Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[koban]

This statement fails its own test for truth. Kant was wrong. We can have absolute knowledge. In fact, we must arrive at this conclusion. If I were to say, "I do not know anything," then I would be contradicting myself. Implicit in this statement is "I know that I do not know anything." Therefore I know at least one thing, and my first statement is clearly falsified. One cannot verify one's inability to verify. Simple logic.


SS


:rolleyes:

Gee, I wonder why that never occurred to Kant?

[sentientsynth]

I think it was Hume that messed up his mind.

[Mr Jack]

This statement fails its own test for truth. Kant was wrong. We can have absolute knowledge.

Kant doesn't say "I do not know anything", he says "I cannot be logically certain of anything". These statements are not substitutional, and Kant's does not fail in the way that you specify. Kant leaves open the posibility of certainity, but demonstrates that it must lie outside of logic.

In other words:

Me: I can't be certain of anything.
You: Are you certain?
Me: No.

[Mr Jack]

The crux of this argument is that it is by definition impossible to verify one's inexistence.

True, but no-ones been trying to do that. Demonstrating the impossibility of verifying one's inexistence in no way demonstrates one's existence.

[sentientsynth]

Well, if you can't be certain that you can't be certain of anything, then how in the world are you certain that certainty is certain?

[sentientsynth]

Since you're certain of nothing, I'll take what you have to say with a pinch of salt, as you undermine the very basis for your argument.

[Mr Jack]

Since you're certain of nothing, I'll take what you have to say with a pinch of salt, as you undermine the very basis for your argument.
For as long as you use logic, you aren't certain of anything either. You just think you are.

[sentientsynth]

Brainwash.

[Mr Jack]

Well, if you can't be certain that you can't be certain of anything, then how in the world are you certain that certainty is certain?
Now you're getting it! :cool:

[aharvey]

Jim,

Please note that some of the things you’re attributing to me were actually said by someone else (I don’t know who off hand, only that they weren’t my words).

But no matter. The bottom line is that you deny presupposing that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant; rather, you conclude with “certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith” that it is those things because it tells you it is those things! But why do you believe so unquestioningly what it tells you? Because you presuppose that it is complete, literal, and inerrant!!!

Now let’s be clear here: if the Bible IS complete, literal, and inerrant, and your personal interpretation of it is likewise complete, literal, and inerrant, then you are completely on the right side of reality and I am not. However, it is simply not logically supportable to claim that the Bible is what it says it is merely because it says so, and that your interpretations are correct merely because you are certain they are.


aharvey:

Please see my latest post for my apologetic concerning the topics of discussion in the Battle Royale.
Will do! I'm sure it has nothing to common with the typical Creationist tactic of attacking evolutionary theory from vantage points as far away as possible from what evolutionary theory actual deals with. You know, things like information theory, the big bang theory, laws of thermodynamics, the origin of life, the ultimate basis for logical thought ...

Evolution (capital "E") poses a significant conflict with the God of the Bible, the description of Whom is the only coherent and non-self-refuting conception of God possible. Any conception of God that accommodates Evolution is incoherent and self-refuting.
Presupposing the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant, you are probably correct. Otherwise, this is just another empty assertion.

Your paradigm is showing, aharvey. The concept of things changing all by themselves into other things is not only illogical, but it goes against the very principle that proponents of Evolution rely upon (albeit blindly), i.e., the uniformity of nature.
See, this is where you would have been well served to do some background research on your supposed topic. You don’t seem to grasp the concept of uniformity very well (it most certainly does not require that things never change!), nor the concept of evolution (where does it say anything about “things changing all by themselves into other things”?), and I’ll bet you don’t have a clue what the logical basis for evolution is (even if you deny that it really has one, don’t you think it would be wise to be familiar with the one that scientists invoke? You know, variation, inheritance, reproductive potential, environmental limitation, differential reproduction, and all that?)

Interestingly, it happens to tell a "story" so necessary that the rejection of it renders all science, knowledge and human experience meaningless and absurd.
Repeating your assertions with increasing shrillness is in no way a substitute for backing them up. I think we've all granted you the point that if you presuppose the Bible to be complete, literal, and inerrant, then all contradictory viewpoints are on first principles incorrect.

