrate that 100% objectivity exists?
In order to be valid, an ultimate authority must claim itself to be an ultimate authority and then prove itself internally.
I haven't seen or experienced God making such a claim. All I have is you making the claim on God's behalf.
The Christian God does so in that He accounts for the existence of the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that we are both using to hold this discussion and by which you are evaluating my arguments, whereas no other worldview can or does.
By what means does God do this?
By His absolute, immaterial, and universal nature. Laws of logic and reason are a direct reflection of these aspects of God.
Isn't this the same as saying God is logic and reason? If not, please explain why. Also, can you tell me why your God is so interested in my sex life?
Calling my logic "faulty" only serves to demonstrate that you are holding my arguments to an absolute, universal standard of logic that you cannot account for in your worldview. This only serves to confirm the truth and validity of my position.
No, it demonstrates that I am using a standard of logic that we presumably both agree to.
Let's see if we agree. I am using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of God. You?
From other things you've said we appear to be using the same standard; I just don't claim to know that it is absolute or that it comes from God. The fact that you believe it to be an absolute standard that comes from God does not make it so.
I don't assume that God does not exists, nor do I assume that God does exist. Do you really believe those are the only two options?
Neutrality is a myth. One either assumes God as the foundation of logic and reason, or they don't.
You have demonstrated that you don't.
Not assuming something is not the same as assuming its opposite. If I don't assume it will rain today, does that mean I assume it won't rain?
If you intend to use these laws against any of my arguments, you're going to have to explain how they make sense in your worldview. Otherwise, your claims carry zero authority, and only serve to validate my point.
Making a claim that your arguments are validated by a higher authority does not make it so.
So, how about it? How do you account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that you are using to evaluate my arguments? I won't get my hopes up for an answer.
My position is that we both hold worldviews in which laws of logic and reason appear to exist. You have chosen to give yours a name, a gender, a personality, a holy book and a long white beard.
Of the two of us, I am the only one who has provided a claim for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason so far. Where is your justification for these laws, or don't you have one?
Yes, you have provided a claim. Your claim is as yet unsubstantiated. My justification is that laws of logic and reason appear to function. I don't require I higher authority to validate them. I'm curious, would you say you have an authoritarian personality?
If we both agree that we are using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of GOD, how do you explain your foolish denial of His existence?
We appear to agree on what the laws are, but not on their origin or absoluteness.
By the way, why can't "circular arguments" be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?
Can they be used in your worldview?
Virtuously circular arguments, yes. Viciously circular arguments, no.
Would you say that your argument where a premise assumes the existence of God and your conclusion is that God exists is a virtuously circular argument?
I have never said that you must account for laws of logic before using them. However, if you are going to accuse me of begging the question, you do need to justify the foundation from which you are making that claim, otherwise it is merely a baseless assertion.
Do you consider begging the question to be a logical fallacy?
Yes, and I have justification for this because of the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that make sense in my worldview.
Now, what is the foundation for your accusation that my argument begs the question, or don't you have one?
My foundation is the same as yours, I just don't call it God.
P.S. Do you have a problem with this argument?:
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal
I have no problem with it.
I didn't think you would. However, no one could ever prove the first premise of that argument.
True; just as I can't prove the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
Why all the fuss about the first premise of my argument for God (which, by the way, is proven by the impossibility of the contrary)?
wikipedia: In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
In your argument for God, you explicitly assume the existence of God in your first premise and you conclude the existence of God:
1) God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic and reason (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2) Laws of logic and reason exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
So what is the proof of 1? Does it look something like this?:
1) God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic and reason.
2) Laws of logic and reason exist.
3) Therefore, God is the necessary precondition to the laws of logic and reason.
Whew! I'm getting dizzy!
I bet I know.
Based on the last time you thought you knew what I thought, I bet you don't
Why would I care about that? I don't hold a worldview that denies God.
No? Wasn't it you who wrote this?:
""Hi Christopher. I wouldn't actually say I'm defending myself; more like defending reason. Aw, it's too bad scmike isn't here to ask me how I account for reason in my worldview. *sniff*
I've thought about why I comment on Ray's blog and I think it comes down to a couple of reasons. Number one is I enjoy a good debate. If I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't put the effort into it that I do. The deeper reason is that I think that irrational beliefs are harmful to individuals and society as a whole and, yes I do hope that some readers will change their minds. It may be unlikely that hard core Christians like some of the posters here will change, but statistically it is much more likely for a Christian to convert to atheism than the other way around. If nothing else, I'd like to make you think about your beliefs. I'm sorry that your religion causes you the pain of of believing that people you love and care about will suffer for eternity. I don't buy your "rebellion" nonsense, but think about this: sometimes the rebels are the good guys.""
Refusing to acknowledge God as the foundation of all logic and reason by willfully suppressing the truth of His existence IS denying Him. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him, and reveals the unrighteousness of those who do it.
In the last sentence you quoted above I am not saying that I am rebelling. Is that your implication? I am simply pointing out to Christopher that rebellion is not always a bad thing because he thinks I am rebelling.
I'm not suppressing truth or rebelling. If I see good evidence for your God I will believe in Him. If that happens then I can decide if He is worthy of my worship. All I've seen from you are mental traps.
scmike
You said: ""Do you really expect someone to show neuro-chemical reactions to you?""
You made the claim. Prove it or retract it.
Ok scmike, go to your nearest university with a med school. Ask them to show you some MRI or PET scans of people thinking emotionally and thinking rationally. The rational bit, that’s the bit using the logic. You’ll find it’s the same across all normally developed humans.
Sure I have [provided a positive ontology]. You just don't like what was presented to you.
Besides, you still haven't told me on what grounds you assume the validity of ontology as a means of proving anything. If you are honest, you will admit that you trust it on blind faith, with zero justification.
That’s good enough as a concession for me. Evidenced by your inability to even understand what a positive ontology is and no apparent statement. Thanks.
God is the foundation of my reasoning, as my ability to reason is a gift from Him. I can know this for certain by Divine revelation.
