Presuppositional Apologetics

[mikewhitney]

Do you deny that things like skin color, or the shapes of finch beaks, or different breeds of dogs, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, or any other example of life adapting to its surroundings, have a natural explanation?

I'm okay with saying that there are mechanisms/structures/components in living matter that enable beaks or breeds to change. We could use the term 'natural explanation' to these without any concern as long as we are saying that we merely have documented the processes that cause or enable such change to occur. This is like someone naming the breeds of dog; this is an act of observation and bean counting.

But to say that these processes (most notably DNA and cell growth) have their origin to be found (and sufficiently explained) under 'natural explanation' seems to be unfounded.

So when I spoke of "evolution apart from deity" , I was not speaking against the existence of processes for change but just against any conclusion that 'natural explanation' has any basis to exclude God. As such, we are left with your argument using circular logic.

[shunyadragon]

It is a bald assertion to make the general statement that "Natural Laws" are eternal.

No more than the bald assertion that there exists a God that is eternal. We only have objective evidence for Natural Laws, and we do not have objective evidence for God(s).

Define these "Laws of Nature." Define what you mean by "Natural."

I believe the dictionary terms are adequate for what we call 'Laws of Nature,' Nature, and Natural.' Do you have a problem with the standard English dictionary terms for these words?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large part of science.

© Copyright Original Source

I would add there are fundamental underlying Laws of Nature that govern the physical world. Science derives Scientific Laws of Nature based on scientific methodology that approximate the ultimate Natural Laws.

Anything which might exist is contingent on an existence. Only uncaused existence is self existent. All other things existent are contingent upon an uncaused existence.

True as the sky is Carolina Blue at noon on a clear day on the 4th of July. The physical natural existence is possibly eternal, self existent, and everything which might exist is possible contingent on Natural Laws and the inherent nature of our physical existence.

[37818]

No more than the bald assertion that there exists a God that is eternal. We only have objective evidence for Natural Laws, and we do not have objective evidence for God(s).

1) There is no objective evidence that "Natural Laws" are eternal. The evidence seems to suggest that said "Natural Laws" have a beginning.

2)God on the other hand is by one of the definitions eternal.

3) Uncaused existence is one thing. Natural Laws are many. [That some of what would be regarded as part of Natural Laws are eternal is plausible. Such as non-material concepts 1 + 1 = 2, basic principles of logic. But all such things are contingent that there be an existence. Which there is.]

I believe the dictionary terms are adequate for what we call 'Laws of Nature,' Nature, and Natural.' Do you have a problem with the standard English dictionary terms for these words?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large part of science.

© Copyright Original Source

I would add there are fundamental underlying Laws of Nature that govern the physical world. Science derives Scientific Laws of Nature based on scientific methodology that approximate the ultimate Natural Laws.



True as the sky is Carolina Blue at noon on a clear day on the 4th of July. The physical natural existence is possibly eternal, self existent, and everything which might exist is possible contingent on Natural Laws and the inherent nature of our physical existence.

The evidence suggests that physical existence is caused having a beginning. Physical existence being space-time. And some scientists claiming it is a non-event in that there was no time prior. Time of space-time has an origin prior of which there was no time. Time from non-time. The beginning of time is the beginning of events. Time therefore was the first event.

My presupposition is that God is the uncaused existence. His name being Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH meaning Self-Existent. Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be truly said to be self-existent. Everything else is presumed upon having a existence and therefore contingent on there being existence including space-time the physical existence.

[Raul]

I'm okay with saying that there are mechanisms/structures/components in living matter that enable beaks or breeds to change. We could use the term 'natural explanation' to these without any concern as long as we are saying that we merely have documented the processes that cause or enable such change to occur. This is like someone naming the breeds of dog; this is an act of observation and bean counting.

But to say that these processes (most notably DNA and cell growth) have their origin to be found (and sufficiently explained) under 'natural explanation' seems to be unfounded.

So when I spoke of "evolution apart from deity" , I was not speaking against the existence of processes for change but just against any conclusion that 'natural explanation' has any basis to exclude God. As such, we are left with your argument using circular logic.