It is possible, indeed pervasive, because people have a proclivity for holding and affirming contradictory opinions and views about their world.
This is as true for you as anyone else. It’s merely an empty assertion that it applies only to other people in this context.

This is inaccurate. Everyone already knows the God of the Bible exists, but most suppress this knowledge.
Well, there’s a world-class assertion. How do you know what "everyone already knows"? Let me guess: it follows from your presupposition of the Bible’s completeness, literalness, and inerrancy?

Also, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is not assumed or presupposed. The Book itself attests to this claim and the believer affirms that claim based on personal experience with it.
Can’t make it much clearer than this. You deny presupposing that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant; rather, you conclude with “certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith” that it is those things because it says it is those things! And you affirm this claim by, er, reading it! But why do you believe so unquestioningly what it tells you? Because you presuppose that it is complete, literal, and inerrant!!!

I'm not saying that proves anything or that you have to believe in the Book itself. But it is important to understand the nature of the Creationist position. The Creationist does not arbitrarily decide the Bible is God's Word. The Book makes the claim. The believer reads the Book and concludes, via various means, that it is indeed God's Word.
I agree, it is important that you understand the nature of your own position. The creationist does not arbitrarily decide the Bible is God's Word; rather, the creationist arbitrarily decides that the Bible is telling the truth when it says it’s God’s Word. And pray tell, what are those "various means" by which the believer concludes it is indeed God’s Word? Other than the process of reading God’s Word (and perhaps listening to reinforcement from other people who believe the same way you do)?

Incidentally, I don’t mind that this is completely circular. I’ve never expected human beliefs to be logical. I do mind that you use this illogical position to explicitly attack the logic of everyone who dares disagree with you.

Please show the circularity. If the Bible is inerrant and complete, as it claims to be, then it follows that everything it says is correct. What is circular about that? If the Magic Eight Ball were inerrant in all it affirms, then it follows that all decisions based on the Magic Eight Ball would be correct decisions. There is no circularity there. Whether it is true or not is a different matter.
See above. Can you think of a MORE circular statement than “This document is true because it says it’s true”? Ironically, you are correct that whether the document is true or not is not relevant to questions of circularity. I never said it was. The circularity comes from your assuming it is true because it says it’s true. This is circular logic whether the Bible is true or not.

There is no way around circular reasoning (pun intended). All views involve circularity, especially when it comes to epistemic questions concerning the foundations of what we claim to know.
So let me get this straight: you deny that your reasoning is circular, then you claim that circular reasoning is unavoidable, and you claim that other peoples' views are defective because they are circular?

In your case, aharvey, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible,
I'm becoming skeptical that you will allow yourself to admit this, but "not presupposing the Bible to be complete, literal, and inerrant" is profoundly different from "denying the existence of the God of the Bible."

you not only argue in a circle (which we all do, ultimately), but you must necessarily appeal to a question-begging fallacy.
Would you mind articulating the difference between begging the question and circular reasoning?

Specifically, you must assume the uniformity of nature, which you would attempt to justify on the basis of the inductive principle. However, you would be begging the very question since the inductive principle relies upon the uniformity of nature. You can claim that it's axiomatic, but that doesn't get you off the merry-go-round; it merely relegates your circularity to magic and superstition.
This is nonsense. If circular reasoning / question-begging is a weakness, then you’re no better off than anyone else here. You keep distinguishing “God” from “God of the Bible,” and yet never once have you done anything but assert that a literal interpretation, make that your literal interpretation, of an inerrant Bible is required for a logical worldview. How does the Bible achieve an even greater importance than God here? That a belief in God that does not come explicitly from that a literal interpretation, make that your literal interpretation, of an inerrant Bible is no better than a belief in no God at all? Because you presuppose that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant.