You can know this for certain how? Divine revelation? You mean you hear voices in your head? The people in white coats (hint: not catholic preists) would call that a mental disorder.
Hahaha. You know God exists for certain because God exists. You can keep your “God/Allah/Yahweh” given logic if that’s how it works.
Now, how do you know that your reasoning is valid apart from your reasoning?
Kronos told me through divine revelation. Just kidding! The same as you (if you were intellectually honest) because without reasoning this argument is invalid and it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong.
Would those be the non-absolute, non-universal "rules" that you have posited?
No scmikey, those would be the rules of logic that are commonly held. Unfortunately for you circular reasoning is one of them.
If so, then we are NOT both subject to the same rules of logic and I CAN escape it. You should have no problem with that statement if you truly believe that the laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction) aren't univeral and don't necessarily apply to me.
Plus, I create a new "rule" of logic that states anyone who argues as you do, is arguing fallaciously. Wow, creating arbitrary rules of logic is fun!!
I like this creative thinking, its on par with believing the supreme creator of the universe picked your bunch of atoms on one of the billions of planets to love and have a special relationship with. Oh wait, you actually think that!
How do you know that this argument is not one of the exceptions in which the non-absolute, non-universal "rules" of logic do not apply?
I don’t and it doesn’t really matter if I'm wrong. But if I'm right and you do exist, oh boy scmikey, you've gotta be experiencing an epiphany.
""you philosophical dunce.""
Wow, an ad-hom! I have come to expect those when people start to run out of arguments. Thanks!
Look up ad-homimen you philosophical dunce and enjoy the irony of what you wrote above. Hint: It wasn't ad-hom its an observation.
Problem is, one would first have to know for certain that the senses and reason used to reach the conclusion that an argument is taking place are reliable.
Otherwise, it could never be known for certain that there is arguing going on, and therefore it could not be known for certain that there is existence.
Light goes on!
Tell me Vagon, how do you know that your senses and reason are reliable apart from God?
Apart from what, apart from who? You haven’t given your God a positive ontology. How could anyone attribute senses to a broken concept?
Hey and scmike, why your God? Why not Vishnu?
Actually, I reject your false dichotomy and choose option #3: God has revealed some things to us in ways that we can know them for certain. Do you deny this possibility?
Kronos divinely revealed to me that I don’t need to "deny" an unfounded assertion. Kidding again :) actually it was just regular old logic!
Noble,
""I would say your claims are just as subjective as mine.""
That doesn't surprise me. However, I do appreciate the admission that your claims (including the one above) are all purely subjective, and therefore unprovable. Thanks.
""All you've done is invented an ultimate authority and named it God. It still comes from you.""
Problem is, this is just another subjective claim that you have made with zero basis or justification. Please prove it or remove it.
""Can you demonstrate that subjective claims are meaningless?""
Sure. See above.
""Can you demonstrate that 100% objectivity exists?""
Sure. Absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction) exist objectively.
I said: "In order to be valid, an ultimate authority must claim itself to be an ultimate authority and then prove itself internally."
You said: ""I haven't seen or experienced God making such a claim.""
Yikes!! You mean they don't have Bibles where you live? :)
""All I have is you making the claim on God's behalf""
Not so. The Bible is God's objective revelation through which He has revealed Himself to mankind. We know this to be true, as it is the only "Holy Book" which comports with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities, and is internally consistent.
I said: "By His absolute, immaterial, and universal nature. Laws of logic and reason are a direct reflection of these aspects of God.""
You asked: ""Isn't this the same as saying God is logic and reason?""
No.
""If not, please explain why.""
Gladly. Absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason are aspects of God's character and nature. They reflect the way God thinks and how He expects us to think since we are made in His image.
""Also, can you tell me why your God is so interested in my sex life?""
I'm not sure I follow ya here, Noble. What does this have to do with logic?
I said: "Let's see if we agree. I am using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of God. You?"
You said: ""From other things you've said we appear to be using the same standard;""
I don't doubt that. However, only one of us can account for that standard. Odd, huh?
""I just don't claim to know that it is absolute or that it comes from God.""
Perhaps this will help you. If you believe laws of logic are not absolute (i.e. unchanging), provide me with an example of a law of logic that has been changed.
How would one determine that a law of logic was invalid (i.e. illogical) and in need of changing without an overriding, unchanging standard of logic to tell them this?
If you believe that logic can be accounted for apart from God, provide your contrary claim, and we can compare. I have asked you several times to do this, but to no avail.
""The fact that you believe it to be an absolute standard that comes from God does not make it so.""
Where have I claimed to BELIEVE this? I KNOW it for certain. The fact that you (or anyone else, for that matter) has been unable to posit a sound contrary claim for the existence of laws of logic demonstrates this truth.
I said: "Neutrality is a myth. One either assumes God as the foundation of logic and reason, or they don't.
You have demonstrated that you don't."
You said: ""Not assuming something is not the same as assuming its opposite. If I don't assume it will rain today, does that mean I assume it won't rain?""
If you hold the presuppostion that rain doesn't exist, yes.
You see, Noble, one cannot autonomously reason to God being the foundation of their reason, as that is self-refuting. One must first acknowledge God to be the foundation of all reason and logic and then reason FROM this position.
I said: "If you intend to use these laws against any of my arguments, you're going to have to explain how they make sense in your worldview. Otherwise, your claims carry zero authority, and only serve to validate my point."
You said: ""Making a claim that your arguments are validated by a higher authority does not make it so.""
Here is a good example of what I was talking about. By what authority do you make this claim? Yourself?
Without a foundation on which to base it, your claim is merely an unfounded assertion which you have zero justification for making.
I asked: "So, how about it? How do you account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that you are using to evaluate my arguments? I won't get my hopes up for an answer."
You said: ""My position is that we both hold worldviews in which laws of logic and reason appear to exist.""
The problem is, laws of logic and reason (as well as any laws, for that matter) only make sense in the Christian worldview. How do you justify using absolute, immaterial, universal laws in an atheistic worldview? So far, you've given me nada.
