Can we trust what God says?

[Scrawly]

Perceptive! I would make a few revisions to your assessment, but you're pretty darn close. No appeal to evidence or argument can trump the clear teaching of the God who's Scripture, because to appeal to evidence or argument requires the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc), and those presuppose the biblical God.
I would (respectfully) disagree with (what I believe to be) your conclusion though. Talking past each other isn't necessary. If both sides simply appeal to "evidence" we'll each interpret it according to our worldview---that would be talking past each other. Plus, if I were to argue for God in that way, I would have to assume that knowledge can be had apart from Him, since I'd be concluding that God exists based on my knowledge other things----and it would also beg the question by assuming that God's claim that he is not to be put to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4:12) is false from the start. So since the entire thing is gonna boil down to worldviews, the presupper says, "Ok, you assume your worldview, I'll assume mine, and now I'll ask, 'Which worldview can make sense out of human experience?' "
If non-christians want to disagree with the biblical God they need to show that knowledge is possible apart from Him, which requires an ontic base to ground the preconditions, and an epistemology which makes that base known.

OK but within the presuppositional framework, you do incorporate evidence, correct? Because it seems to me a Muslim, Mormon, etc. could use the exact same line of reasoning as you do above and substitute "Biblical God" for "God of the Quran" or "God of Mormonism". All parties will equally claim true knowledge based upon what they believe to be revelation, so how would you pass that impasse?

[seer]

Great thread!

[shunyadragon]

OK but within the presuppositional framework, you do incorporate evidence, correct? Because it seems to me a Muslim, Mormon, etc. could use the exact same line of reasoning as you do above and substitute "Biblical God" for "God of the Quran" or "God of Mormonism". All parties will equally claim true knowledge based upon what they believe to be revelation, so how would you pass that impasse?

Correct!!! This is the problem with strictly Transcendental Arguments. Any different and contradictory religion, church or sect can present the same argument to justify their own belief. Such as: God does not lie > My scripture is literally God(s)'s Word, > therefore my belief is absolutely true. The Middle claim is the weak link. Religions make claims and assumptions of anecdotal ancient literature, of questionable origins to support their argument. This is true whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic or Mormon. All these arguments have equal weight, but extremely contradictory.

[seer]

Correct!!! This is the problem with strictly Transcendental Arguments. Any different and contradictory religion, church or sect can present the same argument to justify their own belief. Such as: God does not lie > My scripture is literally God(s)'s Word, > therefore my belief is absolutely true. The Middle claim is the weak link. Religions make claims and assumptions of anecdotal ancient literature, of questionable origins to support their argument. This is true whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic or Mormon. All these arguments have equal weight, but extremely contradictory.

Except Shuny, Mr. Black's argument does hold very well in the sense that without God you have no precondition or ground for an intelligible universe, human rationality or for the uniformity of nature.

[shunyadragon]

Except Shuny, Mr. Black's argument does hold very well in the sense that without God you have no precondition or ground for an intelligible universe, human rationality or for the uniformity of nature.

This is only true if Theism is true in a Transcendental argument, and not a valid argument against philosophical naturalism.. I believe I God, but there is sufficient evidence that natural causes alone can explain an intelligible universe.

[seer]

This is only true if Theism is true in a Transcendental argument, and not a valid argument against philosophical naturalism.. I believe I God, but there is sufficient evidence that natural causes alone can explain an intelligible universe.

Actually no it can't, that is the point that Mr Black has been drumming into your head. You already admitted Shuny that you could be wrong about everything you know. That would include your conclusion above. No God, no certainty. No ground for human rationality or the the uniformity of nature.

[shunyadragon]

Actually no it can't, that is the point that Mr Black has been drumming into your head. You already admitted Shuny that you could be wrong about everything you know. That would include your conclusion above. No God, no certainty. No ground for human rationality or the the uniformity of nature.

Admitting one does not absolutely know all knowledge is justified and not a weakness, based on the fallibility of human nature. I believe that the absolute truth resides with God, not humanity. If Mr. Black and you claim to absolutely know the truth of everything, then there is a problem here that both of you are not in touch with the reality of being human.

No, there is no objective evidence that would indicate that Naturalism alone could not explain an intelligible universe. The other problem with this line of logic is you cannot prove the negative in this case. Such an effort would be a fallacy.

The claim that Mr. Black and likely you argue that unknowns like the future and other places in the universe that are not testable nor tested by science presents a case where the belief in the uniformity of nature cannot be made is a fallacy also. You cannot argue for a positive nor a negative conclusion based on what is unknown nor cannot be known, I. e. the future. Take your pick:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[seer]

Admitting one does not absolutely know all knowledge is justified and not a weakness, based on the fallibility of human nature. I believe that the absolute truth resides with God, not humanity. If Mr. Black and you claim to absolutely know the truth of everything, then there is a problem here that both of you are not in touch with the reality of being human.

Where did I or Black claim to know the absolute truth about everything?

No, there is no objective evidence that would indicate that Naturalism alone could not explain an intelligible universe. The other problem with this line of logic is you cannot prove the negative in this case. Such an effort would be a fallacy.

Really Shuny? How does naturalism ground an intelligible universe and human rationality. And could you be wrong about the above conclusion?

The claim that Mr. Black and likely you argue that unknowns like the future and other places in the universe that are not testable nor tested by science presents a case where the belief in the uniformity of nature cannot be made is a fallacy also. You cannot argue for a positive nor a negative conclusion based on what is unknown nor cannot be known, I. e. the future.