What? Is that exactly how the process must go, aharvey? It's called starting with a hypothesis. Scientists do this all the time. So do non-scientists. I just did this with the starter on my car. The car wouldn't start. I assumed the starter was bad. I tested the starter. It didn't work. It could have been the ignition. It could have been a relay. It could have been any number of things, but my assumption was correct. So who says "one can't establish or demonstrate [a] fact by assuming it in advance"?
I say so, as do all other scientists, and most non-scientists if they stopped to think about it for half a second. “Starting with a hypothesis” is NOT the same thing as establishing or demonstrating the hypothesis to be correct. You don’t test a hypothesis by assuming it to be true. You don’t test the hypothesis that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant by assuming it to be true, nor by seeing whether it says that it is false. That’s like saying, okay, Jim, I assume that what you’re saying is true; let’s test this by seeing if you say that what you’re saying is false!

Besides, isn't that exactly what Evolutionists do with Evolution? They assume it in advance and then seek to establish or demonstrate it.
I hope by now you see that you misunderstood what I was saying. Assuming and then trying to establish or demonstrate is different from establishing or demonstrating by assuming!

It’s also different from what scientists do, including in research on evolution. The essential premises of evolutionary theory (regarding variation, inheritance, reproductive potential, environmental limitation, and differential reproduction) have been well established by an enormous amount of data (although if you care to dispute the notions that individuals within species are not identical, parents pass on traits to their offspring, all species have the potential to reproduce more than their environment can support, etc., I’d be most interested!). The essential conclusions (namely, that populations change over time, and the longer the time interval the greater the potential change) have also been directly observed and verified many times; again, I doubt you’d care to dispute this. Unfortunately for you, nowhere in this chain of logic do we see the disclaimer that you want to see, such as “populations change over time, and the longer the time interval the greater the potential change up to a certain point beyond which it can longer work.” In the absence of such a barrier, it is therefore a logical conclusion that all the diversity we see today could be generated from a single starting point, given enough time. That leads to a whole series of faslifiable predictions that we do indeed test, concerning patterns of similarity and difference across taxa, past and present biogeographic and geologic distributions, and so on.

Who else's understanding of the Bible would you prefer that I use?
In this and your next seven quotes, I think you’ve mixed me up with someone else.

On the contrary, without invoking God as the foundation of science, all of one's reasoning and scientific inquiry is reduced to absurdity. That's not to say that math stops working or induction stops working for the non-Theist, rather, it is to say that the non-Theist loses any solid footing upon which to use the tools of science. In fact, in order to have success with the tools of science, the non-Theist must presume upon the Theistic paradigm in order to trust and apply those tools.
Okay, now we're back. None of this has anything to do with presupposing that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant! Remember, as you’ve made explicit, you’re not invoking God as the foundation of science, you’re invoking the Bible as the foundation of science.

On the contrary, no sense could be made of those theories if the Bible were not true. Reject that Bible and all of your reasoning becomes futile and inane.
Baseless assertion. Okay, perhaps not “baseless” per se, as it is based on circular logic: I agree with your trivial position that presupposing the Bible to be true and then arguing that it is false would be a case of futile and inane reasoning! No one here is doing that, though.

This isn't my argument. I never deny the verity of logic. What I do deny is the non-Theists ability to cogently justify his use of logic.
Baseless assertion. And irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sure it does. For reasons I've already stated.
First of all, baseless assertions are not the same as reasons. Second of all, you are demonstrably incorrect: Assuming a logical God does not require teh conclusion that evolutionary theory is false (as you here assert); assuming a complete, literal, and inerrant Bible does. But assuming a logical God does not force the conclusion of a complete, literal, and inerrant Bible, although the converse might be true (i.e., assuming a complete, literal, and inerrant Bible might force the conclusion that a logical God exists). So your logic is unsound here.

It certainly does corroborate the Bible.
Clever change in wording, Jim. It does not corroborate the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible. Furthermore, there is a difference between corroboration and lack of direct contradiction (and here I am for the sake of argument going along with the assumption that the Bible is completely internally consistent).

Not sure where you're getting this stuff, aharvey.
That’s because, ironically, you don’t seem to have a solid grasp of logic.