I said: "Of the two of us, I am the only one who has provided a claim for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason so far. Where is your justification for these laws, or don't you have one?"
You said: ""Yes, you have provided a claim. Your claim is as yet unsubstantiated.""
My claim is substantiated by the impossibility of the contrary. The fact that you hold a contrary worldview and (still) cannot provide a claim which accounts for absolute laws of logic and reason demonstrates this fact.
You said: ""My justification is that laws of logic and reason appear to function.""
Now you've got several other problems to deal with:
1) How do you know that your reasoning about this is valid?
2) Since you use logic and reason to interpret what your senses tell you (i.e. observations), you are now arguing that laws of logic and reason appear to function based on.....logic and reason.
3) In order to say that logic appears to be functioning, you would need to know the correct workings of logic. How do you presume to know this?
""I don't require I higher authority to validate them.""
"I" higher authority, huh? Looks like we may have a Freudian slip here.
On what basis do you assume laws of logic to be valid? Your own reasoning and observations? I have already shown the circularity in trying to justify your reason with your reason.
""I'm curious, would you say you have an authoritarian personality?""
Only God knows. ;)
I said: "If we both agree that we are using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of GOD, how do you explain your foolish denial of His existence?"
You said: ""We appear to agree on what the laws are, but not on their origin or absoluteness.""
Then, we are not in agreement at all, as your beliefs about the laws of logic do not comport with the reality of the laws of logic.
I asked: "By the way, why can't "circular arguments" be used to arrive at truth in your worldview?"
You asked: ""Can they be used in your worldview?""
I answered: "Virtuously circular arguments, yes. Viciously circular arguments, no."
You then asked: ""Would you say that your argument where a premise assumes the existence of God and your conclusion is that God exists is a virtuously circular argument?""
Yes. I would also say, that the concept of virtuously circular arguments (or any arguments, for that matter) only makes sense in a worldview that accounts for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic. How do you account for any of these concepts in your worldview?
You see, Noble, at the basis of my argument, I have justification for trusting the validity of my senses and reason apart from my senses and reason...Divine revelation from God.
You are stuck with the viciously circular argument that you sense and reason your senses and reasoning to be valid. I at least have a possible avenue to certainty, whereas you have none from which to base any criticism of my argument. Why trust such a hopeless worldview?
I asked: "Now, what is the foundation for your accusation that my argument begs the question, or don't you have one?"
You said: ""My foundation is the same as yours, I just don't call it God.""
Sorry Noble, my foundation for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason is the God of the Bible, as He is the necessary precondition for these laws.
Please explain how the non-existence of God accounts for these absolute, immaterial, universal laws in your worldview.
I said: "I didn't think you would. However, no one could ever prove the first premise of that argument."
You said: ""True; just as I can't prove the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.""
What you don't realize is that you can't prove anything in your worldview, as proof presupposes absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason, which cannot be accounted for apart from God.
I asked: "Why all the fuss about the first premise of my argument for God (which, by the way, is proven by the impossibility of the contrary)?"
You said: ""In your argument for God, you explicitly assume the existence of God in your first premise and you conclude the existence of God:""
Tell me Noble, by what standard of logic and reason is this not allowed? What you are doing is trying to use laws of logic to disprove the very source of laws of logic. Surely you can see the problem with THAT?
What you may not realize is that all arguments/proofs at their root contain presuppositions (i.e. assumptions).
My presupposition that God exists is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, whereas the premise of the Socrates argument begs the question and is unprovable. Yet, you still have no problem with it. I wonder why?
You said: ""In the last sentence you quoted above I am not saying that I am rebelling. Is that your implication?""
No. I am saying that your willful suppression of the truth of God's existence is rebellion against Him.
You said: ""I'm not suppressing truth or rebelling. If I see good evidence for your God I will believe in Him.""
Then you will never be convinced, as all evidence presented to you will be interpreted via your presupposition that God does not exist. It is impossible to convince someone who does not want to be convinced.
You don't need evidence my friend, you need to stop suppressing the truth and surrender to God.
""If that happens then I can decide if He is worthy of my worship.""
The "if" in your statement is further proof of your willful suppression. Take care.
@Noble--
scmike said to you:
You don't need evidence my friend, you need to stop suppressing the truth and surrender to God.
and:
The "if" in your statement is further proof of your willful suppression. Take care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're in trouble now, Noble. scmike has just tagged you as a suppressive person.
Oh wait--wrong cult. That's scientology. All these cults start sounding the same after awhile.
Vagon,
You said: ""Do you really expect someone to show neuro-chemical reactions to you?""
I said: "You made the claim. Prove it or retract it."
You responded: ""Ok scmike, go to your nearest university with a med school. Ask them to show you some MRI or PET scans of people thinking emotionally and thinking rationally. The rational bit, that’s the bit using the logic.""
Problem is, what is "rational" thinking without a universal standard of logic to define it? Please explain how random chemical reactions in billions of different brains give us invariant, universal laws.
Besides, how do you know that what you observe on an MRI or PET scan are in fact laws of logic, especially since the brains producing this information are themselves subject to laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction)? Also, how do you know that the laws of logic produced by the chemicals in your brain are the same as the laws produced in anyone else's brain?
I would also like to know on what grounds you assume that the laws of logic produced by your brain are the correct laws of logic? If someone else's brain produced laws of logic that contradicted the laws produced by your brain, how would you determine which laws were "correct"?
""You’ll find it’s the same across all normally developed humans.""
I can't wait to hear how you presume to know this. Have you examined all "normally" developed brains? By what standard does one determine which brains are normal, as opposed to abnormal?
""That’s good enough as a concession for me.""
But you could be wrong about that, right? As I said before, your assumption that I have conceded anything is made with zero basis in rationality or certainty. Again, I am pleased with that.
I said: "God is the foundation of my reasoning, as my ability to reason is a gift from Him. I can know this for certain by Divine revelation."
You said: ""You can know this for certain how? Divine revelation? You mean you hear voices in your head? The people in white coats (hint: not catholic preists) would call that a mental disorder.""
