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

Can we trust what God says?

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

  • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    Because that's the only way to refute a transcendental argument= to show that intelligibility would be possible apart from the proposed starting point. Any other response assumes (rather than proves) that the argument, and consequently the worldview that the argument argues for, is false. Thus it begs the question.
    No I don't think so. Your transcendental argument asserts that information necessitates the pre-existence of a mind, or as you call it the prerequisites of intelligibility, within which that information is contained. I have already refuted that in a previous post which you neglegted to respond to. Information does not need to be understood, or to be embodied in a mind as knowledge, in order to exist. For instance, information pre-existed the existence of human minds, ergo, information pre-existed the knowledge that human minds now embody.



    It's proven via reductio in the process of discussing the argument, demonstrating that detractors already knew that what the TA argues for is true all along.
    How so? You haven't shown that the prerequisites of inteligibility, the laws of logic etc etc., come from a mind, nor have you shown that they don't exist as information apart from a mind.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
      Could you be wrong about that?
      No.

      Originally posted by NormATive View Post
      BTW, to which scriptures are you referring?
      The Scriptures inspired by God to man, which comprise the Old and New Testaments (sometimes referred to as the protestant Bible).

      Originally posted by NormATive View Post
      I didn't realize you were Jewish. I thought you professed Christianity.
      I do, so did Paul who wrote Romans 1.

      How does one get to heaven, Norm?
      Last edited by Mr. Black; 09-14-2014, 02:24 AM.
      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 JimL View Post
        I have already refuted that in a previous post which you neglegted to respond to.
        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.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Basically your argument here is that information presupposes an intelligence
        No.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        a mind
        No.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        or specifically from your perspective a God
        No.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        a God that embody's that information and by extension is embodied in the world he creates.
        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.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        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.
        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"?

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        morality (not absolute)
        Are you saying that there's no such thing as an absolute moral law?

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        pre-exist the mind as information to be found outside the mind.
        What all minds are you saying morality pre-exists?

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        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?

        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.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        How so? You haven't shown that the prerequisites of inteligibility, the laws of logic etc etc., come from a mind, nor have you shown that they don't exist as information apart from a mind.
        I gave the argument above. The biblical worldview is the starting point without which no conclusion can be reasoned to at all.

        With this argument in mind, Jim, could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
        Last edited by Mr. Black; 09-14-2014, 02:21 AM.
        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
          The difference is that I'm not offering it as proof of anything.
          Then you didn't answer seer's question. He asked you to prove your claims, and the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.
          You changed your answer to my original question and have claimed to know some things with certainty, so an argument in favor of that claim is in order.

          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          No one has show me any reason to believe otherwise. The hypothetical possibility of error is not sufficient grounds for suspecting actual error.
          Taking that logic for a test spin, suppose a dictator says that, unless you can show him reason to believe that he's not intrinsically better than you, he has the right to rape, torture and kill your family. When asked how he knows he's intrinsically better, he simply says, "I presuppose it". Would that be rational in your book?


          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          I presuppose them.
          This answer is a bit vague, so lemme clarify a little.
          1.) What is the ontic base which grounds the preconditions of intelligibility in your worldview, and guarantees that they always have been so, and will remain so in the future?
          2.) What is the epistemology in your worldview which makes your proposed ontic base known?
          Last edited by Mr. Black; 09-14-2014, 02:39 AM.
          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
            You didn't answer the question. Are you saying 5 billion years is the boundary? 100 years ago, physics and chemistry operated the same. 50,000 years ago, as well. It seems you're only arguing for nonuniformity to accommodate your absurd protology. The seafloor spreads at a uniform rate.
            Really whag? I'm not arguing against uniformity, I'm arguing that apart from God we can not know if the future will be like the past of if the laws of nature were the same in the distant past or if they are the same in parts of the universe we have no knowledge of. Uniformity universally exists because a Rational , All Knowing Mind is in control. And can communicate that that information to human beings. How do you know that uniformity is universal whag? What controls your universe whag?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Really whag? I'm not arguing against uniformity, I'm arguing that apart from God we can not know if the future will be like the past of if the laws of nature were the same in the distant past or if they are the same in parts of the universe we have no knowledge of. Uniformity universally exists because a Rational , All Knowing Mind is in control. And can communicate that that information to human beings. How do you know that uniformity is universal whag? What controls your universe whag?
              This is an argument against uniformity with an argument from ignorance.
              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 shunyadragon View Post
                This is an argument against uniformity with an argument from ignorance.
                Are you really this dense Shuny? It is not an argument against uniformity. I believe in universal uniformity, since I know that God controls nature and that He communicated that fact to us. You on the other hand can not know that - apart from Revelation. You have yet to explain how you can since your whole argument to date has been inductive, and there is no certainty with inductive arguments. If Shuny you believe that nature is universally uniform then it is up to you to show that.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                  Scrawly, I like your questions, bud. :)
                  Thanks! I enjoy your responses.

                  I wouldn't put it that way, no. Evidence is fine it's used in a ministerial way---to minister to God's truth, simply showing that there's a way to interpret the evidence that's consistent with the biblical worldview. It's not fine when its used in a magisterial way, presented as a basis for trusting in God's Word, so that our understanding stands over and above God's authoritative testimony.
                  I see. So everyone has presuppositions by which they filter the evidence. I can agree with that.

                  By showing that their deities can't ground the preconditions of intelligibility. The Qur'an admits not only that Allah is capable of lying, but that he actually did lie to Muhammad (Surah 8:43-44), which means that Allah cannot be "the truth", as Surah 22:62 claims, because the truth doesn't lie. Therefore Allah can't ground the law of non-contradiction, because the law of non-contradiction doesn't self-contradict.

                  Mormons are in an even worse position, as their god used to be a man on another planet (and according to their prophet, Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, he was also Adam from the book of Genesis), and since he is only one of billions of gods in the cosmos, who are all progressing in their knowledge, moral character, and power (doctrine of eternal prgression) he cannot be the grounding for the preconditions. In fact, the LDS god is in the same boat as the professed atheist. He neither has all knowledge, or revelation from someone who does, thus he can never be sure that some undiscovered fact won't refute something (or everything) he claims to know in the future.
                  OK, I am neither an expert on Mormonism nor Islam so I will leave the particulars aside while I try to focus on what seems to be the major issue, which would be, how could one ever conclude that said revelation is simply made up/fabricated if they utilize a presuppositional stance?

                  For example, say one day long, long ago Mr. White decided, with malicious intent, or perhaps based upon sincere delusions, to create a "holy book" which mirrored the biblical attributes of God. This God of Mr. White's imagination, let's call him Zork, was equal to the biblical God in truth, power, morality, etc. and thereby provided the preconditions for intelligibility and what not. However, this God, Zork, was nothing more than a figment of Mr. White's imagination. So faced with Mr. White's God Zork and the Biblical God:

                  1) How would you determine who is the true God that provides true revelation?

                  2) How would the presuppositional argumentation utilized by Zork's followers be any different from the presuppositional argumentation that you are utilizing to defend the Biblical God?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Really whag? I'm not arguing against uniformity, I'm arguing that apart from God we can not know if the future will be like the past of if the laws of nature were the same in the distant past or if they are the same in parts of the universe we have no knowledge of. Uniformity universally exists because a Rational , All Knowing Mind is in control. And can communicate that that information to human beings. How do you know that uniformity is universal whag? What controls your universe whag?
                    "And communicates that information to human beings"? If you werent so brainwashed by antievolutionists, you'd know that He does that through science (the general revelation) not religion (special revelation). You completely reject the former because it puts you at tension with your theology and retreat to the latter.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by whag View Post
                      "And communicates that information to human beings"? If you werent so brainwashed by antievolutionists, you'd know that He does that through science (the general revelation) not religion (special revelation). You completely reject the former because it puts you at tension with your theology and retreat to the latter.
                      No whag, universal uniformity can only be known by specific, special revelation. How does science prove universal uniformity? Your argument, in the end, must be inductive, not deductive. Therefore open to error.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        No whag, universal uniformity can only be known by specific, special revelation. How does science prove universal uniformity? Your argument, in the end, must be inductive, not deductive. Therefore open to error.
                        If you believe universal uniformity is known to you by Revelation, then you should have no problem of science based on universal uniformity, i. e. theistic evolution..
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-14-2014, 01:27 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 shunyadragon View Post
                          If you believe universal uniformity is known to you by revelation, then you should have no problem of science based on universal uniformity.
                          Exactly. He reserves the right to doubt uniformity ONLY because it puts his view at tension with his preferred protology (YEC/antievolutionism).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            If you believe universal uniformity is known to you by Revelation, then you should have no problem of science based on universal uniformity, i. e. theistic evolution..
                            How does that follow Shuny? That makes no sense. And Shuny your real problem is that you need to repent and cease following that false prophet and his pagan deity and receive Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.
                            Last edited by seer; 09-14-2014, 02:07 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by whag View Post
                              Exactly. He reserves the right to doubt uniformity ONLY because it puts his view at tension with his preferred protology (YEC/antievolutionism).
                              Are you completely clueless whag? You either can't follow the argument or you are being deceptive. This has nothing to do with what I believe about origins. It has to do with what men can know or conclude apart from revelation.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                How does that follow Shuny? That makes no sense.
                                It makes sense because epistemology is the method by which God delivers information about the universe. Evangelicals who deny that there are methods of extracting reliable knowledge deny the general revelation itself in favor of the special revelation. The general revelation threatens all that they've been taught.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 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
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X