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
    If it's all illusion, then yes, it's false to our senses.
    Well, what you believe to be true has nothing to do with your senses, it has only to do with what you believe, so what need have you of senses? If the bible tells you that which reads false to your senses, then you disregard your senses and accept what the bible says. We realists have faith in our senses, you only have faith in them when they are in agreement with your beliefs.


    Begging the question. If my worldview is true, then yes, all men have direct access to, and in fact have received direct revelation from God, and continue to do so every second of everyday (Romans 1:18-22).
    Well, of course, if your world view is true then your world view is true, and if my world view is true then your world view is false.



    Let's how if you've been paying attention, Jim. How are transcendental arguments proven?
    I don't know, you've yet to prove anything.



    That's a transcendental argument you just ducked....again.
    I don't give a hoot about the nature of your argument Mr. Black, nor am I obligated to play by your rules. You make your argument and I will make mine.


    You still don't understand the concept of a transcendental argument it seems. I've explained the difference between deductive and transcendental arguments to you more once now. And each time you've ignored that crucial distinction and launched an objection that assumed deductive standards of reasoning on my part, thus subtly miscasting my TA as a DA.
    See above.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      This is not an argument it is presuppositional statement of belief in Van Til's tradition.
      This is not a refutation of my argument. It is merely a blind faith statement about what you think I'm doing.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      One does not argue for the existence of God nor the justification of belief.
      You're not the authority on this. When the biblical God places a moral requirement on His children to be rational and give a reason for our claims, and when that same God says that no knowledge can be had apart from Him, then yes, one does argue for the existence of God and the justification of belief.
      Only irrational people would express a belief that one does not need to argue for the justification of belief.
      Last edited by Mr. Black; 10-09-2014, 03:15 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
        Unfortunately Mr. Black your transcendental argument proves nothing of the kind. Because you say that there is no contrary possibility does not make it so.
        *facepalm* You're assuming a deductive argument again. You've yet to even grapple with the argument I've presented. When did I say that my claiming the impossibility "makes it so"?

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Your argument assumes that the mind is a thing in itself and therefore its existence is dependent upon a like cause. But a mind is not a thing in itself, the mind is descriptive of the functioning, or cognitive abilities, of an evolved material brain.
        Notice the fallacy of equivocation here. Biblically speaking, a mind is something in itself. You've imported a secular definition into the Bible, and then faulted the Bible for your error.


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        I don't need to justify from my perspective any (pre-conditions of intelligibility), by which you mean a pre-existent mind,

        You just begged the question against both my argument and my worldview. That's not rational. I mean, don't get me wrong. It doesn't hurt me when you waltz into the marketplace of ideas and engage in irrational behavior, but I would appreciate it if you could take the time to note the stark difference between the transcendental argument and deductive arguments.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        ...until you prove your assertion of its necessity. Your transcendental argument doesn't do this, it merely asserts it.
        You have again launched an argument that assumes the standards of deductive reasoning in your opponent's argument (a form of argument I'm not using).


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Define what you mean here by "real" and "illusion".
        Real = having existence in the actual, objective state of affairs, apart from any mere human mind's belief.
        Illusion = having no existence in the actual, objective state of affairs, being present only in one's imagination.




        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        No, the notion of evidence assumes intelligence,or cognitive abilities, not pre-conditions of intelligibility.
        Intelligence and cognitive abilities are two of the preconditions of intelligibility, and in fact what you just appealed presupposes the others I mentioned. Let's look at this claim of yours in light of the others that you've now rejected.
        Laws of logic: How does one intelligibly recognize, remember past perceptions of, or appeal to evidence without logical absolutes? If the law of non-contradiction does not exist or is not absolute then you cannot say that evidence even exists---let alone supports your view---without the exact opposite being true at the same time and in the same way?

        Uniformity of nature: Since cognitive faculties and memory work through chemical reactions in the brain, and chemical reactions are kept in check by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics remaining what they are are part of the uniformity of nature, intelligence and cognitive abilities depend upon the uniformity of nature.



        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        The all powerful God can not do that which his creations can do. Interesting.
        God does not have the flaws that man has. The ability to lie is a not a power, its a deficiency.