Nope, no voices. God, however, has revealed Himself to us in ways that we can be certain of who He is and what He expects of us regarding logic and morality, via natural and special revelation.
Do you deny the possibility that an omniscient God could do this?
You said: ""Hahaha. You know God exists for certain because God exists.""
Not quite. I know God exists by the impossibility of the contrary. However, since you brought it up, would the above argument be wrong? If so, by what standard of logic?
I asked: "Now, how do you know that your reasoning is valid apart from your reasoning?"
You said: ""Kronos told me through divine revelation. Just kidding!""
Rats!! And I was just about to congratulate you for abandoning atheism! ;)
""The same as you""
Ok. So we both know our reasoning to be valid based on Divine revelation from the God of the Bible. Why the willful rebellion on your part, then?
""because without reasoning this argument is invalid and it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong.""
Did you reason that?
I asked: "Would those be the non-absolute, non-universal "rules" that you have posited?"
You said: ""No scmikey, those would be the rules of logic that are commonly held.""
Which, according to you, are material, and therefore non-universal and non-absolute.
You can claim this all you want, but you have demonstrated over and over again that you don't live consistently with this belief.
Your comment below is yet another demonstration of this fact.
""Unfortunately for you circular reasoning is one of them.""
Priceless!
I said: "If so, then we are NOT both subject to the same rules of logic and I CAN escape it. You should have no problem with that statement if you truly believe that the laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction) aren't univeral and don't necessarily apply to me.
Plus, I create a new "rule" of logic that states anyone who argues as you do, is arguing fallaciously. Wow, creating arbitrary rules of logic is fun!!"
You said: ""I like this creative thinking,""
Just demonstrating the madness and absurdity that your worldview leads to.
""its on par with believing the supreme creator of the universe picked your bunch of atoms on one of the billions of planets to love and have a special relationship with. Oh wait, you actually think that!""
Where have I ever claimed to THINK or BELIEVE this? I KNOW it for certain (as do you)!
I asked: "How do you know that this argument is not one of the exceptions in which the non-absolute, non-universal "rules" of logic do not apply?"
You said: ""I don’t and it doesn’t really matter if I'm wrong.""
Then you DO and it DOES matter if you're wrong! Again, you should have no problem with this if laws of logic don't necessarily apply to this discussion.
""But if I'm right and you do exist, oh boy scmikey, you've gotta be experiencing an epiphany.""
What you don't realize is that "right" and "wrong" don't comport with your worldview either, and must be borrowed from the Christian worldview.
You see, if evolution is true, then our thoughts are just the by-products of random chemical processes in our evolved brains. My brain just happens to produce Christianity and yours produces atheism.
You could no more be "right" about anything than the reaction produced by mixing baking soda and vinegar could be "right". The most evolution could ever give you is that which "is".
The fact that you are even arguing demonstrates the fact that you don't live according to your professed beliefs, which exposes yet another inconsistency in your worldview. I would advise giving this some serious thought, while you still can.
You said: ""you philosophical dunce.""
I said: ""Wow, an ad-hom! I have come to expect those when people start to run out of arguments. Thanks!""
You said: ""Look up ad-homimen you philosophical dunce and enjoy the irony of what you wrote above. Hint: It wasn't ad-hom its an observation.""
Quick question. If we both evolved, how do you know that I didn't evolve "right" and you evolved "wrong" and are therefore the "philosophical dunce"? Let me know.
I said: "Tell me Vagon, how do you know that your senses and reason are reliable apart from God?"
You said: ""Apart from what, apart from who? You haven’t given your God a positive ontology.""
Nice dodge!! Man, you juked and jived like a pro on that one. Don't worry, I know why you don't want to answer. ;)
You asked: ""Hey and scmike, why your God? Why not Vishnu?""
If you believe that vishnu accounts for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason, posit him as your claim and I'll show you.
I said: "Actually, I reject your false dichotomy and choose option #3: God has revealed some things to us in ways that we can know them for certain. Do you deny this possibility?"
You said: ""Kronos divinely revealed to me that I don’t need to "deny" an unfounded assertion. Kidding again :)""
I always find it amusing when atheists see that they must evoke a deity to account for the laws of logic because their own worldview can't. Not Kidding :)
""actually it was just regular old logic!""
Which you have not and cannot account for in your worldview.
I said:
I would say your claims are just as subjective as mine.
scmike said:
That doesn't surprise me. However, I do appreciate the admission that your claims (including the one above) are all purely subjective, and therefore unprovable. Thanks.
Are you saying that any amount of subjectivity makes something "purely subjective"?
All you've done is invented an ultimate authority and named it God. It still comes from you.
Problem is, this is just another subjective claim that you have made with zero basis or justification. Please prove it or remove it.
My justification is that you are the one I'm arguing with. God is not in evidence.
Can you demonstrate that subjective claims are meaningless?
Sure. See above.
You said above that subjective claims are unprovable. Your are now saying that unprovable claims are meaningless? Earlier you stated that "all men are mortal" was unprovable. Is that a meaningless claim now?
Can you demonstrate that 100% objectivity exists
Sure. Absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction) exist objectively.
Such laws appear to exist and may exist outside the human mind but all either one of us can do is assume that. We are both limited by the limits of our minds, despite your claim to have a higher authority. Something which originates in the human mind is, by definition, subjective to some degree. All we can hope for is to approach 100% objectivity, but we can never reach it; or at least we can never be certain that we have reached it. Does that idea frighten you?
In order to be valid, an ultimate authority must claim itself to be an ultimate authority and then prove itself internally.
I haven't seen or experienced God making such a claim. All I have is you making the claim on God's behalf
Not so. The Bible is God's objective revelation through which He has revealed Himself to mankind. We know this to be true, as it is the only "Holy Book" which comports with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities, and is internally consistent.
Again, all I have is your claim that this is so.
Also, can you tell me why your God is so interested in my sex life?
I'm not sure I follow ya here, Noble. What does this have to do with logic?
Exactly.
Let's see if we agree. I am using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of God. You?
