Divine revelation

[NormATive]

I know the Bible is inspired due to God's revelation and the internal evidence of the text itself, granting immediate epistemic certainty. The outward demonstration of that being that being that, when you reject the biblical worldview, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, and to argue against it you have to appeal to, and depend on principles which only the worldview you wish to refute can account for.

That's fine, but you already admitted you worship the wrong supernatural book. You worship the one written by men.

So you've been wasting my time throughout this entire conversation arguing for a position you don't even believe in? That's intentionally deceptive. It also changes things.

When I was on the debate team at University, I argued many times for positions with which I wasn't in total agreement.

Proverbs 1:7 says .... Blah, blah, blah...With that in mind, how does your non-theist worldview stack up to the biblical challenge? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
And keep in mind that any reply that ignores this challenge begs the question by assuming (rather than proving) that knowledge is possible apart from the biblical God.

Now you are again quoting scripture written by men and not the one hand written by G-d. However, my worldview stands just fine.

I don't bother myself with WHERE what I know comes from. What is the point of that? We all do what we feel is the right thing to do anyway. I suspect if you read and understood your Bible to say it was proper to kill little babies, you would find some way of "contextually" explaining it away or ignoring it outright because you are a modern, evolved person.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

I don't bother myself with WHERE what I know comes from.

Then you've not rationally justified your claims, which means you've embraced the cardinal sin in philosophy of arbitrariness.
If you're gonna be arbitrary, then why should anyone take what you say seriously?

What is the point of that?

The point is to rationally justify your claims, and your requests for justification of others' claims. Without the requisite ontic base to ground the preconditions you depend upon in everything you do, and an epistemology which makes that base known, you have no rational basis for doing, saying, thinking anything (including the claim that contradictions are not possible). We're about to see an example of this below.

We all do what we feel is the right thing to do anyway.

How do you know that other minds even exists, let alone what "we all" supposedly do? That would require logical absolutes, the basic reliability of your senses, memory, and cognitive faculties. How do you know those are reliable?

[shunyadragon]

Well, I'm a member of a local Jewish community, they know I am non-theistic, and they accept me as I am. No one is trying to convert me. As long as I pay my tithe, do the work of the community, support the youth of the Shul, wether or not I believe in a supernatural deity is beside the point.

I am playing the critical devils advocate here, and continue to argue against the search for comfort and convenience of religious choices.

There are many underlying problems in ancient worldviews like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. First and foremost is their exclusive narrow archaic view of exclusive Revelation, scripture, and only one true tradition and belief, which remains in the more liberal congregation of these beliefs. One may search for the shoes that fit for comfort in a particular congregation as liberal, conservative or other preference, but these beliefs remain anchored in ancient scripture, ritual and worldviews that do not embrace any form of universal truly diverse perspective, Allowing atheists to me is a bit condescending, and being a member of Jewish congregation is a contradiction for either anchored in culture and tradition, or for comfort and convenience.

I consider Unitarian and Baha'i hard and difficult choices in the quest for the universal and the diverse nature of humanist and theist expression in humanity, which is lacking in ancient world views.

I'm not the only one, either.

I realize this, and brought this up in a previous discussion. Addressed above.

I have many friends in the UU church as well as some among the Baha'i, but I'm not into crystals and chanting and all that other mystical stuff. Secular Judaism is a happy place for me. Culturally, I "get" all the feasts and celebrations and rituals, so the learning curve is easy.

In previous discussion this has been brought up. I am personally not into crystals either, but, of course Jews are at times also into their own chanting. It wrong to stereotype UUs in this manner. Not all UUs are into crystals and chanting, but I have always admired them for their tolerance of the diversity of beliefs from a humanist perspective.

I believe this a very appropriate discussion based on the issue of what is the nature of Divine Revelation and Belief in religions. this one of my purposes in my dialogue on Tweb. Why do people believe as they do? and What is nature of choices and free will in religious belief?

To say yes or no, is to be anchored on two feet.

paraphrased from the Bahagvagita

[NormATive]

Then you've not rationally justified your claims, which means you've embraced the cardinal sin in philosophy of arbitrariness.
If you're gonna be arbitrary, then why should anyone take what you say seriously?

