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

  • NormATive
    replied
    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 13.7980.037 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

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    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 13.7980.037 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Black
    replied
    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 13.7980.037 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Black
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    Straw man fallacy again. For the love of intellectual honesty, Jim, would you please read up on transcendental arguments? The demands you are making involves the assumption of deductive standards of argumentation, not transcendental standards of argumentation. The transcendental argument I'm using is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Thus the demonstration comes via reductio, and is an indirect proof.
    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. 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.



    This is not an answer to my question (though I appreciate the effort). How is epistemic certainty possible in your worldview? Your above answer assumed the very things I just asked you to justify (preconditions of intelligibility), instead of providing an ontic base to ground them, and an epistemology which makes that base known.
    I don't need to justify from my perspective any (pre-conditions of intelligibility), by which you mean a pre-existent mind, until you prove your assertion of its necessity. Your transcendental argument doesn't do this, it merely asserts it.


    Setting aside the fact that this assumes (rather than proves that God either cannot or has not granted epistemic certainty to His creatures, by saying, "We are all in the same boat as far as that goes", are you saying that you don't know for sure that all you perceive is real and not illusion?
    Define what you mean here by "real" and "illusion".


    The notion of "evidence" assumes the preconditions of intelligibility I outlined in my last reply. You need to provide a basis for this. Your attempt above was inadequate.
    We can start with logic. Does the law of non-contradiction apply everywhere? Can it change? Does it change? How do you know?
    No, the notion of evidence assumes intelligence,or cognitive abilities, not pre-conditions of intelligibility.


    False. The Bible is God's Word and God can't lie. Mere men certainly do though, especially when railing against their Holy Creator. ;)
    The all powerful God can not do that which his creations can do. Interesting. Besides the bible is replete with falsehoods.
    But you do bring up an interesting point. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were right in your above claim. What would be wrong with lying in your worldview? In my worldview, lying goes against God's nature, and since He created everything outside of Himself, including the universe and everything therein, He has the right to make the rules and punish those who break His rules. So Christians have a reason to denounce lying as objectively wrong, and to praise honesty.
    But if your view of reality were true, why shouldn't people lie in order to convince their opponents to join them? On what basis do you condemn dishonesty and call upon others to be intellectually honest?
    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? Aren't we just following our nature by lying just as is God by not lying? Fact is we all lie Mr. Black, including yourself.


    You see, you are blinded to the lies that are launched against the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those lies you tell, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your assumption that the bible is not the word of God.
    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, I assume it is not the word of God because I read and decide for myself.


    The unspoken assumption in your reply here can be elucidated by answering one simple question. Given Titus 1:2, and Romans 1:18-32, if my worldview is true, Jim, is it possible that God could lie, or that man doesn't know God?
    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. 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, because if not your world view would be wrong.




    Not done. You've provided no ontic base or corresponding epistemology which makes that base known in your worldview, whereas I have from mine.
    As above, you are assuming the necessity of an ontic ground, I do not, therefore I need not provide one.




    That's another straw man. Do you not believe in taking the time to understand your opponent's argument?
    I understand it just fine.




    What is "truth" in your worldview, Jim? Definition, please, not examples.
    2+2=4.


    It doesn't "speak" at all, because it's not personal. People speak, after filtering the evidence which they encounter in the universe, through the basic assumptions in their worldview.
    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.
    Sorry no more time, i'll have to get back to the remainder of your post later.
    Last edited by JimL; 10-08-2014, 09:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    I've given a rational argument. It's a transcendental argument which argues that if one does not make the biblical worldview logically primary in their thinking, then they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make.
    This is not an argument it is presuppositional statement of belief in Van Til's tradition. One does not argue for the existence of God nor the justification of belief.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Black
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    No, since it is your assertion, then it is you who have to demonstrate that an evolved mind, i.e. a functioning brain, capable of comprehending the world of which it is a part, is not possible apart from a God, in particular your God.
    Straw man fallacy again. For the love of intellectual honesty, Jim, would you please read up on transcendental arguments? The demands you are making involves the assumption of deductive standards of argumentation, not transcendental standards of argumentation. The transcendental argument I'm using is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Thus the demonstration comes via reductio, and is an indirect proof.