From other things you've said we appear to be using the same standard;
I don't doubt that. However, only one of us can account for that standard. Odd, huh?
If by "account for" you mean "make something up" then I'd say we can both account for it
I just don't claim to know that it is absolute or that it comes from God.
Perhaps this will help you. If you believe laws of logic are not absolute (i.e. unchanging), provide me with an example of a law of logic that has been changed.
I don't know if they are absolute. I don't rule out the possibility; in fact it seems highly likely that they are absolute. Again you are making the assumption that not believing something is the same as believing its opposite.
How would one determine that a law of logic was invalid (i.e. illogical) and in need of changing without an overriding, unchanging standard of logic to tell them this?
One would use one's only available tool, the mind.
If you believe that logic can be accounted for apart from God, provide your contrary claim, and we can compare. I have asked you several times to do this, but to no avail.
And yet here I am, using logic, and no God in sight!
The fact that you believe it to be an absolute standard that comes from God does not make it so.
Where have I claimed to BELIEVE this? I KNOW it for certain.
Could one know something for certain and be wrong about it? How do you know that you're right? How do you even know that you're certain?
The fact that you (or anyone else, for that matter) has been unable to posit a sound contrary claim for the existence of laws of logic demonstrates this truth.
And yet we both are aware of the existence of laws of logic.
Neutrality is a myth. One either assumes God as the foundation of logic and reason, or they don't.
You have demonstrated that you don't.
Not assuming something is not the same as assuming its opposite. If I don't assume it will rain today, does that mean I assume it won't rain?
If you hold the presuppostion that rain doesn't exist, yes.
Well, I don't hold that presupposition; nor do I hold the presupposition that God doesn't exist. There are potentially an infinite number of that do exist but are left out of my worldview because I am unaware of them. God might be one of those things or He might be one of the infinite number of things that are left out of my worldview because they actually don't exist.
You see, Noble, one cannot autonomously reason to God being the foundation of their reason, as that is self-refuting. One must first acknowledge God to be the foundation of all reason and logic and then reason FROM this position.
So your position is based on faith. That's what I thought. I guess we're done then.
If you intend to use these laws against any of my arguments, you're going to have to explain how they make sense in your worldview. Otherwise, your claims carry zero authority, and only serve to validate my point.
Making a claim that your arguments are validated by a higher authority does not make it so.
Here is a good example of what I was talking about. By what authority do you make this claim? Yourself?
Without a foundation on which to base it, your claim is merely an unfounded assertion which you have zero justification for making.
Oh no! I guess that means you don't have any justification for your claims either then.
So, how about it? How do you account for the absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that you are using to evaluate my arguments? I won't get my hopes up for an answer.
My position is that we both hold worldviews in which laws of logic and reason appear to exist.
The problem is, laws of logic and reason (as well as any laws, for that matter) only make sense in the Christian worldview. How do you justify using absolute, immaterial, universal laws in an atheistic worldview? So far, you've given me nada.
They make sense to me and I don't hold a Christian worldview.
Of the two of us, I am the only one who has provided a claim for the existence of absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason so far. Where is your justification for these laws, or don't you have one?
Yes, you have provided a claim. Your claim is as yet unsubstantiated.
My claim is substantiated by the impossibility of the contrary. The fact that you hold a contrary worldview and (still) cannot provide a claim which accounts for absolute laws of logic and reason demonstrates this fact.
And yet logic and reason continue to appear to function in my world and I will go on using them as long as they go on working. What choice do I have?
My justification is that laws of logic and reason appear to function.
Now you've got several other problems to deal with:
1) How do you know that your reasoning about this is valid?
It seems to be valid.
2) Since you use logic and reason to interpret what your senses tell you (i.e. observations), you are now arguing that laws of logic and reason appear to function based on.....logic and reason.
That could be. All I know is they appear to function. I guess I could make up some higher authority to explain it instead.
3) In order to say that logic appears to be functioning, you would need to know the correct workings of logic. How do you presume to know this?
By making up a higher authority to explain it. Oh wait, that's you.
On what basis do you assume laws of logic to be valid? Your own reasoning and observations? I have already shown the circularity in trying to justify your reason with your reason.
Oh well. It's all either of us has. Well, except you have faith.
I'm curious, would you say you have an authoritarian personality?
Only God knows. ;)
Maybe you should ask Him next time you two are chatting.
If we both agree that we are using absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic that reflect the character and nature of GOD, how do you explain your foolish denial of His existence?
We appear to agree on what the laws are, but not on their origin or absoluteness.
Then, we are not in agreement at all, as your beliefs about the laws of logic do not comport with the reality of the laws of logic.
I guess we can't debate then.
Would you say that your argument where a premise assumes the existence of God and your conclusion is that God exists is a virtuously circular argument?
Yes. I would also say, that the concept of virtuously circular arguments (or any arguments, for that matter) only makes sense in a worldview that accounts for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic. How do you account for any of these concepts in your worldview?
You see, Noble, at the basis of my argument, I have justification for trusting the validity of my senses and reason apart from my senses and reason...Divine revelation from God.
You are stuck with the viciously circular argument that you sense and reason your senses and reasoning to be valid. I at least have a possible avenue to certainty, whereas you have none from which to base any criticism of my argument. Why trust such a hopeless worldview?
I trust my senses and reason because they are all I have to go on.
Please explain how the non-existence of God accounts for these absolute, immaterial, universal laws in your worldview.
You're so silly! You and your non-existent things accounting for things!
In your argument for God, you explicitly assume the existence of God in your first premise and you conclude the existence of God
Tell me Noble, by what standard of logic and reason is this not allowed? What you are doing is trying to use laws of logic to disprove the very source of laws of logic. Surely you can see the problem with THAT?
I guess that would be a problem if God were the very source of laws of logic.
What you may not realize is that all arguments/proofs at their root contain presuppositions (i.e. assumptions).
Such as the assumption that logic exists?
My presupposition that God exists is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, whereas the premise of the Socrates argument begs the question and is unprovable. Yet, you still have no problem with it. I wonder why?