The examples I gave of life adapting to its environment, and doing so in accordance with verifiable natural laws, are more than sufficient to justify the assumption that there is very likely some kind of natural explanation to account for the appearance of design. It is not that God is necessarily excluded. Maybe he is somehow working mysteriously behind the scenes, in a way that we can't detect or verify, causing natural laws to act the way they act. That would be a marvelous discovery. But we don't know that. What we do know (because we can observe, test, and verify it) is that nature operates according to certain principles, and by doing so it can do awesome things. This is the basis for the theory of evolution. So evolution doesn't merely assume a natural explanation. We observe the incredible design capability of nature, and look for evidence in things like fossils, genes, and our understanding of biochemistry for confirmation of the theory. One reason why evolution is believed by the majority of scientists is that, since Darwin, it has been confirmed again and again by so many different disciplines. Assuming that there is a natural explanation has proven to be an extremely valuable assumption. What value has assuming a divine explanation added to human knowledge?

[mikewhitney]

The examples I gave of life adapting to its environment, and doing so in accordance with verifiable natural laws, are more than sufficient to justify the assumption that there is very likely some kind of natural explanation to account for the appearance of design. It is not that God is necessarily excluded. Maybe he is somehow working mysteriously behind the scenes, in a way that we can't detect or verify, causing natural laws to act the way they act. That would be a marvelous discovery. But we don't know that. What we do know (because we can observe, test, and verify it) is that nature operates according to certain principles, and by doing so it can do awesome things. This is the basis for the theory of evolution. So evolution doesn't merely assume a natural explanation. We observe the incredible design capability of nature, and look for evidence in things like fossils, genes, and our understanding of biochemistry for confirmation of the theory. One reason why evolution is believed by the majority of scientists is that, since Darwin, it has been confirmed again and again by so many different disciplines. Assuming that there is a natural explanation has proven to be an extremely valuable assumption. What value has assuming a divine explanation added to human knowledge?

Most of what you said is okay. Scientists observe certain things about nature. It is like me creating nanobots that can multiply (building their own clones) and can build a car and then break off and make other cars. Scientists then see this and call it 'nature.' The modern scientist, from what you have identified, only go to the behavior of nanobots -- and some people may identify nanobots as the self-acting and self-growing essence of cars. This is nanobot-nature being treated as the ultimate cause. This is as far as the scientist can reach, in the evidential realm.

Your question here is what is most important.

What value has assuming a divine explanation added to human knowledge?

If you want to know how a robot works, it is best to know the creator of the robot. If you just want knowledge about robots, for the sake of knowing about robots, then you have a limited existence but you may have obtained your goal of 'human knowledge'. The Christian is interested in the Creator; the fallen state of humanity just wants the gifts.

[Raul]

Most of what you said is okay. Scientists observe certain things about nature. It is like me creating nanobots that can multiply (building their own clones) and can build a car and then break off and make other cars. Scientists then see this and call it 'nature.' The modern scientist, from what you have identified, only go to the behavior of nanobots -- and some people may identify nanobots as the self-acting and self-growing essence of cars. This is nanobot-nature being treated as the ultimate cause. This is as far as the scientist can reach, in the evidential realm.

Your question here is what is most important.


If you want to know how a robot works, it is best to know the creator of the robot. If you just want knowledge about robots, for the sake of knowing about robots, then you have a limited existence but you may have obtained your goal of 'human knowledge'. The Christian is interested in the Creator; the fallen state of humanity just wants the gifts.

Concerning your nanobot analogy, it may be that there is something that caused natural laws to be what they are. But if so, we don't know what that is. So natural laws may not be the ultimate cause, but it is the farthest that human knowledge has been able to take us up to this point. God is not required in order for us to see what amazing things nature can do operating according to the principles it operates by. If it is really God that gave nature the ability to do what it does, then fine. But based on what we know now that is not a claim we can make. So I think it is important to have a humble approach to knowledge and admit what we don't know.

I understand your analogy about knowing the creator of the robot. But how do you even know that we have a creator? Again, based on what we know at this point, it seems life evolved by means of nature doing what it does. Maybe God is somehow mysteriously behind it all, but we don't know that.

[shunyadragon]

You are simply going with circular reasoning here. You assume that nature is able to cause things to evolve. Then, since things evolved, they are explained by nature.

Where have you shown that 'nature' has intrinsic ability to cause evolution apart from deity?