Presupposing the Bible does not require presupposing the falsity of Evolution. Rather, presupposing the Bible requires the conclusion that Evolution is false.
But if the entire basis for that “conclusion” is the presupposition that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant, then you’re essentially presupposing both, since with respect to the topic at hand (you do remember the topic at hand, don't you?), they are two mutually exclusive representations of historical events.

Also, presupposing the existence and attributes of God requires the conclusion that Evolution is false.
No, you're skipping a step and contradicting yourself, as you've already acknowledged that it is possible to make assumptions about the existence and attributes of God and still accept evolutionary theory (you just believe those presuppositions would be incorrect!). Presupposing the completeness, literalness, and inerrancy of the Bible requires certain conclusions about the existence, attributes, and most importantly, actions of God, which then lead to the conclusion that Evolution is false.

My opponent is wrong because the core tenets of Evolution are contrary to rationality and human experience, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.
Asserting is not the same as demonstrating. All you’ve demonstrated is that one of the predictions of evolutionary theory is in conflict with the presupposition that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant. But any first grader could have figured that one out: There are two different stories. At least one, perhaps both, have to be incorrect. Of course if you have certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that one version is true, then you will automatically have certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that the other version is false. Whoopdeedoo. And since your certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that that version is true stems entirely from it’s telling you that it’s true…

They're not mere assumptions. I've demonstrated above how your view reduces to logical absurdity, namely, your blind trust in the mystery of induction, which you establish by induction.
There's that conflation between demonstration and assertion again. But you know, I have never once referred to induction. And I have made it clear that I don’t have blind trust in anything, but perhaps you’ve overlooked or haven’t gotten to those posts. After all, you’ve got your hands full in the Battle itself, don’t you?

[SUTG]

This thread is almost to the point where I predicted it would finish. So far, Hum'es Inductive Skepticism has been presented, and accepted by most. (I don't accept Hume's Thesis, but am accepting it for the sake of argument. TAG still fails)

Once the Humean Thesis has been accepted, what do the presuppositionalist have to offer? A gigantic, nebulous claim that only the Christian God can 'justify' and 'account' for the uniformity of nature. It will never be shown how the Christian God does this, or why only the Christain God can do this

The anatomy of a TAG thread (by induction:chuckle:):

- Atheist makes statement
- TAG proponent says "how do you know this?" and invokes Hume
- TAG proponent claims "impossibility of the contrary" and says CT justifies induction
- Atheist asks why the contrary is impossible
- TAG proponent claims "impossibility of the contrary" and says CT justifies induction
- Atheist proposes alternative worldviews that stand up to the same scrutiny as CT
- TAG proponent claims "impossibility of the contrary" and says CT justifies induction


You heard it here first, folks!

[mighty_duck]

Yeah, in a nutshell. If you're waiting for infinite knowledge on any subject so that you can believe, don't hold your breath.

Waiting for infinite knowledge is stupid. What we can do is look at the knowledge we have and make the best conclusion.
Unless you presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible, you will not reach the conclusion that things in Genesis are true. If they were true, then it would be painfully obvious by just examining empirical evidence. The reason all of science agrees on evolution, age of the earth, lack of a global flood, is because there is no way you can start with empirical evidence and reach those crazy conclusions.

Your inerrant Bible is falsified a hundred times over.


All science ... except creation science.


Which should give you ample reason right there to conclude that this isn't science at all.


Non-sequitur.


I'm not saying it proves it is false. I am saying it's reliability in this matter is heavily in question. When a murder defendant claims "I didn't do it!", you don't automatically believe him because he is an interested party.
If an unrelated witness claims he saw the defendant in another place at the time of the murder, you would believe that. This is what I am looking for, confirmation from an unbiased source. Care to share?


Of course, I'm very familiar with this difficulty. This sort of thing is expected with multiple eye-witness sources. If they were perfectly synthesizable you'd yell "Collusion!" and justly so.


So much for the inerrant Bible. Aren't all the gospels eye witness sources? I don't remember seeing the book of Jesus..


This is why experiential relevance is but one of three tests, the other two being logical consistency and emperical adequacy. All three of these must be applied. Very important. You realize, of course, that your FSM is approaching the very identity of the Living God. This is because you realize that these attributes are necessary. Eventually, perhaps, you will see that.