Let me guess. Because I'm rebelling against God?
I'm not suppressing truth or rebelling. If I see good evidence for your God I will believe in Him.
Then you will never be convinced, as all evidence presented to you will be interpreted via your presupposition that God does not exist. It is impossible to convince someone who does not want to be convinced.
You don't need evidence my friend, you need to stop suppressing the truth and surrender to God.
Yes, I know. First I have to believe in God and then I can understand why it is impossible for God not to exist. Great system He designed isn't it?
If that happens then I can decide if He is worthy of my worship.
The "if" in your statement is further proof of your willful suppression.
How so?
Capt. Howdy,
I said: "No, I don't know of anyone personally who denies the existence of trees, but I do know people who deny the existence of their Creator. Does that count?"
You said: ""Well, if your creator is a tree, I suppose it counts. Do you worship trees?""
What does that have to do with someone denying the Creator of trees? Please advise.
""YDo you deny that our senses are a valid means of learning about the world around us?""
Nope, as it is my position that our senses and reason are wonderful gifts from God.
""If you don't deny it, then what reason is there to "justify" their "validity"?""
Because, without valid senses and reasoning, you can't know or make sense of anything.
You act as if your senses and reasoning are valid, I want to know what grounds you have for making this assumption (although I won't get my hopes up for an answer).
""And what does that phrase even mean, anyway?""
Tell me which word(s) you're having trouble with and I'll see what I can do.
""Where did you get the idea I deny absolutes?""
Oh, I don't know, just the fact that you hold to a worldview that can't account for them. That's all.
""I don't deny absolutes.""
Great! Now tell me how you justify them in your worldview.
""In fact, I'll even give you an example of one: Christians believe they're going to fly when the rapture comes, because it's what the Bible says. Do you deny this?""
Capt., you already know that the Bible is my ultimate authority.
Besides, you have already admitted in our previous conversation that you hold this belief yourself. Remember this?:
I asked: "By what standard of logic is it illogical that God could make people fly?"
You replied: ""Beats me. Seems logical to me that God should be able to make people fly if he's all-powerful.""
Then you said: ""Of course, what God could do is completely irrelevant.""
My reply: "Do I dare ask by what standard of logic and reason you came to this conclusion?? Why should anyone care what conclusions you reach if your standard of logic and reason is purely arbitrary??"
You again: ""I didn't mention what God theoretically could do. What I originally said was that the probability you are going to actually fly one day is zero-which I amended to almost zero, since 'zero' would mean it's absolutely impossible; something I can't prove.""
Me again: "Captain, I am thrilled that you want to discuss the Bible with me.
I will gladly answer this, and your question about demons once you tell me what standard of logic and reason you intend to use in evaluating my responses and how you account for that standard.
Hopefully you'll stop wasting time and answer my question in your next response so we can get down to our Bible study. I'm looking forward to it!! God Bless.""
My offer still stands, Capt. In your own words: "Fish or cut bait, Jethro". Well, how 'bout it?
""If I want to bring your attention to a tree in my front yard, all I'd need to do is point to it. No word games would be necessary, because it would be in plain sight.""
Unless, of course, I held the presupposition that trees do not exist and did not want to be convinced. Amen, Capt.?
""Point to God--show us where He is so that all can visibly see and audibly hear Him. You can't, hence the word games.""
Ah, the old "Crackers in the pantry fallacy". Haven't heard that one in a while. Must all entities be seen and heard in order to exist? If so, what did you see or hear that told you that?
Tell you what, point to the laws of logic-- show us where they are so all can see and audibly hear them, or how about gravitational attraction, knowledge, barometric pressure, natural laws, magnetism, or quasars. Surely you don't deny that any of these exist, yet none can be seen or heard.
""I merely made the observation that you offered no support for your claim that God is necessary for logic & reason to apply to these questions.""
Sorry. My claim is supported by the impossibility of the contrary, as laws of logic and reason cannot be accounted for apart from God.
I said: "My argument is that without God (who is not a man nor practices magic), you can't know anything for certain."
You said: ""Ah, but He is invisible? Hence the need for goofy apologetics.""
Do you deny that abstract entities exist? If so, how do you account for the invisible (i.e. immaterial) laws of logic you are using to hold this conversation?
""Perhaps if you accepted the evidence your senses and reason provide you, you wouldn't need to join a cult.""
Valid senses and reason are evidence for the existence of God, as it is impossible to account for them apart from God.
""You accept the validity of the senses when you walk down the street;""
Of course I do. I have justification for doing so--Divine revelation from God.
On what basis do you assume your senses to be valid? This should be good!
""But when it comes to the apparent absence of God, all of a sudden the senses are no longer reliable.""
Huh? That's your argument. Atheists would rather pretend that they don't know their senses are reliable than to acknowledge the only possible source of this knowledge---God.
""That big, fiery thing in the sky is God? You're a sun worshipper?""
Didn't expect me to call your bluff, huh? So much for your "if God did this, then I'd be convinced" argument.
""Of course, that's the beauty of atheism. The apparent absence of God pretty much speaks for itself.""
Of course, that's the beauty of Christianity, the reality of God speaks for itself. Touche' (again).
You said: ""You assert this in spite of the fact that the laws of logic were worked out by the ancient Greeks hundreds of years before the appearance of Jesus on the historical scene.""
I responded: "One question. How do you suppose those nifty Greeks "worked out" the laws of logic without using an overriding standard of logic?"
Then you said: ""Which is completely beside the point, of course.""
Gotcha' squirmin' a little, huh? I know why you don't want to answer, though. ;)
""It's not a question of whether the Greeks just made up the laws of logic or whether those laws reflect objective reality.""
I don't know if you know this or not, but reality is interpreted via logic. Please tell me you're not going to argue that laws of logic are based on....logic. Yep, you are.
You never did answer my question regarding those nifty Greeks. Here it is again:
Could they have been both Greek and not Greek at the same time and in the same way before they "worked out" the law of non-contradiction? Let me know.
