An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that Mr. Black actually rejects the reality of scientific observations, he only rejects the idea that human minds able to comprehend such observations could exist without a God. In other words his assertion is that human minds, or any minds for that matter, could not evolve from out of a non rational source.

I disagree Jim, Mr. Black and seer are 'slippery eels' when it comes to actually making it clear as to what they accept concerning 'scientific observations,' and the consequences of those observation. The statement you made that humans 'could not evolve from out a non-rational source' is true. Neither Mr. Black nor seer has made it clear they accept do accept Theistic Evolution, and they hedge vaguely on an possibility of an Old Earth. Mr. Black indicated that scientific observations concerning the past were not reliable. My conclusion on the history of their posts is that they selectively believe in some scientific observations and knowledge.

When he responded to the Neutrality of Methodological Naturalism and the difference from Metaphysical Naturalism he was combative and asserted that ALL Naturalism rejected or excluded the existence of God including Methodological Naturalism. The discussion is here:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ep-time/page29 .This view is classical fundamentalism that rejects science as a reliable source of observations and knowledge concerning the history of life and our physical existence.

This is simple question dodging. Given the biblical argument regarding all knowledge being in Christ, and the consequences it says follows from rejecting Him, anyone who rejects must deal with the argument He used, or else they beg the question. You are proposing a particular view of reality. Ergo you it is up to you to justify your knowledge claims, and to demonstrate that your worldview can make sense of them, and account for the principles you're employing in your arguments. You can choose not to, but that's irrational, and only serves to illustrate my point: you can't justify any knowledge claim you make apart from the biblical God.

Exactly. "All hypotheses and events"---including origins and reason the current operations of the external world are taking place. This requires one to assume that God is behind none of it.

...clearly states that scientific methods cannot address theology questions because the methods can only test the objective 'testable' and 'falsifiable' nature of our physical existence.

Which do not include origins, since that's in the past.

It is not just 'justification,' but includes knowledge of our past that Mr. Black claims science is not capable of knowing. This is classic YEC non-thinking.

[seer]

I disagree Jim, Mr. Black and seer are 'slippery eels' when it comes to actually making it clear as to what they accept concerning 'scientific observations,' and the consequences of those observation. The statement you made that humans 'could not evolve from out a non-rational source' is true. Neither Mr. Black nor seer has made it clear they accept do accept Theistic Evolution, and they hedge vaguely on an possibility of an Old Earth. Mr. Black indicated that scientific observations concerning the past were not reliable. My conclusion on the history of their posts is that they selectively believe in some scientific observations and knowledge.

Shuny, I'm not sure what this means. Why should we accept Theistic Evolution? Is that not a conclusion based on the work of fallible men? Is it an "absolute truth?" Also, I have no idea what you mean by "Theistic" Evolution. Theistic means that God played a part in the process - what part did He play Shuny?

[JimL]

I disagree Jim, Mr. Black and seer are 'slippery eels' when it comes to actually making it clear as to what they accept concerning 'scientific observations,' and the consequences of those observation. The statement you made that humans 'could not evolve from out a non-rational source' is true. Neither Mr. Black nor seer has made it clear they accept do accept Theistic Evolution, and they hedge vaguely on an possibility of an Old Earth. Mr. Black indicated that scientific observations concerning the past were not reliable. My conclusion on the history of their posts is that they selectively believe in some scientific observations and knowledge.

When he responded to the Neutrality of Methodological Naturalism and the difference from Metaphysical Naturalism he was combative and asserted that ALL Naturalism rejected or excluded the existence of God including Methodological Naturalism. The discussion is here:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ep-time/page29 .This view is classical fundamentalism that rejects science as a reliable source of observations and knowledge concerning the history of life and our physical existence.

.
Actually shunya, in looking back on it, you are absolutely correct. Mr. Blacks argument can be somewhat confusing. On the one hand he argues that without God, to which he assigns the ontic ground of intelligibility, he asserts that human minds could not know anything at all, and then on the other hand he argues that what human minds do discover through science is wrong if it is in disagreement with the Bible. He actually argues against himself and proves his own primary assumption to be false.









It is not just 'justification,' but includes knowledge of our past that Mr. Black claims science is not capable of knowing. This is classic YEC non-thinking.[/QUOTE]

[seer]

.
Actually shunya, in looking back on it, you are absolutely correct. Mr. Blacks argument can be somewhat confusing. On the one hand he argues that without God, to which he assigns the ontic ground of intelligibility, he asserts that human minds could not know anything at all, and then on the other hand he argues that what human minds do discover through science is wrong if it is in disagreement with the Bible. He actually argues against himself and proves his own primary assumption to be false.