So the living god likes to take the shape of a Flying spaghetti monster, is amoral, and will send you to hell for eating lazania on tuesday? I'm glad we agree on God's attributes. Olive house stock will explode soon.


It's primary axiom, the inexistence of God, is rejected by most of the people who have ever walked the face of the earth. Don't delude yourself still further.

This is not an axiom of atheism. The axioms are our own existence, our ability to comprehend the world, the reliability of our senses in most cases. There is no axiom that says "The FSM does not exist".
I'm sure you accept these axioms like all humans, but add another few. These new axioms are things no one can agree on, because they are arbitrary.


In order to be logically consistent within the atheistic worldview, we should not only murder those upon whom empathy is shown, but also those who show the empathy.

Your worldview is morally bankrupt, sir. This being so, it fails as a world-view.

SS

So you think that a primitve society would have more chance to survive if it killed its own members as soon as they showed any weakness?

Historically societies thrive when the individuals in that society are happy and cooperating. A society whose members joyfully stab each other in the back will not survive long, God or no God.

Question. Do animals have morals?

[mighty_duck]

TAG is an assertion, m_d. There's not much to stating it. But there's a lot it implies.


The assertion part of the TAG is harmless and internally consistent. Then comes a big whopper when the TAGer says "my worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary". For once I'd like to see this backed up.


The Bible should be read like any other document: In accordance with the rules of grammar, syntax, semantic and figures of speech that the original audience would have understood. This is how historians evaluate all writings of antiquity, and the Bible should be no different. Taking that approach, the message of the Bible is unambiguous.


Assuming you know how the original audience would have understood it is a fallacy. Natural language is ambiguous by nature, and getting unambiguous conclusions is impossible. Of course everyone else's take on the Bible is wrong..

Most of the points Hilston made from now on refer to basically one point, so I'll focus on that.


In my worldview, God is infinite and transcendent. To "explain the rational foundation for God" would be a violation of rationality, which says that the infinite and the transcendent are beyond and transcend all things without exception, which includes "rational explanations."

This is your ticket out of grounding your God axiom?

Fancy words for saying that in any given logical system, all axioms are internally rational. Therefore looking for a rational explanation for my axioms, means you are not judging my logic internally, but externally. If I were to do the same, God belief is irrational!
We are either stuck here, with both of us being logically "right", or we can agree to a common ground.

How is your statement different from saying:
In my worldview, The universe is infinite and transcendent. To "explain the rational foundation for universe" would be a violation of rationality, which says that the infinite and the transcendent are beyond and transcend all things without exception, which includes "rational explanations."

Any further axiom I would like added could be included in the "nature of the universe". Logic, UoN etc.

This grounds all axioms, by using another axiom that is "irrefutable".


First, according to Stratnerd's own criterion, he must justify his so-called axioms before he can say word one about my worldview.

Where did he say that? Axioms need no internal justification. There can be mutually agreed upon criteria by which we choose our axioms.


Why? It seems to me that this is part of the "larger picture" that others are wont to address.


This is not a debate on abiogenesis, or about if science is a valid way to achieve absolute truth. It is simply "is Evolution science". Please stick to the subject.


With all due respect to you, m_d (and I'm not just blowing smoke -- I really do like you and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt), but these statements are embarrassingly ill-informed. No rational Bible-adherent claims the English Bible comprises or is the source of 'absolute knowledge.' The reason there are so many translations is because the English has difficulty conveying the nuanced languages it is trying to translate. I use several translations, and they all manage to get it mostly right. It helps to know the original languages, but it's not essential.

I enjoy your evaluations, m_d. Keep up the good work.


After poking around in your site, I noticed that you do adhere to the original text. I retract my claims regarding translations, but still object to natural language interpretation being unambiguous.