""The point I was making was that you claim that logic is a product of the Christian worldview when it's a historical fact that those laws were worked out by a different culture hundreds of years before Christ appeared on the scene.""
Captain, I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. Laws of logic are a direct reflection of Almighty God, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, who is also the foundation of Christianity.
""Your evasiveness says something about your intellectual honesty, I think.""
Your continual misrepresentation of my claim says something about YOUR intellectual honesty, I know.
""So does the fact that you repeat this false claim even after I've thoroughly refuted it.""
You haven't. You just believe you have.
""You're trying to sell me something--in this case, your religion. If you have to BS me into buying it, what does that say about your religion? Or you, for that matter?""
Nice try, Capt.! However, as I have stated numerous times, it is my position that you already know that God exists, you just willfully suppress this truth in order to avoid accountability to Him. Nothing new.
You said: ""It seems highly dishonest to me.""
I replied: "Ah, arbitrary standards of morality. Gotta love 'em."
Then you said: ""Especially when they're so obviously true you don't even bother to try to deny them.""
So, you're still a shoplifter then?
@scmike--
CH: ""Well, if your creator is a tree, I suppose it counts. Do you worship trees?""
scmike: What does that have to do with someone denying the Creator of trees? Please advise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly. It's reasonable to believe in trees because you can see and touch them. Your God--not so much.
""Do you deny that our senses are a valid means of learning about the world around us?""
Nope, as it is my position that our senses and reason are wonderful gifts from God.
~~~~~~~~
Now if only He would tell me that instead of relying on the local sales rep to do His talking for Him. Why do you suppose He does that?
""If you don't deny it, then what reason is there to "justify" their "validity"?""
Because, without valid senses and reasoning, you can't know or make sense of anything.
You act as if your senses and reasoning are valid, I want to know what grounds you have for making this assumption (although I won't get my hopes up for an answer).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because I can walk from point A to point B successfully by using my senses. When I try that without using them, I bump into things.
""And what does that phrase even mean, anyway?""
Tell me which word(s) you're having trouble with and I'll see what I can do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You see the words I put in quotes when I posed that question to you? Those words.
""Where did you get the idea I deny absolutes?""
Oh, I don't know, just the fact that you hold to a worldview that can't account for them. That's all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Account for"?
""I don't deny absolutes.""
Great! Now tell me how you justify them in your worldview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Justify"?
""In fact, I'll even give you an example of one: Christians believe they're going to fly when the rapture comes, because it's what the Bible says. Do you deny this?""
Capt., you already know that the Bible is my ultimate authority.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which kind of suggests you believe you're going to fly like a kite one day. I also asked you what rules of logic you employed to arrive at that rather peculiar conclusion. I think that's a fair question, since you insist that your religion is the source of all logic. What was your answer again?
Besides, you have already admitted in our previous conversation that you hold this belief yourself. Remember this?:
I asked: "By what standard of logic is it illogical that God could make people fly?"
You replied: ""Beats me. Seems logical to me that God should be able to make people fly if he's all-powerful.""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, please. If I "admitted" that I hold to the view that God will make people fly, then we'd be holy rolling and passing snakes back and forth on Sundays together. My comments concerned the nature of omnipotence, as I'm sure you know full well already.
If you grant that an omnipotent being exists, then certainly He could make people fly if He chose. If leprechauns actually existed, we could use them to find pots of gold, too. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe in leprechauns.
I will gladly answer this, and your question about demons once you tell me what standard of logic and reason you intend to use in evaluating my responses and how you account for that standard.
Hopefully you'll stop wasting time and answer my question in your next response so we can get down to our Bible study. I'm looking forward to it!! God Bless.""
My offer still stands, Capt. In your own words: "Fish or cut bait, Jethro". Well, how 'bout it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, so that's what's holding everything up? Easily remedied.
You know the discussion we're having right now? You know the standard of logic and reason we're using to makes our points? That's the standard I'll use to evaluate your responses. So--start answering those questions.
""If I want to bring your attention to a tree in my front yard, all I'd need to do is point to it. No word games would be necessary, because it would be in plain sight.""
Unless, of course, I held the presupposition that trees do not exist and did not want to be convinced. Amen, Capt.?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apparently "amen" is hebrew for "duh."
Well, since you can see the tree directly in front of you, that would kinda mean that you would have to deny the evidence of your own eyes.
Perhaps a better way to make your point would be simply to say: Pre-suppositionalists are crazy.
""Point to God--show us where He is so that all can visibly see and audibly hear Him. You can't, hence the word games.""
Ah, the old "Crackers in the pantry fallacy". Haven't heard that one in a while. Must all entities be seen and heard in order to exist? If so, what did you see or hear that told you that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proving conclusively that leprechauns exist after all. Well done.
Tell you what, point to the laws of logic-- show us where they are so all can see and audibly hear them, or how about gravitational attraction, knowledge, barometric pressure, natural laws, magnetism, or quasars. Surely you don't deny that any of these exist, yet none can be seen or heard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An excellent point--thanks for bringing it up.
The laws of logic are not conscious sentient beings but rather concepts that describe the nature of reality, and hence cannot be directly seen. Perhaps God cannot be seen for the same reason--He is actually a concept, rather than an actual being?
You just hit a 3-pointer, but it was in the wrong basket.
""I merely made the observation that you offered no support for your claim that God is necessary for logic & reason to apply to these questions.""
Sorry. My claim is supported by the impossibility of the contrary, as laws of logic and reason cannot be accounted for apart from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think I understand now. God exists because...well, because He just has to.
But at least we're making some headway. Now all you have to do is prove that the contrary actually is impossible, and then hand me one o' them snakes!
Do you deny that abstract entities exist? If so, how do you account for the invisible (i.e. immaterial) laws of logic you are using to hold this conversation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, I don't believe you could call logic an entity. I'd call it a concept. Semantics again.
""Perhaps if you accepted the evidence your senses and reason provide you, you wouldn't need to join a cult.""