Not quite Jim. The argument is that apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything (the impossible of the contrary argument). But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things. At least to degrees. And yes, since human minds are fallible, limited and rebellious we do put the Word of God above human speculation or the discoveries of science.

[seer]

Well it seems you are changing your tune once again. Are morals objectively absolute or not? You previously implied that they are not, and your bible implies the same.

That is a falsehood Jim, I never used the word absolute. You and I have discussed the distinction more than once, I have no need to repeat it again.

I did answer the question, as usual you just ignore it and continue on with your unfounded assertion. I said that neither are right in the ultimate sense, since there is no objective law giver. It seems to me that you just don't want to be responsible for your own moral decisions, you want a God to decide what is moral or immoral for you.

And since there is no objective standard or grounding for human significance (if you are correct) then the Nazi is no more correct or incorrect than the Jewish man that values his life. And that is why the moral system that lead to the killing of the Jewish man is just as meaningless and absurd as a system would have caused him to be spared. In you universe Jim humans beings are insignificant, how much more insignificant are the ethical systems that order their lives.

Yes, and in my opinion he was correct about that as well, but life is still significant to those who live it.

Good so you agree that you are an idiot: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player hat struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[JimL]

Not quite Jim. The argument is that apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything (the impossible of the contrary argument). But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things. At least to degrees. And yes, since human minds are fallible, limited and rebellious we do put the Word of God above human speculation or the discoveries of science.

I don't think so seer, Mr. Blacks argument is that apart from the Christian worldview, i.e. that the christian God is the ontic ground of intelligibility and source of human cognitive abilities, the mind would not be capable of discerning reality from illusion. Well if we accept that to be the case, then we must accept that the human mind, based on God being the source of its intelligibility, is of itself capable of discerning reality from illusion. But, Mr. Blacks argument is that no, the human mind can not come to know reality on its own but must rely on the Biblical worldview of reality regardless of its own observations to the contrary. According to that view, the christian world view, human minds don't know things because our minds are capable of discerning reality through observation, we merely accept what is said to be reality because that is what the christian worldview asserts to be reality.

[JimL]

That is a falsehood Jim, I never used the word absolute. You and I have discussed the distinction more than once, I have no need to repeat it again.

So, when you say that objective morals are not absolute, do you mean to imply that both A and not A can both be correct? Didn't you assert that stance to be both absurd and meaningless.

And since there is no objective standard or grounding for human significance (if you are correct) then the Nazi is no more correct or incorrect than the Jewish man that values his life. And that is why the moral system that lead to the killing of the Jewish man is just as meaningless and absurd as a system would have caused him to be spared. In you universe Jim humans beings are insignificant, how much more insignificant are the ethical systems that order their lives.

Again it is not about correct or incorrect objectively speaking, since objectively nature itself is impersonal and amoral. We are the mind of nature and so are left to subjectively make these decisions for ourselves which are usually made in the best interests of humanity collectively. I realize you don't like the idea of moral decisions or laws being decided upon by those who are affected by them, but that is why we make them, for our own collective benifit. There is no evidence that morals are of devine origin or supernaturally objective, nor have you ever done anything to prove this other than to state your belief and desire for it to be so.

Good so you agree that you are an idiot: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player hat struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The idiocy is descriptive of the teller of the tale, full of sound and fury, which tale is ultimately meaningless. The players make their own meaning in their own hour upon the stage, but ultimately they and their stories are forgotten. "We are going to die" seer, and as Dawkins put it, "that makes us the lucky ones!" Be grateful for your life.

[seer]

I don't think so seer, Mr. Blacks argument is that apart from the Christian worldview, i.e. that the christian God is the ontic ground of intelligibility and source of human cognitive abilities, the mind would not be capable of discerning reality from illusion. Well if we accept that to be the case, then we must accept that the human mind, based on God being the source of its intelligibility, is of itself capable of discerning reality from illusion. But, Mr. Blacks argument is that no, the human mind can not come to know reality on its own but must rely on the Biblical worldview of reality regardless of its own observations to the contrary. According to that view, the christian world view, human minds don't know things because our minds are capable of discerning reality through observation, we merely accept what is said to be reality because that is what the christian worldview asserts to be reality.

No Jim, Mr. Black is not saying that one must adopt the Christian worldview to actually know anything but that knowledge acquisition only makes sense in the Christian model. And since we both do believe that we do in fact live in such a universe then knowledge is possible (at least to degrees). And to your last point - yes, we do hold Scripture in higher authority over the subjective, flawed process of human reasoning, that is infected with sin and bias.