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Besides the bible is replete with falsehoods.
        Making claims about what is "false" assumes a standard of truth from which to deviate. What is the standard of truth in your worldview?

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        If lying is against Gods nature, which is why he doesn't lie, then why, since unlike that of God, it is our nature to lie, shouldn't we lie?
        That's actually a good question, and I'm glad you asked it, because it allows for clarification. When God created man everything was very good (Genesis 1:31). There was no death, disease, pain, suffering, deceit, dishonesty, etc. Man was not prone to sin at that early point in history. But when Adam disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:16-17; 3:1-7) God cursed the created order since Adam was the federal head of it (i.e., acted as the collective representative of the created order since he had dominion over it under God's authority: Genesis 3:8-24). This curse, brought on by man, resulted in a fallen nature (a nature hell-bent on rebellion toward our Creator: Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:2,3; Genesis 8:21, etc). Or, as Ecclesiastes 7:29 puts it, ""Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."
        And this highlights the need for Christ. As law-breakers, we're without excuse for violating God's law, and no amount of "good deeds" can erase our guilt (since every thought is to be taken captive to God anyways (2 Corinthians 10:5). So we have a debt to pay, and that debt is clear: "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God would be justified in sending everyone of us to hell immediately upon our first sin. If God is going to be true to Himself, then He cannot turn a blind eye to evil. And if He's going to respect our personal choices, then He cannot arbitrarily pretend that we haven't broken His law. All sin must be punished. But, being also loving and merciful, He inacted a plan from the start, explaining it first after pronouncing the penalty on Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. The 2nd Person of the Trinity came down and, while keeping His divine nature, added onto it a human nature, two natures united in one person: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus lived a perfect life on our behalf, and then suffered and died on the cross on our behalf. Whoever accepts Him as Lord and Savior, Christ's death on the cross will count as his punishment for breaking God's law, and the merits of Christ's righteous life will be imputed to that sinner. Thus when that sinner dies he won't get what he deserves (eternity in hell), but rather what he doesn't deserve (eternity in heaven with God).
        So, the reason we should resist our fallen nature and refuse to lie is the same reason a pedophile should resist his fallen nature and refuse to molest children: it dishonors God who calls all men everywhere to be reconciled to Him.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Fact is we all lie Mr. Black, including yourself.
        I gave my answer above, despite the fact that you did not answer mine. Why shouldn't Christians lie to persuade you if your worldview is true?


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        No, you assume the bible to be the word of God because, no matter the fool things it asserts, you were told it is the word of God,
        This is the fallacy of question begging epithet. You've provided no argument here, just biased language to make your claim sound persuasive.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        I assume it is not the word of God because I read and decide for myself.
        Thank you for admitting that, Jim. You've begged the question against the biblical worldview. When God tells His creatures that (1) He is not to be put on trial by guilty criminals who've broken His law (Deuteronomy 6:16, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4:12), and accordingly, that everything we do is to be done to His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31), and that every single thought we have is to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), then in attempting to "decide for yourself" whether or not God's Word can be trusted, you've already assumed from the start that He's wrong, and thus have begged the question. This highlights the fact that this is a worldview issue. People only have the "right" to "decide" if God's Word is true if it is false. So when you start your arguments from that position you're actually just assuming and expressing your worldview, not arguing for it.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Well if it is impossible for God to lie, then he would not be all powerful or have free will, so that seems a bit of a contradiction.
        This depends on what is considered to be "power" and "free will", and that will depend on your worldview.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        But to answer your question, no, it is not possible for God to lie according to your world view, or that man doesn't know God,
        Thank you for that honest answer. So when you conclude that my worldview is false on the basis of a premise that claims that God "lied" or that man "doesn't know God" you're assuming that your understanding is better than that of the author of the Bible, and therefore that the Bible is false, thus begging the question.



        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        As above, you are assuming the necessity of an ontic ground, I do not, therefore I need not provide one.
        Then you've left yourself without justification for any knowledge claim you make. You just gave up the debate.


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        I understand it just fine.
        Great. Please explain the difference between transcendental arguments and deductive arguments.