Neither have you. You are only relying on your understanding of a book that could have been written by liars.

The point is to rationally justify your claims

No, it's not except in your weird "ontic" universe. The point is to live your life with meaning.

and your requests for justification of others' claims.

Sorry, chum, but you're the only one requesting everyone to justify their beliefs while excusing yourself from the same burden by telling us that you are singularly clued into the truth because you base all of your knowledge on the One True deity.

Of course, I've blown your cover by revealing that you base all of your knowledge of your deity on a book written by men who could really be just liars.

Without the requisite ontic base to ground the preconditions you depend upon in everything you do, and an epistemology which makes that base known, you have no rational basis for doing, saying, thinking anything (including the claim that contradictions are not possible).

Nor do you. You base your ontic-ism on your interpretation of a book that could have been written by liars.

How do you know that other minds even exists,

I'm beginning to doubt the existence of one mind in particular. "Wink"

You know, your insistence that you have it all figured out reminds me of a pastor friend of mine who runs a mission in Haiti. One of their mission projects many years ago was to try and reach some of the Carib tribes scattered on obscure islands in the Carribean Sea. One such tribe still practiced (in a ceremonial way) canibalism. Interestingly, they say that they received confirmation of their ancient belief system from another Christian missionary who gave them a copy of John's gospel translated into their native language. The leader of this group claimed the Lord's Supper scripture validated their canibalism!

So, stop trying to lure those oysters out of the ocean Mr. Walrus.

NORM

[NormATive]

I am playing the critical devils advocate here, and continue to argue against the search for comfort and convenience of religious choices.

There are many underlying problems in ancient worldviews like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. First and foremost is their exclusive narrow archaic view of exclusive Revelation, scripture, and only one true tradition and belief, which remains in the more liberal congregation of these beliefs. One may search for the shoes that fit for comfort in a particular congregation as liberal, conservative or other preference, but these beliefs remain anchored in ancient scripture, ritual and wolrldviews that do not embrace any form of universal truly diverse perspective, Allowing atheists to me is a bit condescending, and being a member of Jewish congregation is a contradiction for either anchored in culture and tradition, or for comfort and convenience.

I consider Unitarian and Baha'i hard and difficult choices in the quest for the universal and the diverse nature of humanist and theist expression in humanity, which is lacking in ancient world views.



I realize this, and brought this up in a previous discussion. Addressed above.



In previous discussion this has been brought up. I am personally not into crystals either, but, of course Jews are at times also into their own chanting. It wrong to stereotype UUs in this manner. Not all UUs are into crystals and chanting, but I have always admired them for their tolerance of the diversity of beliefs from a humanist perspective.

I believe this a very appropriate discussion based on the issue of what is the nature of Divine Revelation and Belief in religions.

I understand and agree with all you are saying, Shuny. I'm just telling you that Judaism (Reformed) fulfills my irrational need for grappling with the unknown. It is also much more efficient to do charitable works as part of a group rather than go it alone.

Our Shul works with many interfaith groups, Baha'i among them, in service projects in our city.

I don't mean to cast aspersions on the crystal groups or the Kabbalists - just not of interest to me.

NORM

[Doug Shaver]

You'll have to forgive me here, but I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounded like you started off disagreeing with him, but then went on to say that what he said is actually the core presupposition of my view...???

He said you believe that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. If I have understood you correctly, you do believe that the Bible is inspired, but you don't believe it because the Bible says so. You believe it because you just presuppose the Bible's divine inspiration. Have I understood you correctly on that point?

[NormATive]

He said you believe that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. If I have understood you correctly, you do believe that the Bible is inspired, but you don't believe it because the Bible says so. You believe it because you just presuppose the Bible's divine inspiration. Have I understood you correctly on that point?

Either way his "logical" argument from presupposition is busted. Better to just admit he accepts religion by faith like everyone else and stop annoying everyone with the Van Til spiel. I know he thinks it novel, but really; I attended a Dutch Reformed Church in the 80s. It fell flat then, too - even while I was still a Christian.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

Neither have you.

Yes, I have. I've presented a transcendental argument, which you've ignored. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

You are only relying on your understanding of a book...

I've relied on what God's written revelation says, when read in context.

...that could have been written by liars.