    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I've done this already, human minds are shaped by and so comport with the very reality of which they are a part.
    This is not an answer to my question (though I appreciate the effort). How is epistemic certainty possible in your worldview? Your above answer assumed the very things I just asked you to justify (preconditions of intelligibility), instead of providing an ontic base to ground them, and an epistemology which makes that base known.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Whether a God is the source of that reality, or that reality is itself eternal makes no difference as to how it is percieved by the evolved minds within it. Perhaps God created a simulation and you, your mind, as well as all you percieve, is naught but an illusion. We are all in the same boat as far as that goes
    Setting aside the fact that this assumes (rather than proves that God either cannot or has not granted epistemic certainty to His creatures, by saying, "We are all in the same boat as far as that goes", are you saying that you don't know for sure that all you perceive is real and not illusion?

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    accept that there is no evidence for your assertion of a supernatural source of mind, or ontic ground of intelligibility. There is only evidence of the natural world.
    The notion of "evidence" assumes the preconditions of intelligibility I outlined in my last reply. You need to provide a basis for this. Your attempt above was inadequate.
    We can start with logic. Does the law of non-contradiction apply everywhere? Can it change? Does it change? How do you know?

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    So much for "your conception" of God. The Bible is the word of your God, and the Bible does lie.
    False. The Bible is God's Word and God can't lie. Mere men certainly do though, especially when railing against their Holy Creator. ;)
    But you do bring up an interesting point. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were right in your above claim. What would be wrong with lying in your worldview? In my worldview, lying goes against God's nature, and since He created everything outside of Himself, including the universe and everything therein, He has the right to make the rules and punish those who break His rules. So Christians have a reason to denounce lying as objectively wrong, and to praise honesty.
    But if your view of reality were true, why shouldn't people lie in order to convince their opponents to join them? On what basis do you condemn dishonesty and call upon others to be intellectually honest?

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    You see, you are blinded to the lies in the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those tales, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your premise that the bible is the word of God.
    You see, you are blinded to the lies that are launched against the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those lies you tell, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your assumption that the bible is not the word of God.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    The problem is that the messenger could be a liar or deluded or have alterior motives. Again you are unable to even concieve of that possibility since you've already accepted the messanger and the messages, whatever they be, as true.
    The unspoken assumption in your reply here can be elucidated by answering one simple question. Given Titus 1:2, and Romans 1:18-32, if my worldview is true, Jim, is it possible that God could lie, or that man doesn't know God?



    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Done.
    Not done. You've provided no ontic base or corresponding epistemology which makes that base known in your worldview, whereas I have from mine.



    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    No, actually that is what your argument, like all arguments for God is claiming.
    That's another straw man. Do you not believe in taking the time to understand your opponent's argument?



    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Very true,
    What is "truth" in your worldview, Jim? Definition, please, not examples.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    ...but though it doesn't speak with words
    It doesn't "speak" at all, because it's not personal. People speak, after filtering the evidence which they encounter in the universe, through the basic assumptions in their worldview.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    ...it isn't false to our senses
    If it's all illusion, then yes, it's false to our senses.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    ...which unlike the concept of God we have direct access to.
    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).


    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    You've yet to prove your assertion of the impossibility of the contrary.
    Let's how if you've been paying attention, Jim. How are transcendental arguments proven?


    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    You want me to prove that knowledge is possible apart from God, but other than asserting that to be an absurdity,
    That's a transcendental argument you just ducked....again.

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    you've yet to prove it is not possible.
    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.
    Last edited by Mr. Black; 10-06-2014, 04:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Black
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Your Transcendental argument extends no further then 'I believe the is a say it is so,'
    Straw man again. That is not my argument at all.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    This roughly true, but inadequate for an argument only founded in the circular argument of 'what you believe,' and not adequate to argue against those who believe differently
    You're not even replying against the argument I'm using now. Please be honest, bud. If all you're gonna do is twist everything I say and misrepresent the argument I've given in order to easily dismiss said misrepresentation, then why are you even here?


    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The only basis you have for the assertion that your worldview is the true worldview is 'I believe it is.'
    The only basis you have for saying that that's my view is, "I believe that that's what Mr. Black said."
    See? Two people can play these stupid little games of yours. Now, are you gonna be rational and deal with the argument I've presented, which involves demonstrating that knowledge----on anything at all (including your above claims about what my argument "amounts to") is possible apart from God, or will you insist on acting like a child?
    What's it gonna be, shuny? Are you gonna justify your claims, and stop caricaturing my argument, or shall I move on to someone who actually wants to be rational and is not afraid of attempting to refute the transcendental argument?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So why is starting out with the assumption that the bible if the word of God circular?
    It's not, if you admit that that's what you're doing. Few believers do admit it. What we skeptics nearly always hear is "The Bible must be the word of God because ______."
    Last edited by Doug Shaver; 10-05-2014, 10:24 PM. Reason: Fix typo

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    I've given a rational argument. It's a transcendental argument which argues that if one does not make the biblical worldview logically primary in their thinking, then they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make. You can arbitrarily dismiss it all you want, but can you logically refute it? That involves demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from the God that's revealed in the Bible. So let's look at your proposed justification.
    No, since it is your assertion, then it is you who have to demonstrate that an evolved mind, i.e. a functioning brain, capable of comprehending the world of which it is a part, is not possible apart from a God, in particular your God. To assert such to be impossible is not a demonstration.

    You appeal to "information". This begs the question. Before you can go about perceiving and understanding any alleged information in the external world (or even yourself), you must first have a rational basis for asserting that...
    (1) reality is actually orderly & intelligible, instead of chaotic, and that the information you supposedly perceive is real, and not illusion, which means you must provide a rational basis for assuming your senses are reliable before your appeals to information is justified.
    (2) You must have a rational basis for assuming that your cognitive faculties, by which you reason about the information you come across are reliable, so that you can be sure that your reasoning is valid, let alone sound.
    (3) You must provide a rational basis for assuming that your memories about your past perceptions of information are reliable, and not fabricated.
    (4) You must provide a rational basis for asserting that the external world in which you claim to live is truly uniform---that all of it acts in a law-like fashion, and that it will continue to do so in the future.
    (5) You also must explain where this information came from and how you know it will never change, or, if you wish to assert that it's eternal and unchanging, you need to justify this claim and demonstrate how you know that.
    What are your bases for these assumptions on which your argument hinges? Please note that any reply that appeals to information that's found in the external world begs the question, as it would assume the very assumptions on which are argument hinges, and which you've been asked to justify.
    I've done this already, human minds are shaped by and so comport with the very reality of which they are a part. Whether a God is the source of that reality, or that reality is itself eternal makes no difference as to how it is percieved by the evolved minds within it. Perhaps God created a simulation and you, your mind, as well as all you percieve, is naught but an illusion. We are all in the same boat as far as that goes brother, accept that there is no evidence for your assertion of a supernatural source of mind, or ontic ground of intelligibility. There is only evidence of the natural world.




    You asserted that "my concepyion of God" allows for Him to lie. That's false.
    So much for "your conception" of God. The Bible is the word of your God, and the Bible does lie. You see, you are blinded to the lies in the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those tales, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your premise that the bible is the word of God.


    That makes no sense. That's like saying that if the King sends a message to another kingdom, then since the message was delivered by the messenger, it therefore wasn't sent by the King. Rank non-sequitur.
    The problem is that the messenger could be a liar or deluded or have alterior motives. Again you are unable to even concieve of that possibility since you've already accepted the messanger and the messages, whatever they be, as true.


    Then you'll have no problem answering the above questions. ;)
    Done.


    I hope you're not saying that, because there's "no evidence" against your claim, that therefore it's true. That would be the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
    No, actually that is what your argument, like all arguments for God is claiming.


    How true. It neither lies nor tells the truth, as it's impersonal. Any claim that it "tells" us things would be the fallacy of reification.
    Very true, but though it doesn't speak with words it isn't false to our senses which unlike the concept of God we have direct access to.



    I wouldn't expect you to---and haven't asked you to. I've explained several times now that it's proven, not by my assertion, but by the impossibility of the contrary: rejecting it reduces one to absurdity. That's a transcendental argument. I've asked you to refute my argument---which involves your demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from God. You've attempted to do this above (which I appreciate), but you still do not seem to understand the nature and function of TAs. Your criticisms apply to deductive arguments, which utilize commonly accepted principles and build up to a theorem, and not to transcendental arguments, which point out the necessity of a certain principle (or set of principles)---which is not commonly accepted---and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all. This sort of argument is proven via reductio.
    You've yet to prove your assertion of the impossibility of the contrary. You want me to prove that knowledge is possible apart from God, but other than asserting that to be an absurdity, you've yet to prove it is not possible. Apparently you think that your transcendental argument, which btw is nothing but an unfounded assertion as far as i can see, proves your case, but it is not convincing to me. It is true that in nature the cause is in the effect and vice versa but the mind is not itself a thing which has existence, it is descriptive of how the material brain has naturally evolved to function in the material world that created it. So prove to me that a supernatural mind is necessary for a material brain to evolve with the capacity to comprehend the world that created it.
    Last edited by JimL; 10-05-2014, 12:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    It's circular because it appeals to the Bible (or rather, the worldview that's articulated in the Bible) to support the claim that the biblical worldview is true. The difference, though, (which they seem to not get) is that when a transcendental argument (like the one I've been using) is employed it's all about starting point principles. So it's not about arbitrary temporal assumptions which are never justified, but rather logical starting point (something that the person takes to be logically primary in their thinking) which does justify those assumptions, as it would explain why we started that way, and how we can (and do) know (and always have known) that those starting points are true. Everyone, no matter their worldview, starts with some propositions they take to be "givens" (the preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolute, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). The question now is, which worldview can justify our starting in that way, and thus make human experience intelligible? Such a worldview would have to provide an ontic base to ground the preconditions, and an epistemology which makes that base known. In the Christian worldview, God is the ontic base, and His revelation of Himself (both general in nature, and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known by everyone on earth (Romans 1:18-22).
    This roughly true, but inadequate for an argument only founded in the circular argument of 'what you believe,' and not adequate to argue against those who believe differently


    So, all reasoning is (1) virtuously circular at base, which means sound reasoning will be based on the true worldview, which provides the requisite ontic base and corresponding epistemology, or else it will be (2) viciously circular with appeals to an assertion that cannot provide the ontic base and epistemology, or else it will be (3) completely arbitrary, based upon nothing (not even a circular claim), or else it will (4) fall into infinite regress, in which case no assertion, belief, or action can ever be justified.
    The only basis you have for the assertion that your worldview is the true worldview is 'I believe it is.' I am still waiting for something more substantial then that. There are probably 10,000 different worldviews that claim the 'one true worldview' based on ' I believe it so.' What else is there for your Transcendental argument. Even though you repeatedly question "How do you know?' you have failed to demonstrate any reason we cannot simply justify the uniformity and continuity of our physical world by the Law of non-contradiction, except by Begging the Question, and Arguing from Ignorance.

    Seer got it right when he concluded red is always red regardless if your blind.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-05-2014, 04:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
    Fallacy of begging the question. I covered this in the other thread.
    Yes, your correct, your argument represents Begging the Question.

    telling your opponent---after he's drawn his sword---that you're "still waiting" for him to draw his sword is not rational. I've presented the proof through the transcendental argument I employ, and rather than refute said argument you've ignored it and merely asserted that it's unsound. If it's unsound you should have no problem refuting it. But if you can't refute, on what basis do you assert that it's unsound?
    I see only the anecdote of a 'sword' drawn. Your Transcendental argument extends no further then 'I believe the is a say it is so,' which does not represent any sort of consensus of even Christian belief. I need more of an argument from you then this to be anything more then begging the question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Black
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So why is starting out with the assumption that the bible if the word of God circular?
    It's circular because it appeals to the Bible (or rather, the worldview that's articulated in the Bible) to support the claim that the biblical worldview is true. The difference, though, (which they seem to not get) is that when a transcendental argument (like the one I've been using) is employed it's all about starting point principles. So it's not about arbitrary temporal assumptions which are never justified, but rather logical starting point (something that the person takes to be logically primary in their thinking) which does justify those assumptions, as it would explain why we started that way, and how we can (and do) know (and always have known) that those starting points are true. Everyone, no matter their worldview, starts with some propositions they take to be "givens" (the preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolute, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). The question now is, which worldview can justify our starting in that way, and thus make human experience intelligible? Such a worldview would have to provide an ontic base to ground the preconditions, and an epistemology which makes that base known. In the Christian worldview, God is the ontic base, and His revelation of Himself (both general in nature, and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known by everyone on earth (Romans 1:18-22).
    So, all reasoning is (1) virtuously circular at base, which means sound reasoning will be based on the true worldview, which provides the requisite ontic base and corresponding epistemology, or else it will be (2) viciously circular with appeals to an assertion that cannot provide the ontic base and epistemology, or else it will be (3) completely arbitrary, based upon nothing (not even a circular claim), or else it will (4) fall into infinite regress, in which case no assertion, belief, or action can ever be justified.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
32 responses
157 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
170 responses
847 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
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