        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        2+2=4.
        How do you know---in terms of your worldview---that 2+2=4? Have you observed ever instance of 2+2=4 in the history of the universe?



        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Has nothing to do with their world view, thats your assertion. We filter the evidence through our brains, not through assumptions of our world view.
        False. Everyone brings assumptions to the table when it comes to interpreting the evidence. Everyone's worldview contains starting point assumptions about the nature, scope, and limits of reality. And those assumptions in turn determine what one considers to qualify as "evidence" in the first place. And not everyone's worldview contains the same starting point assumptions. A common example is the secular argument that if you take the current size of the universe, as well as the current rate at which it expands, and extrapolate backwards until you get an infinitesimal singularity, you get an age of about 13.798±0.037 billion years. But notice the two unstated and unargued assumptions on which this argument hinges: constancy of rates and initial conditions. First, it assumes that because the universe is expanding at such and such a rate in the present, it must have always done so all throughout the past. This is a secular philosophy called uniformitarianism, which is not true if biblical creationism is true. Second, it assumes initial conditions. That is, it assumes that the universe actually did start off as a singularity, instead of having been created vast and fully functional by God, and then expanded to display God's glory. The "evidence" that's pointed to hinge on secular assumptions which would not be true if the Bible were true. The secularist's worldview has determined the conclusions he draws from the evidence.
        The Christian does the exact same thing by the way. We all interpret the evidence through our worldview, which we take to be informative of the nature, scope, and limits of possibility. To justify one's interpretation of the evidence, then, one must appeal to their worldview. But in order to be justified in appealing to their worldview, their worldview itself has to make sense. So the only way the debate can be settle is through worldview analysis, to see which worldview can make sense of human experience. That involves providing an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and an epistemology which makes that base known. But since you've denied having an ontic base in your worldview, you cannot justify any knowledge claim you make.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Well, what you believe to be true has nothing to do with your senses, it has only to do with what you believe, so what need have you of senses?
        This is a straw man fallacy. I generally believe what my senses tell me, but I have a good reason for that in my worldview: the sovereign Creator God made me in His image, designed my sensory organs (Proverbs 20:12) and placed me in His world and gave me specific instructions. So the Christian has every good reason to hold to the reliability of the senses.
        What reason do you have in your worldview?

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        We realists have faith in our senses,
        1.) Please define what you mean by "faith" here.
        2.) You called yourself a "realist". How do you know what is, or is not, real?


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Well, of course, if your world view is true then your world view is true, and if my world view is true then your world view is false.
        Then resting a conclusion on a premise that merely assumes that my worldview is false begs the question. You've yet to address my worldview itself.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        I don't know, you've yet to prove anything.
        Notice the subtle contradiction in your claim here.
        1.) On the one hand, when I ask you how transcendental arguments are proven, you say, "I don't know".
        2.) But then on the other hand, you immediately turn around and say, "you've yet to prove anything."
        This is self-contradicting. If you don't know how transcendental arguments are proven, then how do you know whether or not I've proven anything with my TA? This is a totally arbitrary dismissal on your part, and we're about to see why below...


        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        I don't give a hoot about the nature of your argument Mr. Black,
        And there we have it. This is the mantra of the irrational. A rational man gives reasons for what he claims to be true in the marketplace of ideas, and he does not misrepresent his interlocutor's views, nor does he ignore or arbitrarily dismiss his opponent's actual argument.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        ...nor am I obligated to play by your rules.
        1.) I don't have rules, as I'm not the authority.
        2.) But God does have rules, as He is the authority, and seeing as how you can't always disobey the laws of logic (which reflect His thinking), you at least partically play by His rules all the time, whether you like it or not.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        You make your argument and I will make mine.
        What would be the point in my making my argument if you're going to ignore it and, by your own admission, you can't be bothered to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge its nature, and interact with it in a logical fashion?
        What's the point in my debating you if by your own admission you don't plan to be rational in this discussion?
        Last edited by Mr. Black; 10-09-2014, 03:24 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 Mr. Black View Post
          This is not a refutation of my argument. It is merely a blind faith statement about what you think I'm doing.
          There is no refutation for a belief statement that considers all other worldviews irrational.