Valid senses and reason are evidence for the existence of God, as it is impossible to account for them apart from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't know about that. I can easily claim that logic and reason are inherent in reality, like matter and energy are. What proof do I have? Why, the impossibility of the contrary of course!
""You accept the validity of the senses when you walk down the street;""
Of course I do. I have justification for doing so--Divine revelation from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What an interesting thing to say. God tells you when the traffic light changes...?
On what basis do you assume your senses to be valid? This should be good!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You keep asking the same questions over and over but you ignore the answers I give you. I know my senses work because I can walk down the street without walking in front of an oncoming car.
""But when it comes to the apparent absence of God, all of a sudden the senses are no longer reliable.""
Huh? That's your argument.
~~~~~
Well...no. I was paraphrasing you, actually.
You have no problem with the idea that you can use your senses to navigate thru the world. When I point out that those same senses also seem to suggest that there's no Big Invisible Magician in the sky, you start questioning whether the senses are valid or not. It seems inconsistent.
""That big, fiery thing in the sky is God? You're a sun worshipper?""
Didn't expect me to call your bluff, huh? So much for your "if God did this, then I'd be convinced" argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm. You didn't deny it. I guess you really do believe that big, fiery ball in the sky is God. Ray is not going to like this.
""Of course, that's the beauty of atheism. The apparent absence of God pretty much speaks for itself.""
Of course, that's the beauty of Christianity, the reality of God speaks for itself. Touche' (again).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And in the strangest way, too. God displays His reality for all to see by pretending not to be there.
I responded: "One question. How do you suppose those nifty Greeks "worked out" the laws of logic without using an overriding standard of logic?"
Then you said: ""Which is completely beside the point, of course.""
Gotcha' squirmin' a little, huh? I know why you don't want to answer, though. ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did the Greeks use an overriding standard of logic? Sure they did. The problem, of course is that you claim that the laws of logic are Christian in origin, when in fact it was the ancient Greeks that codified them.
And besides, if the laws of logic are laid out in the Bible as you say, then which law of logic state that you are going to fly one day?
I don't know if you know this or not, but reality is interpreted via logic. Please tell me you're not going to argue that laws of logic are based on....logic. Yep, you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey, it's better than claiming a Big Invisible Magician poofed them into existence, isn't it?
You never did answer my question regarding those nifty Greeks. Here it is again:
Could they have been both Greek and not Greek at the same time and in the same way before they "worked out" the law of non-contradiction? Let me know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Already answered. Your turn now. Answer the questions I posed to you in this thread, if you please.
""The point I was making was that you claim that logic is a product of the Christian worldview when it's a historical fact that those laws were worked out by a different culture hundreds of years before Christ appeared on the scene.""
Captain, I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. Laws of logic are a direct reflection of Almighty God, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, who is also the foundation of Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, it's plenty clear, all right. It's so clear I can see right thru it.
So, Aristotle was a Christian? Do you suppose he worked out the rules of reason and logic by reading the Bible?
""Your evasiveness says something about your intellectual honesty, I think.""
Your continual misrepresentation of my claim says something about YOUR intellectual honesty, I know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I misrepresented you? Why, mike, I'm terribly sorry. Where did I do that? I'll fix it.
Now when are you going to fix your claim that logic is Christian in origin?
""So does the fact that you repeat this false claim even after I've thoroughly refuted it.""
You haven't. You just believe you have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wasn't aware the Bible was used as a logic text in Ancient Greece. Where did you get an idea like that?
""You're trying to sell me something--in this case, your religion. If you have to BS me into buying it, what does that say about your religion? Or you, for that matter?""
Nice try, Capt.! However, as I have stated numerous times, it is my position that you already know that God exists, you just willfully suppress this truth in order to avoid accountability to Him. Nothing new.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If that's true, it must be a different God than the one you're advertising, since you seem to have to play fast and loose with historical fact to sell that one.
You said: ""It seems highly dishonest to me.""
I replied: "Ah, arbitrary standards of morality. Gotta love 'em."
Then you said: ""Especially when they're so obviously true you don't even bother to try to deny them.""
So, you're still a shoplifter then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You still didn't deny it.
I don't know why you call me a shoplifter. Since you don't know who I am, you can hardly know whether or not I shoplift. But I've seen you give your religion credit for the laws of logic and reason when in fact they were discovered by a different culture that believed in a different religion.
I have a basis for my charge. What's your basis for calling me a shoplifter?
noble,
""Are you saying that any amount of subjectivity makes something "purely subjective"?""
No. A total lack of objectivity does, though.
You said: ""All you've done is invented an ultimate authority and named it God. It still comes from you.""
I said: "Problem is, this is just another subjective claim that you have made with zero basis or justification. Please prove it or remove it."
You said: ""My justification is that you are the one I'm arguing with. God is not in evidence.""
Unless you are "arguing" void of logic, your arguments ARE evidence for God's existence.
""You said above that subjective claims are unprovable.""
If there is no objectivity on which to base the claim, yes.
""Your are now saying that unprovable claims are meaningless?""
"Meaningless" in the sense that they have no foundation or authority by which to arrive at truth/knowledge, yes.
""Earlier you stated that "all men are mortal" was unprovable. Is that a meaningless claim now?""
In my worldview, no. In your worldview, yes. I have access to absolute knowledge, you do not.
You asked: ""Can you demonstrate that 100% objectivity exists""
I said: "Sure. Absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction) exist objectively."
You said: ""Such laws appear to exist and may exist outside the human mind but all either one of us can do is assume that. We are both limited by the limits of our minds, despite your claim to have a higher authority.""
Your argument begs the question that God does not exist and could not reveal these things to us so that we can be certain of them. Please prove this or retract it.
""Something which originates in the human mind is, by definition, subjective to some degree. All we can hope for is to approach 100% objectivity, but we can never reach it;""
Where is the objective proof that we cannot reach 100% objectivity? Sounds like a purely subjective claim (i.e. belief) to me.
""or at least we can never be certain that we have reached it.""
You've got to stop doing this, Noble! Are you certain that we can never be certain that we have reached 100% objectivity?
""Does that idea frighten you?""
No. The incon