It is not assumed that nature is able to cause things to evolve. The mountains of scientific evidence demonstrates that life has evolved and is still evolving.

A Deity could very well have Created our physical existence, life and the evolution of life. The nature and relationship with our physical existence and God should not be contradictory. The evidence clearly points to evolution, and If God exists and Created our physical existence than God used natural methods and evolution for the way things are today.

At best the sciences can merely explain that animals seemed to change in certain sequences. The scientist can only document changes that found to have happened. Even if they identify the mechanisms which allow for such change, they don't have a method to identify whether those mechanisms originated accidentally or by, for example, divine design.

First, science does propose any sort of accidental process. There is sufficient evidence for observed change and detailed genetic relationship to conclude that life did evolve.

There is absolutely no evidence for Intelligent Design of any form. The Dover trial brought that out in detail. Nothing has been published by the Discovery Institute or anyone else since to change this.

[shunyadragon]

1) There is no objective evidence that "Natural Laws" are eternal. The evidence seems to suggest that said "Natural Laws" have a beginning.

Your, at best, appealing to ignorance, because all the present evidence at hand only objectively falsifies natural causes and effect for anything known to objectively exist.

2)God on the other hand is by one of the definitions eternal.

This is not an objectively verifiable definition of God or God(s). It is simply an asserted claim.

3) Uncaused existence is one thing. Natural Laws are many. [That some of what would be regarded as part of Natural Laws are eternal is plausible. Such as non-material concepts 1 + 1 = 2, basic principles of logic. But all such things are contingent that there be an existence. Which there is.]

All of the above remains conjecture and speculation, and not based objective evidence. The number of Natural Laws as one or many is meaningless.

The evidence suggests that physical existence is caused having a beginning. Physical existence being space-time. And some scientists claiming it is a non-event in that there was no time prior. Time of space-time has an origin prior of which there was no time. Time from non-time. The beginning of time is the beginning of events. Time therefore was the first event.

This again is conjecture based on a limited citation of science, which fails. It is our universe that has been demonstrated by some models as having a beginning, and not all hypothesis and models agree. It remains an open unresolved problem. As usual a selective biased citation of 'some' scientists does not resolve the issue, which in reality you have cited none..

My presupposition is that God is the uncaused existence. His name being Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH meaning Self-Existent. Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be truly said to be self-existent. Everything else is presumed upon having a existence and therefore contingent on there being existence including space-time the physical existence.

This makes your argument intensely circular. You are stating here that you assume by presupposition that that God is the uncaused existence.[/B] His name being Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH meaning Self-Existent. Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be truly said to be self-existent. That kills any logical justification for your argument.

This typical of Presuppositional Apologetics there is no logical argument here simply assertions considered as unsupported facts by objective evidence nor sound logical arguments.

[37818]

Your, at best, appealing to ignorance, because all the present evidence at hand only objectively falsifies natural causes and effect for anything known to objectively exist.

The evidence is that physical existence is not eternal.

This is not an objectively verifiable definition of God or God(s). It is simply an asserted claim.

Because you say so? Existence is presumed by all. An uncaused existence is logically deduced. Uncaused existence is the only thing which can be self-existent. As to God, either that is that self-existent or there is no God. The Hebrew Name and identity of God is the Self-Existent. Which predates you.

All of the above remains conjecture and speculation, and not based objective evidence. The number of Natural Laws as one or many is meaningless.

A singular thing and many things is not a meaningless difference.

This again is conjecture based on a limited citation of science, which fails. It is our universe that has been demonstrated by some models as having a beginning, and not all hypothesis and models agree. It remains an open unresolved problem. As usual a selective biased citation of 'some' scientists does not resolve the issue, which in reality you have cited none..

Which model is supported by known evidence?

This makes your argument intensely circular. You are stating here that you assume by presupposition that that God is the uncaused existence.[/B] His name being Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH meaning Self-Existent. Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be truly said to be self-existent. That kills any logical justification for your argument.

No. All arguments presume an existence. That is fundamental. An uncaused existence cannot be refuted.

This typical of Presuppositional Apologetics there is no logical argument here simply assertions considered as unsupported facts by objective evidence nor sound logical arguments.

Maybe of some. But uncaused existence has to the starting point.

[shunyadragon]

The evidence is that physical existence is not eternal.