          You're not the authority on this. When the biblical God places a moral requirement on His children to be rational and give a reason for our claims, and when that same God says that no knowledge can be had apart from Him, then yes, one does argue for the existence of God and the justification of belief.
          Only irrational people would express a belief that one does not need to argue for the justification of belief.
          Again, no possible argument presentable, just like seer you believe all other possible worlds have no justification nor knowledge, and are irrational.

          Originally posted by seer
          ". . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.
          To be considered as authority, one would have to believe as you do.

          Classic 'Begging the Question' big time.
          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
            *facepalm* You're assuming a deductive argument again. You've yet to even grapple with the argument I've presented. When did I say that my claiming the impossibility "makes it so"?



            Notice the fallacy of equivocation here. Biblically speaking, a mind is something in itself. You've imported a secular definition into the Bible, and then faulted the Bible for your error.





            You just begged the question against both my argument and my worldview. That's not rational. I mean, don't get me wrong. It doesn't hurt me when you waltz into the marketplace of ideas and engage in irrational behavior, but I would appreciate it if you could take the time to note the stark difference between the transcendental argument and deductive arguments.



            You have again launched an argument that assumes the standards of deductive reasoning in your opponent's argument (a form of argument I'm not using).




            Real = having existence in the actual, objective state of affairs, apart from any mere human mind's belief.
            Illusion = having no existence in the actual, objective state of affairs, being present only in one's imagination.






            Intelligence and cognitive abilities are two of the preconditions of intelligibility, and in fact what you just appealed presupposes the others I mentioned. Let's look at this claim of yours in light of the others that you've now rejected.
            Laws of logic: How does one intelligibly recognize, remember past perceptions of, or appeal to evidence without logical absolutes? If the law of non-contradiction does not exist or is not absolute then you cannot say that evidence even exists---let alone supports your view---without the exact opposite being true at the same time and in the same way?

            Uniformity of nature: Since cognitive faculties and memory work through chemical reactions in the brain, and chemical reactions are kept in check by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics remaining what they are are part of the uniformity of nature, intelligence and cognitive abilities depend upon the uniformity of nature.





            God does not have the flaws that man has. The ability to lie is a not a power, its a deficiency.




            Making claims about what is "false" assumes a standard of truth from which to deviate. What is the standard of truth in your worldview?



            That's actually a good question, and I'm glad you asked it, because it allows for clarification. When God created man everything was very good (Genesis 1:31). There was no death, disease, pain, suffering, deceit, dishonesty, etc. Man was not prone to sin at that early point in history. But when Adam disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:16-17; 3:1-7) God cursed the created order since Adam was the federal head of it (i.e., acted as the collective representative of the created order since he had dominion over it under God's authority: Genesis 3:8-24). This curse, brought on by man, resulted in a fallen nature (a nature hell-bent on rebellion toward our Creator: Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:2,3; Genesis 8:21, etc). Or, as Ecclesiastes 7:29 puts it, ""Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."
            And this highlights the need for Christ. As law-breakers, we're without excuse for violating God's law, and no amount of "good deeds" can erase our guilt (since every thought is to be taken captive to God anyways (2 Corinthians 10:5). So we have a debt to pay, and that debt is clear: "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). God would be justified in sending everyone of us to hell immediately upon our first sin. If God is going to be true to Himself, then He cannot turn a blind eye to evil. And if He's going to respect our personal choices, then He cannot arbitrarily pretend that we haven't broken His law. All sin must be punished. But, being also loving and merciful, He inacted a plan from the start, explaining it first after pronouncing the penalty on Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. The 2nd Person of the Trinity came down and, while keeping His divine nature, added onto it a human nature, two natures united in one person: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus lived a perfect life on our behalf, and then suffered and died on the cross on our behalf. Whoever accepts Him as Lord and Savior, Christ's death on the cross will count as his punishment for breaking God's law, and the merits of Christ's righteous life will be imputed to that sinner. Thus when that sinner dies he won't get what he deserves (eternity in hell), but rather what he doesn't deserve (eternity in heaven with God).
            So, the reason we should resist our fallen nature and refuse to lie is the same reason a pedophile should resist his fallen nature and refuse to molest children: it dishonors God who calls all men everywhere to be reconciled to Him.