[Metalking]

If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe.
Found this interesting..There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

[sentientsynth]

This is what I am looking for, confirmation from an unbiased source. Care to share? It is exactly because of bias that we do not have any extra-Biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ. But if you want a general synopsis, you could try the Jewish Talmud. Of course, the resurrection will be missing. But the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified is a fact. And just as an innocent murder-defendant will be scrupulously honest in his defense because he is certain of his innocence, so the Apostles and disciples were willing to be martyred because they were certain of the truth. Any analogy to modern martyrs for Mohammed breaks down, as the first-century martyrs for Christ were in a position to know that what they were willing to die for was false, whereas modern martyrs for Mohammed are going on blind faith. No one will suffer for what they know to be a lie.

Also, there are excellent reasons to believe that what the gospel writers wrote of Jesus is true. Since you are such an assured skeptic, I assume that you have examined all of these arguments. Would you please be forthcoming about the deficiencies in these arguments?

Aren't all the gospels eye witness sources? No. Neither Mark nor Luke are eye-witness sources. These two are secondary sources which gathered their information from primary, eye-witness sources. As such an assured skeptic, I was sure you would be aware of this. And whereas each testimony may include details the others do not, they are not mutually exclusive accounts. For instance, that one writer says there were two angels at Jesus's tomb whereas the other says there was one is not a contradiction. Matthew didn't say that there was only one angel, so the possibility is left open for there to be another. And let's not forget that while the Bible is indeed inspired by God, it still shows human traits. Individual literary devices, idiosycrasies, and vocabulary differ from author to author. The Bible itself is of a different class of documents than, say, the Two Tablets of Law that was "written with the finger of God." [Ex 31:18] The gospel accounts may be somewhat divergent, but they aren't contradictory.

So you think that a primitve society would have more chance to survive if it [murdered] its own members as soon as they showed any weakness? As soon as the individual showed any sign of congenital defect or sickness, yes. Over generations the members of such a society would become extra-ordinarily strong. Furthermore, murdering those members of the society who could not contribute would free up things such as food and water for those members who are strong and healthy. You should read Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, or Nietzsche, who took Evolution to their logical conclusions, something today's atheists are far too timid to pull off.

Question. Do animals have morals?
Any answer to this question would be an anthropomorphication.


SS

[sentientsynth]

Gary Habermas interviewed Anthony Flew about his conversion. It's a very interesting read. Requires Adobe Reader. (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf)

SS

[mighty_duck]

Gary Habermas interviewed Anthony Flew about his conversion. It's a very interesting read. Requires Adobe Reader. (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf)

SS

Thanks for that article, SS. It was an interesting read. It should be noted that Flew became something akin to a Deist, which is much closer to an Atheist than a Christian (at least in terms of behaviorial prescription. It does give a few philosophical short cuts).
And strangely, what convinced this philosopher was the inability of science to account for abiogenesis at this point in time. This is a lazy mode of operation for a scientist, but helps in cutting to more important philosophical matters for an 81 year old philosopher. More power to him.

[mighty_duck]

No. Neither Mark nor Luke are eye-witness sources.


I don't want to turn this in to a biblical criticism thread. Please explain in your own words how you resolve that gospels are all eye-witness reports, or even worse second hand eye witness reports, with your claim that eye-witness reports are by nature faulty, and your claim that the Bible is inerrant.

You also dropped the most important thread in our conversation which actually relates to BR IV.

Why are the attributes of The Biblical God NECESSARY? How does the FSM fail in grounding reality?

So far the only response I got from you is that the FSM is foolish (not a falsification of any sort), and that the FSM is really God (which doesn't seem likely as there is no mention of pasta in the Bible).

[sentientsynth]

I don't want to turn this in to a biblical criticism thread. Please explain in your own words how you resolve that gospels are all eye-witness reports, or even worse second hand eye witness reports, with your claim that eye-witness reports are by nature faulty, and your claim that the Bible is inerrant. As I've already said, the accounts are divergent (not faulty), yet non-contradictory. Exactly what we should expect from noncollusive eye-witness reports. Such speaks to their veracity. The greater difficulty the student has with completely harmonizing the accounts, the more we are assured that these documents haven't been tampered with. One source remembers one thing one way, another source in another way, like you find in any modern day trial. The main points are in every account though. 1. Jesus was crucified. 2. Jesus arose the third day. 3. Jesus was seen by many people for a forty day period after his resurrection. The supporting details are given in divergent, yet noncontradicting manner.


