Can we trust what God says?

[Mr. Black]

This mostly incomprehensible gibberish is no more than to assert that the Bible says so therefore it is so.

This is the straw man fallacy. I gave the argument quite clearly above, and you've yet to respond to it. My argument is not some inanely simplistic "The Bible says so therefore it is so", rather the argument is "Any/all facts of reality presuppose the biblical worldview (i.e., require it to be the actual state of affairs in advance---which means it doesn't just happen to be true, but is necessarily true). So, the one true God who wrote the Bible said it, and if you reject His revelation of Himself to mankind you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity.

Thats all your argument amounts to as far as I can see.

You should take another look at it.

About everything I claim to know? Nope.

Great. Thanks for the answer. Please tell me one thing you know for sure, and how you know it.

[Mr. Black]

Man, you suck at this Christianity thing.

Man, you suck at this non-christianity thing.
See, whag? You're not even providing an argument now. Just reversible rhetoric, and now you're wasting your energy and my time on personal insults.
Do you have anything of substance to offer in this discussion? Any reasons for your point of view at all?

[JimL]

Sorry about that. I was short on time earlier and accidentally overlooked your earlier post. But I've found it now and will quote you below and respond in kind.



No.



No.



No.



Oh my gosh no. Straw man fallacy. First, I'm not arguing for a god. That's intelligent design. I'm arguing for biblical creationism based on revelational epistemology. I'm arguing specifically for the triune God as revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testaments. Second, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "embodies" then no, God is not embodied in the Created order. While creation is always and everywhere revealing God to man and is upheld by God's consistent power, creation itself is distinct from its Creator.



I'm not making a simplistic argument about information coming from a mind. But just so we're clear, what do you mean by "information"?



Are you saying that there's no such thing as an absolute moral law?



What all minds are you saying morality pre-exists?




Straw man again. This is not an intelligent design argument. This is a transcendental argument for the biblical worldview. All things are from, through, and to God (Romans 11:36). So all facts presuppose the biblical worldview (i.e., require it to be the actual state of affairs in advance), and the God in Whom that worldview is rooted. God is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility, and His revelation of Himself is the epistemology that makes Him known. All people know God already in their heart of hearts and deny Him only by suppressing that truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22). The outward demonstration of this is the fact that, when you deny Him, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity. In other words, since He grounds the preconditions of intelligibility, and His self-revelation to man is the only way by which we can know about them, if He did not exist and reveal Himself to mankind, we couldn't know anything (Colossians 2:3,8). Therefore if we don't start with Him and His Word as logically primary in our thinking, we couldn't prove anything.



I gave the argument above. The biblical worldview is the starting point without which no conclusion can be reasoned to at all.

This mostly incomprehensible gibberish is no more than to assert that the Bible says so therefore it is so. Thats all your argument amounts to as far as I can see.

With this argument in mind, Jim, could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

About everything I claim to know? Nope.

[whag]

I believe that Seer is sincere in his beliefs, and his dabbling in Van Til apologetics is him coming to the defense of a fellow Christian (Mr. Black). I notice Mr. Black isn't quite as verbose when you turn his techniques back on him.

Presuppositional apologetics fails on so many levels, I am truly surprised anyone still uses it. I think since Dee Dee abandoned ship, we are left with the dregs of T-Web.

NORM

There's nothing more boring and innocuous than a close-minded faith. But the Bible warns against compromise, though, so I can't really blame them for this heel digging.

If Christianity is true, I wonder why God couldn't clarify this teleological sticking point for so many of his adherents.

[NormATive]

Seer's languishing in bad apologetics, which only leads to problems with doubt later. What's funny is he advertised that God recently performed a miracle for him to remove his doubt. Wouldn't it make more sense open his mind about the general revelation? That'd be more helpful in the long run because it would exercise his brain.

I believe that Seer is sincere in his beliefs, and his dabbling in Van Til apologetics is him coming to the defense of a fellow Christian (Mr. Black). I notice Mr. Black isn't quite as verbose when you turn his techniques back on him.

Presuppositional apologetics fails on so many levels, I am truly surprised anyone still uses it. I think since Dee Dee abandoned ship, we are left with the dregs of T-Web.

NORM

[whag]

C'mon Whag! Didn't you know that Satan planted all the fossils and evidence just to fool us into a false sense of security? Don't laugh - this was actually an answer the pastor of a church told me when I asked him why the Bible didn't mention dinosaurs. It was the very first chip in my theistic armor.

Of course, modern apologetics abandons the Satan planting dinosaur bones in the desert theory in favor of the "Bible only concerns itself with the events of mankind" excuse.

NORM

Seer's languishing in bad apologetics, which only leads to problems with doubt later. What's funny is he advertised that God recently performed a miracle for him to remove his doubt. Wouldn't it make more sense open his mind about the general revelation? That'd be more helpful in the long run because it would exercise his brain.

[NormATive]

The temperature/speed difference between those two convection hypotheses isn't enough to power your preferred YEC geochronology. If you don't subscribe to YEC, there's no point in questioning the conclusions of geochronology that come from corroborated data.

Also, make up your mind whether God established uniformity. Before, you said he did establish uniformity. Now you're arguing that uniformity can't be tested and that all data that point to it should be regarded as suspect.

C'mon Whag! Didn't you know that Satan planted all the fossils and evidence just to fool us into a false sense of security? Don't laugh - this was actually an answer the pastor of a church told me when I asked him why the Bible didn't mention dinosaurs. It was the very first chip in my theistic armor.

Of course, modern apologetics abandons the Satan planting dinosaur bones in the desert theory in favor of the "Bible only concerns itself with the events of mankind" excuse.

NORM

[whag]

Oh stop whag, you have no idea of the dynamics back then. You are building assumption on assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection







No, what is relevant is that most of these theories concerning age are build on assumptions, unprovable assumptions. I don't automatically genuflect when "science says."

The temperature/speed difference between those two convection hypotheses isn't enough to power your preferred YEC geochronology. If you don't subscribe to YEC, there's no point in questioning the conclusions of geochronology that come from corroborated data.

Also, make up your mind whether God established uniformity. Before, you said he did establish uniformity. Now you're arguing that uniformity can't be tested and that all data that point to it should be regarded as suspect.

[seer]

The internal heat of the earth is relatively stable. The heat required to move the plates faster would be sufficient to melt all the rock in the crust, meaning crust wouldn't even exist. Thanks for confirming your interest in science is so minuscule that you couldn't research that answer yourself.

Oh stop whag, you have no idea of the dynamics back then. You are building assumption on assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection

Mantle convection seems to have been much more active during the Hadean period, resulting in gravitational sorting of heavier molten iron, and nickel elements and sulphides in the core, and lighter silicate minerals in the mantle.

There is a current debate within the geophysics community as to whether convection is likely to be 'layered' or 'whole'.[8] This debate is linked to the controversy regarding whether intraplate volcanism is caused by shallow, upper-mantle processes or by plumes from the lower mantle.[6] Geochemists have argued that the lavas erupted in intraplate areas are different in composition from shallow-derived mid ocean ridge basalts (SDMORB). This has been interpreted as their originating from a different region, suggested to be the lower mantle. Others, however, have pointed out that the differences indicate the inclusion of a small component of near-surface material from the lithosphere. Seismologists are also divided, with some arguing that there is no evidence for whole-mantle convection,[9] and others arguing that there is

Typical mantle convection speed is 20 mm/yr near the crust but can vary quite a bit

BTW, if you're not a YEC, the speed of continental drift is irrelevant. The data on tectonics is reliable because it lines up with the thousands of other pieces of evidence on geochronology. The fact is you hold into unjustified doubt of evolution and accepted geochronology because you can't reconcile it with your literalist religious presuppositions.

No, what is relevant is that most of these theories concerning age are build on assumptions, unprovable assumptions. I don't automatically genuflect when "science says."

[whag]

Perfect example. How do you know the rate of their speed 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 6,000 years ago? And BTW - I never said I was a YEC.

The internal heat of the earth is relatively stable. The heat required to move the plates faster would be sufficient to melt all the rock in the crust, meaning crust wouldn't even exist. Thanks for confirming your interest in science is so minuscule that you couldn't research that answer yourself.



BTW, if you're not a YEC, the speed of continental drift is irrelevant. The data on tectonics is reliable because it lines up with the thousands of other pieces of evidence on geochronology. The fact is you hold into unjustified doubt of evolution and accepted geochronology because you can't reconcile it with your literalist religious presuppositions.

I did not say conspiracy, though I do believe in dark forces that seek to influence the human mind against the Truth, it is more along the lines of ignorance. We just do not have all the facts in most these cases.

We don't have all the facts in ALL cases, not *most* cases. Not knowing every last detail in an investigation doesn't mean the police can't conclude anything.

[seer]

Re: tectonics, we can see the midatlantic ridge, we can explain the movement of the crust via convection currents in the mantle, and we can measure the speed of the movement of the plates. That's just one example of the inherent deception if the earth is actually 10,000 years old. There are thousands of other examples.

Perfect example. How do you know the rate of their speed 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 6,000 years ago? And BTW - I never said I was a YEC.

The problem with you is you see scientific progress on matters teleological and protological as massive conspiracies.

I did not say conspiracy, though I do believe in dark forces that seek to influence the human mind against the Truth, it is more along the lines of ignorance. We just do not have all the facts in most these cases.

[whag]

Nonsense, did it ever occur to that we could be misreading the evidence? That our conclusions are lacking in relevant facts?

No, that would necessitate the cessation of scientific investigation. If our interpretation is so disposed to error that nothing is trustworthy, all research would be in vain.

Re: tectonics, we can see the midatlantic ridge, we can explain the movement of the crust via convection currents in the mantle, and we can measure the speed of the movement of the plates. That's just one example of the inherent deception if the earth is actually 10,000 years old. There are thousands of other examples.

The problem with you is you see scientific progress on matters teleological and protological as massive conspiracies.

[seer]

He's a YEC. A universe designed with proofs of evolution and other long processes would make its author deceptive.

Nonsense, did it ever occur to that we could be misreading the evidence? That our conclusions are lacking in relevant facts?

[whag]

Deceptive god? Where did Mr. Black say that?

He's a YEC. A universe designed with proofs of evolution and other long processes would make its author deceptive.

You guys are crap evangelists and should reform your approach. You won't convince anybody but the monumentally naive to become Christians, and even if you do, those people will wither soon.

[seer]

Yes, he does. He won't convince anyone to convert by promoting the idea of a deceptive god.

Deceptive god? Where did Mr. Black say that?