No Shuny, it is not a fallacy, it is a fact, there is no way you can know that nature is uniformed - universally. Past or future.

[shunyadragon]

Where did I or Black claim to know the absolute truth about everything?

the challenge to me from both of you is the I admit I do not absolutely know everything, I know things 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' unless Mr. Black and you likewise give an explanation why you do not absolutely know, then I have no other conclusion from the posts.

;quote] Really Shuny? How does naturalism ground an intelligible universe and human rationality. [/quote]

Could you be wrong about the above conclusion?

The methodological Naturalism has demonstrated natural causes for the physical nature of our existence including evolution. There is no viable proof or argument fro the negative. So far, Mr. Black and you have only made assertions with negative unknowns to justify your arguments, which fail.

How can you prove or even demonstrate that Natural Law and causes CANNOT be responsible for an intelligible universe and natural evolution?

. . . And could you be wrong about the above conclusion?

Fallacy again and again and again, and no meaningful response.

No Shuny, it is not a fallacy, it is a fact, there is no way you can know that nature is uniformed - universally. Past or future.

This argument by definition is riddled with fallacies as cited. You cannot prove the negative, nor can you appeal to ignorance to disprove uniformity.

[Doug Shaver]

If non-christians want to disagree with the biblical God they need to show that knowledge is possible apart from Him . . . .

I'm not disagreeing with any god. I'm disagreeing with some human beings who say they know something about some god.

[NormATive]

The problem with Mr. Black's argument is that it is entirely fabricated from knowledge he gleaned from a book. A book demonstrably written by men.

Since he is under the delusion of believing that these men speak for the all-knowing, all powerful God of the universe, naturally he would come to the conclusion that he is right, and all opposed are wrong.

How did he come to this delusion?

'Tis a trickery of the mind that it is possible to transcend humanity.

NORM

[JimL]

Perceptive! I would make a few revisions to your assessment, but you're pretty darn close. No appeal to evidence or argument can trump the clear teaching of the God who's Scripture, because to appeal to evidence or argument requires the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc), and those presuppose the biblical God.

Basically your argument here is that information presupposes an intelligence, a mind or specifically from your perspective a God, a God that embody's that information and by extension is embodied in the world he creates. This seems to me to be no more than a baseless assertion since the existence of information does not necessarily presupose a mind in which that information is embodied. Information can exist outside of a mind, in a universe say, a universe without any preconditions of intelligibility, a.k.a. knowledge. Knowledge on the other hand would require a functioning mind, a.k.a. a brain, in which the information can be stored, but said mind need not possess the preconditios of intelligibility as you call them, since they, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, morality (not absolute), pre-exist the mind as information to be found outside the mind.

I would (respectfully) disagree with (what I believe to be) your conclusion though. Talking past each other isn't necessary. If both sides simply appeal to "evidence" we'll each interpret it according to our worldview---that would be talking past each other. Plus, if I were to argue for God in that way, I would have to assume that knowledge can be had apart from Him, since I'd be concluding that God exists based on my knowledge other things----and it would also beg the question by assuming that God's claim that he is not to be put to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4:12) is false from the start. So since the entire thing is gonna boil down to worldviews, the presupper says, "Ok, you assume your worldview, I'll assume mine, and now I'll ask, 'Which worldview can make sense out of human experience?' "

Again, why do you assume that information musts needs be embodied in a mind? Once information becomes known, or is embodied in a mind, then it becomes knowledge, but why do you assume that the information itself presupposes an intelligence or a mind?

[seer]

This argument by definition is riddled with fallacies as cited. You cannot prove the negative, nor can you appeal to ignorance to disprove uniformity.

So you can not know if nature is uniform. If the past is like the present, or if the future will be like the present, of if the laws that we observe are in operation universally. And I'm not trying to disprove uniformity, I'm just showing that uniformity can only be known for certain by an all knowing Being like God. Science can not know that and we humans can not know that unless such a Being communicated that knowledge to us.

[shunyadragon]

So you can not know if nature is uniform. If the past is like the present, or if the future will be like the present, of if the laws that we observe are in operation universally. And I'm not trying to disprove uniformity, I'm just showing that uniformity can only be known for certain by an all knowing Being like God. Science can not know that and we humans can not know that unless such a Being communicated that knowledge to us.

Your making an absolute statement 'So you can not know if nature is uniform.' Could you be wrong about that?

Yes, I believe that God knows absolutely the physical nature of our physical existence, and not humans. You are making an absolute statement, and saying only 'God knows' to support it. Problem here concerning what Mr. Black and have to offer for this assertion other then 'only God
knows.'

Your not addressing the nature of functional knowledge of human knowledge that we can know things 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and it works in the real world to develop our knowledge of science. You do not question the univerality and uniformity of scientific knowledge when you fly in jet passenger plane with confidence. This is the same scientific knowledge that supports evolution with the accepted belief that different Natural Laws not time issues of scientific knowledge will not be different in the future.

[seer]

Your making an absolute statement 'So you can not know if nature is uniform.' Could you be wrong about that?

No Shuny, I'm making the claim that we can not know if nature is uniform universally, if it was in the past or will be in the future. Apart from God's revelation. If you think that claim is wrong please show how you can know these things.

Yes, I believe that God knows absolutely the physical nature of our physical existence, and not humans. You are making an absolute statement, and saying only 'God knows' to support it. Problem here concerning what Mr. Black and have to offer for this assertion other then 'only God knows.'

What?