Please cite such evidence, because there is no such evidence.

Because you say so? Existence is presumed by all. An uncaused existence is logically deduced. Uncaused existence is the only thing which can be self-existent. As to God, either that is that self-existent or there is no God. The Hebrew Name and identity of God is the Self-Existent. Which predates you.

No, not because I said so. The possibility is that there is no God(s).

A singular thing and many things is not a meaningless difference.

Unless you can ome up with a meaningful logical argument is it is meaningless. So far you have only asserted this is so.

Which model is supported by known evidence?

Your selective approach of 'some' scientists or models is selective evidence to support your view should acknowledge that not all models support such conclusions. For example:

No. All arguments presume an existence. That is fundamental. An uncaused existence cannot be refuted.

The fact that the uncaused existence may be natural cannot be refuted.

Maybe of some. But uncaused existence has to the starting point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the uncaused existence is possibly natural.

[mikewhitney]

Concerning your nanobot analogy, it may be that there is something that caused natural laws to be what they are. But if so, we don't know what that is. So natural laws may not be the ultimate cause, but it is the farthest that human knowledge has been able to take us up to this point. God is not required in order for us to see what amazing things nature can do operating according to the principles it operates by. If it is really God that gave nature the ability to do what it does, then fine. But based on what we know now that is not a claim we can make. So I think it is important to have a humble approach to knowledge and admit what we don't know.

I understand your analogy about knowing the creator of the robot. But how do you even know that we have a creator? Again, based on what we know at this point, it seems life evolved by means of nature doing what it does. Maybe God is somehow mysteriously behind it all, but we don't know that.

The answer to your question is obvious to many but perplexing to others.

Anyhow my effort was simply to stave off the idea that theories of evolution are sufficient arguments against the existence of God -- at best the theories just push the discussion to details about the creation of the mechanisms of evolution.

[shunyadragon]

Anyhow my effort was simply to stave off the idea that theories of evolution are sufficient arguments against the existence of God -- at best the theories just push the discussion to details about the creation of the mechanisms of evolution.

Science in no form represents sufficient evidence against, nor for the existence of God. The limits of science is defined Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to anything beyond the physical nature of our universe.

[37818]

Please cite such evidence, because there is no such evidence.

So are you arguing that there is no science for a temporal universe?

No, not because I said so. The possibility is that there is no God(s).

So, is it possible that there is no existence?

Unless you can come up with a meaningful logical argument is it is meaningless. So far you have only asserted this is so.

You are the one making the assertion of something being meaningless:

The number of Natural Laws as one or many is meaningless.

"Laws" is plural which means more that one.

Your selective approach of 'some' scientists or models is selective evidence to support your view should acknowledge that not all models support such conclusions. For example:

Models are not the evidence.

The fact that the uncaused existence may be natural cannot be refuted.

Oh, so being uncaused is natural.

<snip> but the uncaused existence is possibly natural.

Explain, how is "uncaused" natural?

[Raul]

The answer to your question is obvious to many but perplexing to others.

Anyhow my effort was simply to stave off the idea that theories of evolution are sufficient arguments against the existence of God -- at best the theories just push the discussion to details about the creation of the mechanisms of evolution.

I do think, however, that the theory of evolution creates a real problem for the God of the Bible, who supposedly revealed to us exactly how life came about. It makes the Creation account in Genesis appear just as mythological as other ancient creation myths. The fact is that these kind of stories were ancient man's way of trying to understand the world, and the Genesis Creation account makes way more sense when viewed this light.

[shunyadragon]

So are you arguing that there is no science for a temporal universe?

There are not any falsifiable models nor hypothesis for a finite universe.

So, is it possible that there is no existence?

Possible? Science cannot falsify a negative. If you are Hindu, you may believe our physical existence is an illusion.

You are the one making the assertion of something being meaningless:"Laws" is plural which means more that one.

There is the possibility of one unifying "Law" but at present the evidence indicates a set of laws. No an assertion, just based on the evidence.

Models are not the evidence.

I never claimed models and hypothesis were evidence.

Oh, so being uncaused is natural.

Not necessarily. It is possible that our physical existence is eternal and uncaused.

Explain, how is "uncaused" natural?

If our physical existence and Natural Laws are eternal it is possibly "uncaused."