            I gave my answer above, despite the fact that you did not answer mine. Why shouldn't Christians lie to persuade you if your worldview is true?




            This is the fallacy of question begging epithet. You've provided no argument here, just biased language to make your claim sound persuasive.



            Thank you for admitting that, Jim. You've begged the question against the biblical worldview. When God tells His creatures that (1) He is not to be put on trial by guilty criminals who've broken His law (Deuteronomy 6:16, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4:12), and accordingly, that everything we do is to be done to His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31), and that every single thought we have is to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), then in attempting to "decide for yourself" whether or not God's Word can be trusted, you've already assumed from the start that He's wrong, and thus have begged the question. This highlights the fact that this is a worldview issue. People only have the "right" to "decide" if God's Word is true if it is false. So when you start your arguments from that position you're actually just assuming and expressing your worldview, not arguing for it.



            This depends on what is considered to be "power" and "free will", and that will depend on your worldview.



            Thank you for that honest answer. So when you conclude that my worldview is false on the basis of a premise that claims that God "lied" or that man "doesn't know God" you're assuming that your understanding is better than that of the author of the Bible, and therefore that the Bible is false, thus begging the question.





            Then you've left yourself without justification for any knowledge claim you make. You just gave up the debate.




            Great. Please explain the difference between transcendental arguments and deductive arguments.






            How do you know---in terms of your worldview---that 2+2=4? Have you observed ever instance of 2+2=4 in the history of the universe?





            False. Everyone brings assumptions to the table when it comes to interpreting the evidence. Everyone's worldview contains starting point assumptions about the nature, scope, and limits of reality. And those assumptions in turn determine what one considers to qualify as "evidence" in the first place. And not everyone's worldview contains the same starting point assumptions. A common example is the secular argument that if you take the current size of the universe, as well as the current rate at which it expands, and extrapolate backwards until you get an infinitesimal singularity, you get an age of about 13.798±0.037 billion years. But notice the two unstated and unargued assumptions on which this argument hinges: constancy of rates and initial conditions. First, it assumes that because the universe is expanding at such and such a rate in the present, it must have always done so all throughout the past. This is a secular philosophy called uniformitarianism, which is not true if biblical creationism is true. Second, it assumes initial conditions. That is, it assumes that the universe actually did start off as a singularity, instead of having been created vast and fully functional by God, and then expanded to display God's glory. The "evidence" that's pointed to hinge on secular assumptions which would not be true if the Bible were true. The secularist's worldview has determined the conclusions he draws from the evidence.
            The Christian does the exact same thing by the way. We all interpret the evidence through our worldview, which we take to be informative of the nature, scope, and limits of possibility. To justify one's interpretation of the evidence, then, one must appeal to their worldview. But in order to be justified in appealing to their worldview, their worldview itself has to make sense. So the only way the debate can be settle is through worldview analysis, to see which worldview can make sense of human experience. That involves providing an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and an epistemology which makes that base known. But since you've denied having an ontic base in your worldview, you cannot justify any knowledge claim you make.



            This is a straw man fallacy. I generally believe what my senses tell me, but I have a good reason for that in my worldview: the sovereign Creator God made me in His image, designed my sensory organs (Proverbs 20:12) and placed me in His world and gave me specific instructions. So the Christian has every good reason to hold to the reliability of the senses.
            What reason do you have in your worldview?



            1.) Please define what you mean by "faith" here.
            2.) You called yourself a "realist". How do you know what is, or is not, real?




            Then resting a conclusion on a premise that merely assumes that my worldview is false begs the question. You've yet to address my worldview itself.



            Notice the subtle contradiction in your claim here.
            1.) On the one hand, when I ask you how transcendental arguments are proven, you say, "I don't know".
            2.) But then on the other hand, you immediately turn around and say, "you've yet to prove anything."
            This is self-contradicting. If you don't know how transcendental arguments are proven, then how do you know whether or not I've proven anything with my TA? This is a totally arbitrary dismissal on your part, and we're about to see why below...