Such a statement assumes that God is not the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. You now must provide yourself, from your own worldview.
What is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility in your worldview? And what is the epistemology which makes that base known?

No, it's not except in your weird "ontic" universe.

Anytime you walk into the marketplace of ideas and present a view of reality, the point is always to justify your claims. Otherwise you're just being arbitrary, and thus irrational.

The point is to live your life with meaning.

What one considers to have "meaning" or to be meaningful, depends upon the view of reality they espouse. Yet you have not rationally justified your view of reality, ergo your appeal to "meaning" begs the question.

Sorry, chum, but you're the only one requesting everyone to justify their beliefs while excusing yourself from the same burden

Not at all. I've presented a justification for my view: a transcendental argument, which you've actually been strengthening this whole time by proving my point. The Christian can answer the key problems in epistemology, and the non-christian cannot. I suspect that that's why you choose to dodge the argument instead of trying to refute it.

...by telling us that you are singularly clued into the truth because you base all of your knowledge on the One True deity.

Straw man fallacy. I said that the Christian worldview is true, that all men (even you) know God in your heart of hearts, and you suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Further, I said that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, and that if you reject that view, you adopt a view that reduces to absurdity. So all men have truth, but not all men will admit to knowing their Holy Creator. And I did not merely claim that. I presented a transcendental argument for it.

Of course, I've blown your cover by revealing that you base all of your knowledge of your deity on a book written by men...

There's no "cover" to "blow" as your argument hinges on an arbitrary assumption.

...who could really be just liars.

As I stated above, this can only be asserted as true, if the Christian worldview is false, which means you must present a rational foundation for having knowledge in your worldview, lest you beg the question against mine.

Nor do you. You base your ontic-ism on your interpretation of a book that could have been written by liars.

And with that you've gotten yourself into quite the pickle. Without that view of reality, how do you know what a lie is, much less what a man is, or that men lie?

I'm beginning to doubt the existence of one mind in particular. "Wink"

Personal attacks are no substitute for a reasoned case for your espoused position.
By the way, when you say that you "doubt" the existence of a particular mind (or anything else), how can you know for sure what the words that you're using to express your doubt even mean? What is the standard of truth in your worldview?

You know, your insistence that you have it all figured out...

Straw man fallacy. I never said I "figured it all out". God has revealed it, and revealed it quite clearly.

[Mr. Black]

He said you believe that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. If I have understood you correctly, you do believe that the Bible is inspired, but you don't believe it because the Bible says so. You believe it because you just presuppose the Bible's divine inspiration. Have I understood you correctly on that point?

No, not at all. I know (not merely believe) that the Bible is inspired because God said so through, with the message of Scripture containing its own internal proof to the reader, granting immediate epistemic certainty.
Also, when a presupper talks about "presupposing" something (sometimes in presupp literature presuppositions are referred to as "starting points"), we're not using the pop-culture definition of it (merely an arbitrary assumption), nor a temporal starting point, but rather we mean a logical starting point. Something that one holds to be logically primary in their thinking.

Great question, and I appreciate you taking the time to ask it and for your reply.

[Doug Shaver]

but you don't believe it because the Bible says so. You believe it because you just presuppose the Bible's divine inspiration. Have I understood you correctly on that point?

No, not at all.

In light of your subsequent comments, if that is what you think, then your thinking is incoherent.

I know (not merely believe) that the Bible is inspired because God said so through, with the message of Scripture containing its own internal proof to the reader, granting immediate epistemic certainty.

In your lexicon, "God says so" and "The Bible says so" are logically equivalent. You are presupposing divine inspiration. The Bible's own claim to divine inspiration would be irrelevant without that presupposition, and with that presupposition, you would believe it even if the Bible had made no such claim for itself.

Also, when a presupper talks about "presupposing" something (sometimes in presupp literature presuppositions are referred to as "starting points"), we're not using the pop-culture definition of it (merely an arbitrary assumption), nor a temporal starting point, but rather we mean a logical starting point.

Arbitrariness is irrelevant to its logical status. Arbitrary or not, a presupposition is an assumption, and an assumption is a logical starting point. No logical argument can get started without at least one assumption.

[NormATive]

Yes, I have......

Has anyone ever told you how absolutely annoying it is for you to parse every single sentence!?

You still are basing everything you know on the wrong god. You are relying on a text written by possible liars. All your ontic antics can't erase that fact.

Sorry Charlie.

NORM

[Mr. Black]

In light of your subsequent comments, if that is what you think, then your thinking is incoherent.

1.) What is "incoherence" in your worldview?
2.) By what rational, non-arbitrary standard, in your worldview, do you make such a claim?

In your lexicon, "God says so" and "The Bible says so" are logically equivalent.

1.) I don't have a lexicon.
2.) How do you (in fact, how can you) know anything about "logic" in your terms of your worldview? See below for more on this.

You are presupposing divine inspiration.

I think this is where the heart of your confusion lies. In your last reply, you said,
"you do believe that the Bible is inspired, but you don't believe it because the Bible says so."
That's false enough, but then you said,
"You believe it because you just presuppose the Bible's divine inspiration."
What do you mean by "presuppose" here?

The Bible's own claim to divine inspiration would be irrelevant without that presupposition,

"Irrelevant" in regards to what exactly?

and with that presupposition, you would believe it even if the Bible had made no such claim for itself.

No, I wouldn't.

Arbitrariness is irrelevant to its logical status.

1.) What is logic?
2.) Are the laws of logic absolute?
3.) How do you know this?
4.) I'm not talking about assumptions turning out to be lucky guesses. Anytime a person holds something to be logically primary, they hold the position that they know it for sure.

Arbitrary or not, a presupposition is an assumption, and an assumption is a logical starting point. No logical argument can get started without at least one assumption.

This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. No one is arguing that you engage in logical argumentation without holding some truth claim to be logically primary. Part of what I'm getting at here is that the Christian's presupposition (the biblical worldview, including God and His Self-revelation to man) is not arbitrary because God has revealed Himself in such a way that all men know it for certain, and created man in such a way that he can (and does) receive that revelation. So, since all things are from, through, and to God, and we know God, we start with Him logically, in His rightful place. Now, when someone denies their Creator, they must claim something else to be logically primary in their thinking in place of God.

And therein lies the rub. I asked you above a couple questions on logic. I propose you won't be able to answer them without an arbitrary answer. That is, you may perhaps propose a theoretical ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility in your worldview, but you have no epistemology which makes that base known.

[Mr. Black]

Has anyone ever told you how absolutely annoying it is for you to parse every single sentence!?

I understand it can be annoying, and believe me, it's not the effect I want to have on others. But you pack so much error into one sentence that they have to be parced if I'm to address the errors directly.

You still are basing everything you know on the wrong god.

To justifiably claim that something or some truth claim is "wrong" (=false) you need a standard of truth. What is that standard of truth in your worldview? What is the standard of absolute certainty by which you measure the truthfulness of other truth claims you come in contact with, and how can you know about it in terms of your worldview?

You are relying on a text written by possible liars. All your ontic antics can't erase that fact.

And I've pointed out---over and over again---that merely stating this fact is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis, as my worldview agrees with your statement, yet still provides a basis for the text written by those liars to be 100% true: divine inspiration, the infallible Creator God inspiring fallible men to write down exactly what He wanted written down. You have not explained how you know that He did not do that.

Sorry, Normy.

[Mr. Black]

Better to just admit he [Mr. Black] accepts religion by faith...

1.) You've equivocated on the term "faith" here, conflating rational, biblical faith (rational assurance and conviction: Hebrew 11:1) with pop-culture faith: believe in that for which you have no evidence, or belief in a claim without reason.
2.) How can you be sure what "faith" (any definition of it) even is, in terms of your worldview? Where, when, & how did you learn of it?

I attended a Dutch Reformed Church in the 80s. It fell flat then, too - even while I was still a Christian.

If you're not a Christian now then you weren't then either, as Christians are for life. Anyone who goes from professing Christ to denying Christ and leaves the flock does so because they were never part of the flock to begin with (1 John 2:19).

[Truthseeker]

I am still struggling to understand. For one thing, can anything be known really, except for a few facts about oneself (I eat, I sleep, I am typing a post, etc.)? One question is about Islam. They claim that their God is also the Christian God IIRC. However, Islam fails because it does not provide an ontic base, correct?