Originally posted by Doug Shaver
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight and science is never highjacked by politics or money!
What has happened is the money for basic research has been reduced under conservation influence in Congress.
As far as your assertion of highjacking, can you back this up with documentation and references?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 PostApplied technology most definitely is often highjacked by politics and commercial interests for money, but your assertion is more a 'conspiracy theory,' and not reality.
What has happened is the money for basic research has been reduced under conservation influence in Congress.
As far as your assertion of highjacking, can you back this up with documentation and references?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 Doug Shaver View PostI have no idea, but so what? You're asking questions. Questions are not evidence.
If it remained merely a disagreement about science and research methods, there wouldn’t be much of a story — or reason for concern. Unfortunately, it turned into a scientific lynching of Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas and anyone associated with them. For example, Chris de Freitas, the editor of Climate Research that published the paper, was criticized for having failed in his responsibilities of quality control, even though the paper passed an extensive peer-review process and the publisher defended Mr. de Freitas’ handling of the paper. It was argued Mr. de Freitas should be removed from his position simply for having published it. Even Mr. Mann, in his Senate testimony, dismissed Mr. de Freitas’ credentials solely because he “frequently publishes op-ed pieces in newspapers attacking IPCC and attacking [the] Kyoto [protocol].”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 shunyadragon View PostYou have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour appealing to an unknown negative assumption about what could or could not possibly take place in the future.
No, I'm appealing to God's own testimony about His upholding all things...
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3)
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17)...
...and His promise to do so in the future...
“While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22)
You, on the other hand, are begging the question, arbitrarily assuming the uniformity of nature in order to rationalize your dependence upon science, and then turning around and appealing to science to give the impression that you've merely concluded with the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou hedging. The scientific knowledge is not nor has ever been an appeal to the majority. You need to clarify yourself instead of hedging.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Postthe ontic base of the physical evidence has never, and I mean never indicated one shred of evidence nor event that has indicated that our physical existence is not universally consistent.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNotice the logical fallacies described below your are committing her in your appeal to the negative and unknowns.
You have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour misusing logic here.
1.) What is logic?
2.) On what basis do you assert that logic is what you believe it to be?
3.) How should logic be used?
4.) Are you absolutely sure of the answers you given, or could you be wrong?
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou are appealing to hypothetical unknowns of the future to justify your argument, and this is a logical fallacy 'Big time.'
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAffirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Postor Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. [/cite]
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostActually, your appealing to an unknown negative here like a broken record and committing the same fallacy as above.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour avoiding a consistent positive argument concerning what you believe and why.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSame applies to you Really? Could you be wrong about that?
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNot exactly, not even close, we have as much a certainty as possible that nature is indeed uniform
Are you sure that you have that percentage is correct, or could you be wrong about that?
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou have failed to present any evidence what so ever that your view has a consistent ontic basis other then the anecdotal 'I believe.' Still waiting . . .
The reverse is most likely true.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPlease give me any evidence for your assertion the nature of our physical existence is not uniform.
I'm challenging your worldview's ability to give any reason for holding to it. What is the basis for the uniformity of nature in your worldview? On what basis do you expect tomorrow to be like today? How do you know the laws of nature won't change?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 PostThis is willful blindness. The "evidence", in terms of this argument, that God is the ontic base is God's own testimony to that effect. You may choose not to look at that evidence (though you already know Him in your heart), but that doesn't make the evidence somehow disappear. You really think that you're the first person to suppress the knowledge God has given you by covering your eyes and saying, "Where's the truth? Where's the truth? Gee, who knows for sure?"
No, I'm appealing to God's own testimony about His upholding all things...
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3)
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17)...
...and His promise to do so in the future...
“While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22)
You, on the other hand, are begging the question, arbitrarily assuming the uniformity of nature in order to rationalize your dependence upon science, and then turning around and appealing to science to give the impression that you've merely concluded with the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend.
You are often appealing to the fallacy of appealing to ignorance of the negative over and over and over again.
Straw man fallacy. I said nothing about scientific knowledge. I said something about majority opinion.
This is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. What you've essentially said here is, "Well, you can't prove that it's not universal, so gee, I guess it must be." By that line of reasoning I could "prove" that magical, undetectable goblins will crawl out of your butt at midnight and devour your entire body. After all, we haven't any indication that they don't exist.
Straw man fallacy again. I addressed this above.
Really? This is gonna be fun.
1.) What is logic?
Proofs in mathematics is a form of logic.
The philosophy of science is also grounded in logic
2.) On what basis do you assert that logic is what you believe it to be?
3.) How should logic be used?
Logic is used to give structure and purpose in defense of arguments.
Apparently your logic is simply: God says and I believe.
4.) Are you absolutely sure of the answers you given, or could you be wrong?
Straw man fallacy yet again. I'm appealing to the testimony of the ultimate epistemological authority.
Please document. If you do not make a coherent logical argument with premises instead of assertions based only on 'I believe' this accusation is meaningless.
My argument does not have premises, as it's a transcendental argument, and the purest form of a TA is simply "P presupposes Q". Think of P as a placeholder for any/all facts of reality, and/or operational features of the mind and/or the external world, and think of Q as the Christian worldview. And by "presupposes", here, I mean it requires the Christian worldview to be the actual state of affairs in advance.
