Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Divine revelation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You have failed to justify your claims? Your only basis is I 'believe,' which is the weakest possible claim.
    Straw man fallacy. That's not the argument, nor the basis for the argument.


    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It is hypothetically possible, but it is also possible that he wants you to lie.
    On what basis do you make such a claim?

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    True, but all we have to go on is your claim as to what the 'Word of God.'
    This assumes that the Bible is not what it claims to be. Please justify this assumption.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Could you be wrong about your claim?
    No.
    What's your rational foundation for this question?

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I believe truth has always existed, but your claim of truth is only based on I believe' it so.
    If you can't be bothered to actually deal with the argument your opponent is using, then I'll be just as flippant and arbitrary as you.
    Your rebuttal here is only based is only based on "I believe that your claim of truth is only based on 'I believe' it so."

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    How do you know from your theist world view, that Aristotle existed?
    You're deflecting. I've given the ontic base which grounds the preconditions in my worldview, and the epistemology which makes that base known, giving the Christian every reason to trust his senses and reasoning.
    I've asked you to do the same from your worldview. If your worldview can provide such a foundation, then please be out with it already.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Same applies to you.
    Could you be wrong about that?



    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Possible, but considering the thousands of different claims that someone knows. It is highly questionable that any one claim knows for certain.
    If you cannot know anything for certain (including the claim of what is, or not "probable", then how does this claim of yours not reduce to complete arbitrary guess work?
    Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      I learned English the same way all other native English speakers learn it.
      How do you know (1) that others exist, and are not illusion (2) that the English language exists, and is not illusory, and (3) how they came to learn English?
      Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        But my friends, family and ancestors are not. Please pay attention.
        Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. What your ancestors claimed to believe is not the issue. What justification your worldview can provide for the things you claim to believe are. Please pay attention and stop trying to change the subject.

        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        So, it should be pretty easy for you to prove it.
        It's proven by the impossibility of the contrary: if you reject that claim you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity. You've demonstrated this over and over again by avoiding the argument and dodging every request made that you show that knowledge is possible in your worldview.

        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        Maybe G-d mentioned this inspiration in the book G-d wrote with G-d's own finger? .... Nope. Next.
        He wouldn't have to say so in that particular book. he can say in any part of the canon of His writings.




        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        I've read his books.

        How do you know you've read Aristotle's books? No doubt you'll say that you perceived it with your senses, and reasoned through the messages in the text with your cognitive faculties, and that recall doing so with your member. But how do you know that your senses, cognitive faculties, and memory are reliable?



        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        According to who?
        According to the God who wrote the Old and New Testaments.

        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        Oh, right. You find it in the book written by possible liars (because ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of G-d).
        This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not those scribes were inspired. I'm still waiting for an answer. How do you know they weren't inspired?


        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        I use Merriam Webster. Not familiar with the Hebrews 11.1 dictionary.
        And in refusing to let God define His terms you equivocate on faith.

        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        Also, please don't parse my comments like that again.
        I see this happen a lot. A person dodges question, and deliberately packs several different bits of nonsense into one sentence in the hopes that some will be overlooked, and then gets angry when his interlocutor deals with each bit of nonsense directly.


        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        I will refuse to indulge your nonsense if you do it again.
        Stomping away like a child because I take time to deal with each point of illogic in your replies is irrational. If you want get upset when a person is consistent with their worldview and applies their argument accordingly, and scrutinizes your claims in a fair and valid way, then that's your problem, not mine. If you're not interested in playing the reason-giving game then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

        Originally posted by NormATive View Post
        I know it's difficult for you to carry a cogent thought all on your own without referring to your Van Til decoder ring, but please try.
        Personal attacks are uncalled for, bud. I've offered an argument (which you've yet to interact with, which actually illustrates my point). Launching personal insults is no substitute for a reasoned refutation of my argument.
        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          A Muslim, or for that matter, an atheist like Norm AT ive...
          There's no such thing as an atheist (Romans 1:18-22).

          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          ...would know stuff outside the Bible or the Qur'an. Again, he eats; sleeps; moves his fingers so to make posts...
          I don't recall saying that he can't actually know anything. My point is that he couldn't know anything if his worldview were true, and the biblical worldview false. This is the in-principle/in-practice distinction.

          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          I fail to see that refuting the Muslim's TA establishes the TA for God from the Bible.
          I didn't say that it does. The refutation of the Muslim's TA demonstrates that Allah is not sufficient for human knowledge. Thus his TA (which would claim that Allah is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience) would fail. The biblical TA is proven (i.e., outwardly demonstrated----I assume that's what you mean by "established") by the impossibility of the contrary. The proof of the biblical God is that without Him you can't prove anything.



          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          Perhaps at least for the benefit of Doug Shaver and Norm@ive you could demonstrate that claim.
          I've done so already---more than once---and rather than deal with the argument and proceed to refute it, they instead have dodged said I haven't offered an argument (making the faulty assumption, in the process, that deductive and inductive arguments are the only forms of argumentation).
          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
            Straw man fallacy. That's not the argument, nor the basis for the argument.
            That is the argument as you presented. If there is something else, please bring it to the table.

            On what basis do you make such a claim?
            On what basis do you make your claim?


            This assumes that the Bible is not what it claims to be. Please justify this assumption.
            You could be wrong about your assumption,

            No.
            This like seer's response demonstrates your arrogance and claim to know the absolute truth of God simple based on your assumption that the Bible is as 'you claim it to be.'

            What's your rational foundation for this question?
            From the perspective of a sincere, rational human being that acknowledges my fallible human nature, which you in your arrogance fail to do. I have no reason to believe you are any less fallible, and your claims are anecdotal in nature and not founded in an objective ontic base.



            If you can't be bothered to actually deal with the argument your opponent is using, then I'll be just as flippant and arbitrary as you.
            Your rebuttal here is only based is only based on "I believe that your claim of truth is only based on 'I believe' it so."



            You're deflecting. I've given the ontic base which grounds the preconditions in my worldview, and the epistemology which makes that base known, giving the Christian every reason to trust his senses and reasoning.
            I've asked you to do the same from your worldview. If your worldview can provide such a foundation, then please be out with it already.
            The grounds and 'preconditions' for your worldview is simply based on your anecdotal claims that you know the 'absolute truth' and cannot be wrong

            My rebuttal is very legitimate, because you present no other argument then the anecdotal claim of your 'belief.'



            Could you be wrong about that?
            Could you be wrong about that?

            It is finally revealed after long long series of posts that both you and seer claim to know the absolute true nature of God. this brings the discussion into clear focus.



            If you cannot know anything for certain (including the claim of what is, or not "probable", then how does this claim of yours not reduce to complete arbitrary guess work?
            No, but your claim to have the 'absolute true knowledge' of God clearly demonstrates the arrogant egocentric view of yourself makes begging the question the rule, and makes dialogue unreasonable and unproductive.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-02-2014, 09:05 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              I've done so already---more than once---and rather than deal with the argument and proceed to refute it, they instead have dodged said I haven't offered an argument (making the faulty assumption, in the process, that deductive and inductive arguments are the only forms of argumentation).
              I am sorry. I feel I understand deductive and inductive arguments fine, but not TA. Indeed, to be honest with you, it seems too tricky to be correct. Anyway, what do you think of this Wikipedia section on Transcendental Argumentation that presents some objections to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transce...ntal_arguments
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                How do you know (1) that others exist, and are not illusion (2) that the English language exists, and is not illusory, and (3) how they came to learn English?
                Get a load of this guy. His main line is to ask skeptics how they know peanut butter exists.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by whag View Post
                  Get a load of this guy. His main line is to ask skeptics how they know peanut butter exists.
                  sounds like the argument being used by Mr. Black and seer.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                    How do you know (1) that others exist, and are not illusion (2) that the English language exists, and is not illusory, and (3) how they came to learn English?
                    I am as fallible as you are.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      That is the argument as you presented. If there is something else, please bring it to the table.
                      1.) No, it is not. It's the exact opposite of my argument. I've explained the argument to you more than ten times now.
                      2.) Notice the inherent arbitrariness in your reply here. On the one hand you deny that you can know anything for certain, and then on the other, you turn around and make knowledge claims about my supposed "argument". If you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, then how can you know anything about me or the argument I present?



                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      You could be wrong about your assumption,
                      How do you justify this claim in light of the fact that you can't know anything?



                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      This like seer's response demonstrates your arrogance...
                      Another arbitrary assertion. If you can't know anything for sure, then how can you---in terms of your worldview---know that Seer or I existed, or what arrogance is, let alone that he and I are characterized by it?

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      ...and claim to know the absolute truth of God simple based on your assumption that the Bible is as 'you claim it to be.'
                      Two fallacies here. 1.) Straw man fallacy, as it misrepresents my argument. And 2.) Begging the question, as it assumes that God did not (or perhaps cannot) grant me epistemic certainty, which is the very thing in question.
                      1.) On what basis do you claim it is merely an assumption?
                      2.) How do you reconcile that claim with your earlier claim that you can't know anything for sure?


                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      From the perspective of a sincere, rational human being that acknowledges my fallible human nature, which you in your arrogance fail to do. I have no reason to believe you are any less fallible,...
                      Had you paid attention to my previous explanations you would have noticed that I did not claim to be infallible. I acknowledge that I'm just as fallible as you. My point is that our infallible Creator is not limited by our fallible natures, and can grant epistemic certainty to His own fallible Creatures. Do you deny this?

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      and your claims are anecdotal in nature and not founded in an objective ontic base.
                      1.) Arbitrariness again. If you don't know anything for sure, then how can you know what an anecdote is, what an objective ontic base is, let alone that my claims are not founded in one?
                      2.) This is begging the very question at issue. Rather than being rational and refuting the transcendental argument I'm using by demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from God, you have merely assumed that it is false. On what basis do you say that God is "not an objective ontic base"? If your reply is to repeat your "well you just believe it" comment, then my next question will be, on what basis do you assert that it's a mere belief on my part? And how can you justify that claim if you can't know anything in your worldview?


                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      ...your claim to have the 'absolute true knowledge' of God clearly demonstrates the arrogant egocentric view...
                      This is the abusive ad hominem fallacy: rejecting one's view as false because of a supposed defect in the personality of the person giving the argument for that view.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      ...of yourself makes begging the question the rule, and makes dialogue unreasonable and unproductive.
                      Notice the subtle straw man fallacy here, as you have (again) failed to discern the difference between deductive arguments (which have to do with theorems, which are built up to using premises wherein commonly accepted principles are utilized), and transcendental arguments (which not about theorems, but rather point out the necessity of certain starting point principles, which are not commonly accepted, and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all).
                      Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        I am sorry. I feel I understand deductive and inductive arguments fine, but not TA.
                        I can sympathize with that. It took me a while to really grasp them as well.

                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Indeed, to be honest with you, it seems too tricky to be correct.
                        I'm not sure I understand you here when you say "it" and "tricky"? By "it" do you mean the TA I'm presenting? If so, what do you mean by "tricky"?

                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Anyway, what do you think of this Wikipedia section on Transcendental Argumentation that presents some objections to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transce...ntal_arguments
                        Those are common objections which have been answered by proponents of TAs before. The criticisms may apply to certain "local" TAs. That is, TAs that argue merely for one local principle, like the reliability of the human eye, but nothing else. But when the TA is all-encompassing (i.e., arguing for an entire worldview, which includes all the preconditions of intelligibility) then the objections beg the question by assuming that the proposed starting point (not temporal starting point, but logical starting point---something held to be logically primary) of that worldview cannot ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and provide an epistemology which makes that base known. In fact, to justify his objection to the biblical God as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience, any critic would necessarily have to provide an ontic base and corresponding epistemology---from within his own worldview---, or else his objections reduce to arbitrariness, and thus to absurdity.
                        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                          I am as fallible as you are.
                          Thanks for the chat, Doug. Come back to me when you wish to be rational instead of repeating non-answers to fair and valid questions.
                          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by whag View Post
                            Get a load of this guy. His main line is to ask skeptics how they know peanut butter exists.
                            Please justify this claim. How can you know---in terms of your worldview---what my "main line" is?
                            Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                              any critic would necessarily have to provide an ontic base and corresponding epistemology---from within his own worldview---, or else his objections reduce to arbitrariness, and thus to absurdity.
                              I believe I understand "ontology" (the branch of philosophy that considers question re being, existence, the nature of the universe, etc.) Also "epistemology" (the branch of philosophy that considers questions re knowledge, how we can be sure we know anything, how to verify claims, etc.) But "an ontic base"? "An epistemology"? Hmm perhaps you gave already a detailed example of an ontic base. Also an epistemology.
                              Last edited by Truthseeker; 10-04-2014, 10:06 PM.
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                                Thanks for the chat, Doug. Come back to me when you wish to be rational instead of repeating non-answers to fair and valid questions.
                                Is it a non-answer because it's false, or because it's irrelevant to your questions?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                427 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,510 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X