            And there we have it. This is the mantra of the irrational. A rational man gives reasons for what he claims to be true in the marketplace of ideas, and he does not misrepresent his interlocutor's views, nor does he ignore or arbitrarily dismiss his opponent's actual argument.



            1.) I don't have rules, as I'm not the authority.
            2.) But God does have rules, as He is the authority, and seeing as how you can't always disobey the laws of logic (which reflect His thinking), you at least partically play by His rules all the time, whether you like it or not.



            What would be the point in my making my argument if you're going to ignore it and, by your own admission, you can't be bothered to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge its nature, and interact with it in a logical fashion?
            What's the point in my debating you if by your own admission you don't plan to be rational in this discussion?
            What you mean by rational debate Mr. Black is that your opponent must play by your rules. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your argument asserts the necessity of an ontic ground, by which you mean to say, a pre-existing mind, the source through which temporal minds can form. When are you going to prove this rather than just repeating the assertion of the impossibility of the contrary?
            As far as "truth" is concerned, in so far as we can know it, truth is that which we empirically derive of the world, the world of which we are a part, meaning that which in the world comports with our observations is truth.

            You will of course answer to this arguing that if my cognitive abilities are grounded within the very system through which they derive knowledge of that system, then how do I know that the whole system, including my cognitive abilities is not a complete illusion? We don't know, it could be an illusion, but nature, the world of our experience, could only be an illusion if it was created, not if it is itself eternal. Thats where you have the argument backwards. If the universe were created it could be that the whole thing is an illusion and that we are just cogs in the illusion machine, or data in a simulation as designed by its creator, but if the universe is eternal then we can trust that both we and that which we observe is real, because if the universe is eternal, and only if it is eternal, it is impossible that either our senses or what they observe, could be an illusion.
            Last edited by JimL; 10-15-2014, 09:15 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              Everyone brings assumptions to the table when it comes to interpreting the evidence. Everyone's worldview contains starting point assumptions about the nature, scope, and limits of reality. And those assumptions in turn determine what one considers to qualify as "evidence" in the first place. And not everyone's worldview contains the same starting point assumptions. A common example is the secular argument that if you take the current size of the universe, as well as the current rate at which it expands, and extrapolate backwards until you get an infinitesimal singularity, you get an age of about 13.798±0.037 billion years. But notice the two unstated and unargued assumptions on which this argument hinges: constancy of rates and initial conditions. First, it assumes that because the universe is expanding at such and such a rate in the present, it must have always done so all throughout the past. This is a secular philosophy called uniformitarianism, which is not true if biblical creationism is true. Second, it assumes initial conditions. That is, it assumes that the universe actually did start off as a singularity, instead of having been created vast and fully functional by God, and then expanded to display God's glory. The "evidence" that's pointed to hinge on secular assumptions which would not be true if the Bible were true. The secularist's worldview has determined the conclusions he draws from the evidence.
              The Christian does the exact same thing by the way. We all interpret the evidence through our worldview, which we take to be informative of the nature, scope, and limits of possibility. To justify one's interpretation of the evidence, then, one must appeal to their worldview. But in order to be justified in appealing to their worldview, their worldview itself has to make sense. So the only way the debate can be settle is through worldview analysis, to see which worldview can make sense of human experience.
              I agree with most of the above. However, where you depart reality is in your last statement:



              Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
              That involves providing an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and an epistemology which makes that base known. But since you've denied having an ontic base in your worldview, you cannot justify any knowledge claim you make.
              The only good that can come from a presupposed "ontic base" is your own biased conclusion. And, by the way, the theories you stated above about the estimation of the age of the universe are theoretical - and ADMITTEDLY so. If scientific experimentation can prove that the world is only 10 million years old, the estimate will change. Not so with your worldview, which can be summed up with one, trite phrase: God said it, I believe it. That settles it.

              NORM
              When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
              29 responses
              149 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Mountain Man  
              Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
              168 responses
              845 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Tassman
              by Tassman
               
              Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
              76 responses
              421 views
              1 like
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
              74 responses
              445 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
              Started by tabibito, 06-30-2021, 02:53 AM
              50 responses
              336 views
              0 likes
              Last Post tabibito  
              Working...
              X