That's not my argument at all. Rather, my argument is that, when you reject God's revelation of Himself, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, as you've already illustrated by conceding that you don't know anything for sure.
No, I'm appealing to the devastating admission you made regarding your worldview, which renders your worldview absurd. And so I'm asking you to be consistent with that worldview. If by your own admission you can't know anything, then you have no basis for objecting to (or agreeing with) anything anyone says. You're simply left with absurdity.
I gave the argument above.
No. The biblical worldview is true, and I could not be wrong about that.
Really? What percentage of certainty do you have, specifically?
Are you sure that you have that percentage is correct, or could you be wrong about that?
If you can cite evidence to the contrary this please do, instead of appealing to the negative fallacy..
To say that something is---or is not--- "likely" assumes a standard of absolute certainty against which to compare the relative likelihood of a given claim (you can't know what is closer to the truth unless you know what the truth is to begin with).
What is that standard of absolute certainty in your worldview?
Why would I give "evidence" for a view I don't hold? I'm not challenging the uniformity of nature---in fact I hold to it. Based on God's revelation I have every reason to hold to it.
I'm challenging your worldview's ability to give any reason for holding to it. What is the basis for the uniformity of nature in your worldview? On what basis do you expect tomorrow to be like today? How do you know the laws of nature won't change?
It remains a fact that you deny the uniformity of nature as the ontic base of science and appeal to the negative fallacy of an unknown future in your argument.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-09-2014, 06:29 AM.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. BlackThat's not my argument at all. Rather, my argument is that, when you reject God's revelation of Himself, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, as you've already illustrated by conceding that you don't know anything for sure.
One thing is certain about you. You didn't know scientific epistemology was a thing. =)
First, when discussing epistemology, you don't start with God. You start from a philosophical and scientific base of reliable knowledge. Philosophers were the first epistemologists to question bad omens and superstitions attached to earthquakes and comets. See the connection there? If we started with God and didn't incorporate scientific epistemology, we'd still be flagellating ourselves thinking God was communicating to us via natural phenomena.
At present, you have no idea that telling people to go backwards from a pure faith statement (God said it -- that settles it!) to all the mumbo jumbo you've been peddling for the past few weeks is a recipe for creating shallow believers whose faith will falter after one astronomy class. Christian brethren are either too afraid or exasperated to tell you this, and that's a damn shame.
First, you need to know what epistemology really is and then try REALLY hard to process the general revelation. The general revelation tells you that the universe is ancient and that you are a primate. Clamping your hands over your ears regarding those two key pieces of "general revelation" information makes you look the fool.
Comment
-
-
I think this quote here essentially sums up Mr. Black's position:
Originally posted by Mr. Black View PostNo. The biblical worldview is true, and I could not be wrong about that.
It seems both parties are going to continue talking past one another, but it is definitely interesting to watch play out.
Comment
-
Even if the Biblical word-view were 100% accurate, it would still be necessary to show that Mr Black (or anyone else) has correctly interpreted the Bible. In light of physical evidence available, if Mr Black's interpretation of the Bible were accurate, the Bible would be wrong.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostEven if the Biblical word-view were 100% accurate, it would still be necessary to show that Mr Black (or anyone else) has correctly interpreted the Bible. In light of physical evidence available, if Mr Black's interpretation of the Bible were accurate, the Bible would be wrong.
Comment
-
To some extent such a claim would be supportable, but it can go only so far. Where two (apparently) valid but competing interpretations are on the table, one way to determine which is accurate would be to compare the interpretations with additional data (external and internal). Mr Black's interpretation of 6 solar days of creation is not the only possibly valid interpretation of the record of Genesis 1, and the alternative interpretation of "day" as "era" doesn't create a conflict with the physical evidence. In reconciling Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, either the wholly unsupported (by dictionary entries) change of "in the day" to mean "when" competes with the supported (by dictionary entries) interpretation of "in the day" to mean "in the era" - that alternative interpretation gives a uniform interpretation of the word within the same topic and in physical proximity. In short - Mr Black's interpretation is somewhat less than satisfactory.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI think this quote here essentially sums up Mr. Black's position:
No argument or appeal to evidence can trump his interpretation of God's revelation. He cannot possibly be wrong because he believes God cannot be wrong. I don't think he is being arrogant or deceitful but rather he is genuinely attempting to submit himself to the truths revealed in Scripture to the best of his understanding.
From the perspective of the unbeliever he is engaging in presuppositional or circular reasoning and is probably delusional to an extent. From Mr. Black's perspective, the unbeliever is suppressing their innate knowledge of God in unrighteousness and the only reason they can engage in rational discussion is because they are operating within the reality of the Christian worldview, which they deny.
It seems both parties are going to continue talking past one another, but it is definitely interesting to watch play out.
In this view I may not even have the opportunity to deny, because I was not chosen. '. . . unbeliever is suppressing their innate knowledge of God in unrighteousness and the only reason they can engage in rational discussion is because they are operating within the reality of the Christian worldview, which they deny.'Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-09-2014, 07:49 AM.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
12 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
101 responses
539 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment