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

Presuppositional Apolgetic

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
    I don't share the same worldview as him.
    For practical purposes you do.
    An atheist uses exactly the same cognitive equipment that you do to interrogate and understand the world about him. A worldview is simply what you require to survive. If it is fatally false (let’s say that in your worldview you believe that you can fly off a tall building) then the world itself might well eradicate that false worldview. So, a worldview has to be compatible with reality or it does not persist. Religious and atheist worldviews are both compatible – in other words reality does not discriminate between them. The logic of both systems is adequate for survival. It comes down to personal preference and whether you are interested in going beyond the obvious (like don’t eat poisonous plants). If you do want to know more then the question becomes what intellectual and other tools are suitable for the task. Is your search an opening up to new and unexpected possibilities or a closing down and entrenchment of conservative thought and values?
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      Hello to you too. Here’s what you don’t understand:

      All religions ‘of the book’ are hindered by the fact that language and books are limited only by the author’s imagination. Books are not necessarily grounded in reality even though some people and places and events mentioned, may be or are real. The difficulty for some people is in sorting out what is real and what is myth, legend or fable. For the presuppositional apologist, the existence of God and His magical powers is axiomatic. But that is not where a modern rational person would begin because nature has been discovered (quite recently in human history) to be non-miraculous and therefore nothing happens to and around us that requires a hidden magical being to explain it.
      What constitutes a miracle? There seem to be 5 possible conditions I could thought of that would show us how to identify a miracle:

      1. An event that could violates laws of logic
      2. An event that could violates laws of physics
      3. An event that violates the law of induction and uniformity
      4. An event that violates the scientific method (a miracle is neither repeatable nor testable)
      5. An event that has no known naturalistic explanation

      I don't speak for other worldviews but my own. And even so, Christians and other religion at the most general level, agree that an Intelligent Being ultimately created the universe. I can at least agree with Muslims that it's clearly absurd to assume this happen for no reason. It is the claim by atheist, that without an Intelligent Being that seems far fetched, far more so than any religions of the world!

      Given this: #2 for example, how is believing that life came from non-life, intelligence came from non intelligence and an entire universe filled with galaxies, planets, etc came out of nothing, e.g. physical matter came from nothing not a candid belief in miracles?

      So non intelligence somehow started and cause intelligence? That to me, sounds like a far fetched claim. Far more so than all religion!
      Yeng Vg

      Comment


      • #18
        BTW apropos your interesting discussion elsewhere about whether Deuteronomy 22:28 is talking about rape. Note that the girl is not punished, they are discovered and he has humbled her. She has not humbled herself. This is simply a - you break it, you own it clause. It is definitely rape but of a different category because she is not betrothed. The father is compensated for damaged goods which would not be the case if his daughter was at fault.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Problem assumption here, If atheism is true, your minds are simply robots, which is oft repeated by traditional theists. The scientific world view that atheists believe does not relate at all to this foolish robotic notion. The concept you use, chance and accident, by definition is an outdated Theist layman foolishness.
          It's not an assumption. That's basically what it narrowed down to. Either God or absurdity.

          Atheism cannot explain the ability to reason. If atheism is true, we don't really reason at all. Our minds are just telling us what to say or think (mere react). Therefore, we should not trust any of our thoughts.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The Nature of our physical existence is determined by Natural Law and the physical nature of our existence and not 'chance and accident. Accidents would be an unexpected outcome in a given situation. Chance? not even in Las Vegas. Chaos determines the variability we witness, read Chaos by Gleick, not the foolish notion of chance.
          That's an excuse. Assuming the universe has stable laws of any kind, is really God related notion.. because it harkens back to theological views.. that it was exploring the laws of God. We assume logical stable laws because there is a Creator. The problem for atheist is that without God, it is hard to explain why there is any consistent set of rule of any kind.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          No the atheist view is not logically inconsistent nor self refuting, but your argument presented here is, because it has nothing to do with what atheists nor what science believes.
          Again, either God or absurdity. I am not going to try to stay neutral here. I'm pretty sure we both know what we believe.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          First, atheists DO NOT claim that they do not know things for certain.
          That will depend on each atheist's answer. Each answer given by an atheist will be different.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          By simple observation, rationality exists regardless of whether God(s) exists or not. The existence of rationality can be verified objectively. The existence of God cannot. Can you present an objective verified world comparison where on world exists without God(s) and rationality, and another world exists with God(s) and rationality.

          Confusing and irrational. rift with irrational logical fallacies.
          That's already a fallacy right there. The laws of logic presupposes God. So you cannot say what you say be logically coherent. It is quite simple as I've said, unless God exists, there is no rationality.

          First, explain why your observation or senses are valid? How do you know this?
          Last edited by AkByR64; 05-16-2015, 08:39 AM.
          Yeng Vg

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
            It is the claim by atheist, that without an Intelligent Being that seems far fetched, far more so than any religions of the world!
            But the fact is that when we go into the laboratory and we tease things apart to see how they work and we measure and analyse everything we see, we discover only simple natural objects and processes. And eventually we run out of talent or money or curiosity. Religions fill the void because they must have an answer even if it is nonsense. Religious people are poor critical thinkers. The atheist recognises his own limitations.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
              For practical purposes you do.
              An atheist uses exactly the same cognitive equipment that you do to interrogate and understand the world about him. A worldview is simply what you require to survive. If it is fatally false (let’s say that in your worldview you believe that you can fly off a tall building) then the world itself might well eradicate that false worldview. So, a worldview has to be compatible with reality or it does not persist. Religious and atheist worldviews are both compatible – in other words reality does not discriminate between them. The logic of both systems is adequate for survival. It comes down to personal preference and whether you are interested in going beyond the obvious (like don’t eat poisonous plants). If you do want to know more then the question becomes what intellectual and other tools are suitable for the task. Is your search an opening up to new and unexpected possibilities or a closing down and entrenchment of conservative thought and values?
              I am not saying they cannot know anything. But if they were to live consistent with their own worldview they cannot know it. If they claim to know it, it is because they are borrowing from the Christian worldview. In the atheist worldview, laws of logic are non existent. Since atheists are empiricists, they would have to believe only matter and physical laws exist only.
              Yeng Vg

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                What constitutes a miracle? There seem to be 5 possible conditions I could thought of that would show us how to identify a miracle:

                1. An event that could violates laws of logic
                2. An event that could violates laws of physics
                3. An event that violates the law of induction and uniformity
                4. An event that violates the scientific method (a miracle is neither repeatable nor testable)
                5. An event that has no known naturalistic explanation
                By the looks of it a miracle is whatever a person authorised to declare miracles, declares to be a miracle. That does not look very useful to me but I’m sure it gives some people a little shot of dopamine when they think about it. Auto-stimulation by ‘miracles’.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                  I am not saying they cannot know anything. But if they were to live consistent with their own worldview they cannot know it. If they claim to know it, it is because they are borrowing from the Christian worldview. In the atheist worldview, laws of logic are non existent. Since atheists are empiricists, they would have to believe only matter and physical laws exist only.
                  Logic is derived from physical law.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    Logic is derived from physical law.
                    Evidence?
                    Yeng Vg

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      But the fact is that when we go into the laboratory and we tease things apart to see how they work and we measure and analyse everything we see, we discover only simple natural objects and processes. And eventually we run out of talent or money or curiosity. Religions fill the void because they must have an answer even if it is nonsense. Religious people are poor critical thinkers. The atheist recognises his own limitations.
                      Not everything no. What repeatable experiments led to the knowledge that all current life forms originated in one single life form? And what repeatable experiments led to the knowledge that life came into existence from non-life in absence of super natural input?
                      Yeng Vg

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Btw, I don't come in here thinking I need to use the scientific method or form a neutral argument. I come here assuming you atheist should know what you believe already. I don't have to explain it.
                        Yeng Vg

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                          Evidence?
                          The classical axioms of logic [Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction] are all propositions about how reality operates. Therefore they are summaries of natural laws or, another way to look at it is that they come out of the consistent regularity of light and matter in motion.

                          It is interesting to speculate further about why matter is so consistent but at the moment there are no definite answers that I am aware of. [Insert God of gaps here.]
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                            It's not an assumption. That's basically what it narrowed down to. Either God or absurdity.
                            simple belief statement with coherent argument.

                            Atheism cannot explain the ability to reason. If atheism is true, we don't really reason at all. Our minds are just telling us what to say or think (mere react). Therefore, we should not trust any of our thoughts.
                            Atheists need not explain ability to reason. It is simply an observed objective fact. No, the science of human behavior does not propose that we merely react. You assuming things without a coherent argument.

                            That's an excuse. Assuming the universe has stable laws of any kind, is really God related notion.. because it harkens back to theological views.. that it was exploring the laws of God. We assume logical stable laws because there is a Creator. The problem for atheist is that without God, it is hard to explain why there is any consistent set of rule of any kind.
                            Remains simply an assumption on your part. Your bogus layman. 'Chance and Accidents' have no rational causal meaning in terms of science

                            'Why and Purpose' remain a theological and philosophical question, and not a necessity. You claim a belief without a coherent argument. Based on the objective evidence, The cause of all of our existence is simply Natural Law

                            Again, either God or absurdity. I am not going to try to stay neutral here. I'm pretty sure we both know what we believe.
                            It is obvious you are not neutral. Your statements are mere one sided statements of belief without a coherent argument to justify your claims.



                            That will depend on each atheist's answer. Each answer given by an atheist will be different.
                            'Goobly Gook' No atheists DO NOT claim that they do not know things for certain. You made a flat all inclusive state. Let's see you back it up!!!

                            That's already a fallacy right there. The laws of logic presupposes God.
                            False, the laws of logic are human constructs to propose logical arguments based premises and assumptions. Please provide evidence other then a statement of belief that 'The laws of logic presupposes God.'

                            So you cannot say what you say be logically coherent. It is quite simple as I've said, unless God exists, there is no rationality.
                            Again an assumption of belief, with no coherent argument.

                            First, explain why your observation or senses are valid? How do you know this?
                            Meaningless question, neither you nor I can provide a conclusive absolute answer.

                            Basically, our objective observations of the 'real' confirm to the rational human being that our world is real, unless you are proposing the Hindu Vedic argument that regardless of what our senses tell us the world is an illusion.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                              Not everything no. What repeatable experiments led to the knowledge that all current life forms originated in one single life form? And what repeatable experiments led to the knowledge that life came into existence from non-life in absence of super natural input?
                              There is no evidence of super-nature so it is not an ingredient that can be applied in any rational analysis of anything. Appeals to magic are irrational. What ingredient is there in living things that you think is not available in a sterile, early planet Earth environment? [Answer = nothing] Consequently, we are left with the puzzle of how abiogenesis happened but we are not concerned with missing substance or energy. There has been some recent progress in the scientific understanding of this problem.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                                Evidence?
                                What is the evidence that the Laws of Logic are not simply derived form the nature of our existence?
                                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 whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X