Divine revelation

[shunyadragon]

That is not how I would say it. I would say that science is a method, created by us humans, for answering certain questions we have about the universe. Up to this point in our intellectual history, the method seems to have worked very well whenever it has been properly used.

I agree, I simply responded Truthseeker in the manner he made the request.

[shunyadragon]

This does not represent a coherent argument for your position. It is simply a presuppositional statement 'that it is so, because I believe it so' in the Van Til traditions.

As seer stated “ . . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

[seer]

As seer stated “ . . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

Somehow Shuny I think you took me out of context - can you link where I said this.

[Truthseeker]

What properties would the universe have to have for beings in it to be able to do science? We need things to be not too cold and not too hot. We need food and water. We need to get along with each other peacefully. And so on. I think those statements are part of what Mr. Black would call the ontic base. He challenged the atheists to provide one. I have thought about that, and it seems to me that the atheists would have to conclude that the universe must be eternal, or there will be times when science is not possible to do. Hmmm I guess I need to give it some more thought.

[Mr. Black]

This does not represent a coherent argument for your position. It is simply a presuppositional statement 'that it is so, because I believe it so' in the Van Til traditions.

This is not a refutation of my argument. It is simply a statement, "I believe Mr. Black's position is just a belief" in the non-Christian blind faith traditions.
You see, shuny? Rhetoric and intentional misrepresentations of our opponents' arguments and views gets us nowhere. If you'd rather refute arguments I'm not employing, and can't be bothered to interact with the argument I'm actually using then please don't waste my time.

[Mr. Black]

That is not how I would say it. I would say that science is a method, created by us humans, for answering certain questions we have about the universe. Up to this point in our intellectual history, the method seems to have worked very well whenever it has been properly used.

So you wouldn't say that you know it'll work in the future?

[Mr. Black]

What properties would the universe have to have for beings in it to be able to do science? We need things to be not too cold and not too hot. We need food and water. We need to get along with each other peacefully. And so on. I think those statements are part of what Mr. Black would call the ontic base.

Those are all preconditions for science, in addition to uniformity (the physical and logical laws being universal and unchanging), all of which are themselves in need of an ontic base to ground them (i.e., 1, explain why they are what they are, 2, why they were that way in the past, and 3, why they'll remain so in the future). But positing an ontic base that could theoretically ground them is not enough, otherwise any wild-eyed fantasy would do. In addition to that ontic base they need an epistemology which makes that base known, so that their claims are not arbitrary. This is no problem for the Christian, as God is the ontic base, and His revelation (general and special) of Himself to man, thereby granting all men everywhere epistemic certainty of Him and His attributes (Romans 1:18-22), is the epistemology which makes Him known. Hence, the non-christian is able to do science because in his heart of hearts he knows God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, but because of his fallen nature, he suppresses that truth in unrighteousness and espouses a deficient worldview. And since he's rejected the ontic base which grounds the uniformity of nature (as well as all the other preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience)---and therefore the epistemology which makes Him known, they cannot make sense of science in their non-God worldview. In other words, they couldn't know anything if they didn't already know God. So since they deny God they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make. They can make many a bold claim, but they cannot provide---from their worldview---an ontic base and corresponding epistemology to justify those claims.

He challenged the atheists to provide one. I have thought about that, and it seems to me that the atheists would have to conclude that the universe must be eternal, or there will be times when science is not possible to do.

Some claim it is, but---setting aside for a moment the fact that making that claim requires laws that they justify the other preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, basic reliability of their senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc) before they can start postulating about the nature of the universe---that answer would lead to absurdity. If the universe is eternal, then an actual infinite number of past events has already transpired. But since an actual infinite set is unlimited by definition, then no more can be added to it because is no "room" left in it. In other words, time wouldn't be passing now. And yet with ever second that ticks by another instance of time is added to the number of past events.

They could try to escape this by claiming that time only goes so far forward and then stops and runs backwards, and then after billions or trillions of years, stops and moves forward again. But this is a rescuing device (an appeal to the unknown in order to avoid having to admit defeat). Naturally, the next question is, "How do you know that?" If they cannot justify it with an objective reason, then it's arbitrary, and thus can be discarded.

[shunyadragon]

Somehow Shuny I think you took me out of context - can you link where I said this.

. . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

Post #1054, no out of context at all. It is a clear concise complete statement in the tradition of Van Til propositional statements of belief.

[shunyadragon]

So you wouldn't say that you know it'll work in the future?

Classic Argument from Ignorance.

[shunyadragon]

This is not a refutation of my argument. It is simply a statement, "I believe Mr. Black's position is just a belief" in the non-Christian blind faith traditions.
You see, shuny? Rhetoric and intentional misrepresentations of our opponents' arguments and views gets us nowhere. If you'd rather refute arguments I'm not employing, and can't be bothered to interact with the argument I'm actually using then please don't waste my time.

Again there is no argument to refute. No refutation what so ever. In the true Van Til tradtion, no coherent argument presented.

[seer]

Post #1054, no out of context at all. It is a clear concise complete statement in the tradition of Van Til propositional statements of belief.

On which thread?

[shunyadragon]

On which thread?

Philosophy 201 thread An Infinite past? post #1054 response to JimL

The argument is that apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything (the impossible of the contrary argument). But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things. At least to degrees. And yes, since human minds are fallible, limited and rebellious we do put the Word of God above human speculation or the discoveries of science.

The whole quote makes a clear assertion that is very revealing, since it eliminates any possibility of debate or dialogue.

Actually it is not an argument. It is an assertion that rejects all arguments in the contrary. There should be no problem with this from the Van Til presuppositional view that Mr. Black and you believe.

[Truthseeker]

If the universe is eternal, then an actual infinite number of past events has already transpired. But since an actual infinite set is unlimited by definition, then no more can be added to it because is no "room" left in it. In other words, time wouldn't be passing now. And yet with ever second that ticks by another instance of time is added to the number of past events.

Perhaps in the Big Bang moment the universe as we know and can observe it formed out of something called the ylem. The ylem itself is eternal and, except for scattered spacetimes, and timeless. That would answer your objection?? Actually, that makes no sense. At least, it would make no sense to mathematicians. You can add things to an infinite set. For example, the set of positive integers is infinite. Yet you can add to that set the set of negative integers. What's more, you can add the set of rational numbers that does not include the set of integers. Irrational numbers. Transcendental numbers that are not irrational. Whew, I was on the brink of becoming irrational.

[Doug Shaver]

So you wouldn't say that you know it'll work in the future?

I am as fallible as you are.

[seer]

Philosophy 201 thread An Infinite past? post #1054 response to JimL

The whole quote makes a clear assertion that is very revealing, since it eliminates any possibility of debate or dialogue.

Actually it is not an argument. It is an assertion that rejects all arguments in the contrary. There should be no problem with this from the Van Til presuppositional view that Mr. Black and you believe.

Yes Shuny, I was explaining the TA argument to Jim. And yes, I do put God's revelation above science. As do you Shuny. The Baha'i faith teaches, like Christianity, that human beings have an immaterial soul - that is an unproveable assertion that can not be supported by science. Yet you believe it to be true - so you too elevate Revelation above science, at least in this case.