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, Mr. Black is not saying that one must adopt the Christian worldview to actually know anything but that knowledge acquisition only makes sense in the Christian model. And since we both do believe that we do in fact live in such a universe then knowledge is possible (at least to degrees). And to your last point - yes, we do hold Scripture in higher authority over the subjective, flawed process of human reasoning, that is infected with sin and bias.

Mr. Black directly told me I must become a Christian to have any justification for any knowledge.

[seer]

So, when you say that objective morals are not absolute, do you mean to imply that both A and not A can both be correct? Didn't you assert that stance to be both absurd and meaningless.

No Jim, I mean there is an actual correct answer in any given situation. That is impossible in your worldview. So even if dietary laws were necessary under the Mosaic Civil code to distinguish the Hebrews from the surrounding Pagan tribes and are no longer presently required - those laws were objective and binding for those Hebrews. There was a correct answer - even if it was time sensitive. There could never be a correct answer in your worldview - time sensitive or otherwise. But again you and I have been over this before.

Again it is not about correct or incorrect objectively speaking, since objectively nature itself is impersonal and amoral. We are the mind of nature and so are left to subjectively make these decisions for ourselves which are usually made in the best interests of humanity collectively. I realize you don't like the idea of moral decisions or laws being decided upon by those who are affected by them, but that is why we make them, for our own collective benifit. There is no evidence that morals are of devine origin or supernaturally objective, nor have you ever done anything to prove this other than to state your belief and desire for it to be so.

Right, and that is why in your world neither the Nazi or the Jewish are actually correct. That is why significance is a meaningless human construct.

The idiocy is descriptive of the teller of the tale, full of sound and fury, which tale is ultimately meaningless. The players make their own meaning in their own hour upon the stage, but ultimately they and their stories are forgotten. "We are going to die" seer, and as Dawkins put it, "that makes us the lucky ones!" Be grateful for your life.

But as we have see your position is completely meaningless and idiotic.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I'm not sure what this means. Why should we accept Theistic Evolution? Is that not a conclusion based on the work of fallible men? Is it an "absolute truth?" Also, I have no idea what you mean by "Theistic" Evolution. Theistic means that God played a part in the process - what part did He play Shuny?

Seer, you have been around for a long time and know specifically what Theistic Evolution is. Please come again with a better response. .

[seer]

Mr. Black directly told me I must become a Christian to have any justification for any knowledge.

That is correct Shuny - JUSTIFICATION. That is what I have been saying, there is no other way to justify knowledge acquisition. Mr. Black would not doubt that you know your own name Shuny or that you can't see the sun come up. Since your live in a universe created by the Christian God knowledge is possible. But apart from that God justifying knowledge acquisition is impossible.

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean 1oo% record? Are not fallible men doing science? And that is the bottom line Shuny, you put your faith in fallible men and we put our faith in an all knowing, all powerful God who can impart truth and certainty to humans. That is the whole argument in a nut shell.

I never claimed to put my faith in fallible individual men concerning the reliability of science. I consider science reliable based on the reliable collective work of scientists using scientific methods, and the Law of non-contradiction. If that is what you consider the whole argument in a nutshell, nothing in the nutshell. The squirrels got it.

[shunyadragon]

Actually yes Shuny, I can separate the two. Mr. Black, as I quoted, questions your justification for knowledge. Mr. Black and I ground knowledge in the Biblical worldview and justify our reasoning thusly. How do you justify knowledge Shuny?

What fallacy Shuny? How many times have you told us how fallible men are, that we can't know absolute truth? And since all science is done by fallible men I have no reason to assume that they are always correct or that things won't change in the future. And as far as your faith - I have no idea what you mean - are you 10% sure that you are correct, 50% sure? How do you even begin to quantify the likelihood that you are correct?

I think a more complete definition of the Argument from Ignorance is worth citing. Please note highlighted.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1.true
2.false
3.unknown between true or false
4.being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

© Copyright Original Source

Appealing the lack of evidence of 'things' or 'evidence' not seen nor witnessed in the future, past nor the unseen present, is unknowable knowledge that makes this assertion an Argument for Ignorance. Thus appeals to ignorance is in this case an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[seer]

Seer, you have been around for a long time and know specifically what Theistic Evolution is. Please come again with a better response. .

Shuny don't answer a question with a question - and you know there are a number of different views, with God playing a greater or lesser role. So I will ask again Shuny - what part did God actually play in the process - in other words what would have been different if God was not involved?