Why are the attributes of The Biblical God NECESSARY? The specific atttributes of Biblical God are logically necessary so that an ontological foundation for the nature of existence may be provided. However, a person may reject Christianity and yet still accept Christianity's description of God. The crux of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A man raised on a desert island may reach the conclusion that God exists, and that He is wise, loving, powerful, and eternal by his God-given faculties of reason and observation. Therefore no one has an excuse to deny God's existence.
How does the FSM fail in grounding reality?
As long as the FSM completely matches the description of the Christian God of the Bible in her essential characteristics, then she can provide an ontological basis for the nature of existence. In any way that her description does not match the description of the God of the Bible, she in internally incoherent and thereby falsified. (We've already seen that if she is eternal, she must thereby be supernatural, which you added to her list of characteristics during our discussion. This proves my point of internal coherence.)

SS

[mighty_duck]

The specific atttributes of Biblical God are logically necessary so that an ontological foundation for the nature of existence may be provided. However, a person may reject Christianity and yet still accept Christianity's description of God. The crux of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A man raised on a desert island may reach the conclusion that God exists, and that He is wise, loving, powerful, and eternal by his God-given faculties of reason and observation. Therefore no one has an excuse to deny God's existence.

That didn't answer the question at all!
Try to finish this sentence:
Only a God that sent his son to be sacrificed to himself can be the ontological foundation for Morality because...


As long as the FSM completely matches the description of the Christian God of the Bible in her essential characteristics, then she can provide an ontological basis for the nature of existence. In any way that her description does not match the description of the God of the Bible, she in internally incoherent and thereby falsified. (We've already seen that if she is eternal, she must thereby be supernatural, which you added to her list of characteristics during our discussion. This proves my point of internal coherence.)


The FSM is not the Biblical God! For intstance, she personally likes to kill people from time to time, but created human morality which discourages this for kicks.
Asserting that because she is different from God she is incoherent is meaningless. I can assert that God is meaningless because he is not the FSM. Please make an attempt to develop a rational explanation.

Finish these two sentences:
1. The FSM is incoherent because..

2. The FSM can't be an ontological foundation for the Uniformity of Nature because..

[sentientsynth]

Only a God that sent [H]is [S]on to be sacrificed to himself can be the ontological foundation for [m]orality because... ... this is what is demanded by the immutable moral law. In so doing He demonstrates that morality isn't arbitrary yet is an aspect of his immutable nature, demanding both the justice of the full penalty of the violation of His character, yet demonstrating his love by becoming a man and accepting the full penalty upon Himself. In the Cross is found both the unchangeable love and justice of our Creator, love and justice being the very essence of morality.

SS

[truthteller86]

... this is what is demanded by the immutable moral law. In so doing He demonstrates that morality isn't arbitrary yet is an aspect of his immutable nature, demanding both the justice of the full penalty of the violation of His character, yet demonstrating his love by becoming a man and accepting the full penalty upon Himself. In the Cross is found both the unchangeable love and justice of our Creator, love and justice being the very essence of morality.

SS:BRAVO:

[mighty_duck]

... this is what is demanded by the immutable moral law. In so doing He demonstrates that morality isn't arbitrary yet is an aspect of his immutable nature, demanding both the justice of the full penalty of the violation of His character, yet demonstrating his love by becoming a man and accepting the full penalty upon Himself. In the Cross is found both the unchangeable love and justice of our Creator, love and justice being the very essence of morality.

SS

I am begining to lose interest. If you don't want to make a rational argument, then we can just agree to disagree. I'm trying to understand your argument, but this conversation is useless if you won't make sense of it.

I didn't ask why God was possible, or why He is internally justified.
I asked why the Christian God is necessary. Why couldn't a god that didn't send His Son down here be the ontological foundation for morality?

And I am guessing you don't have a reason to object to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possible foundation for all axioms. If you are just going by what feels right, or makes the most sense, that's fine. The FSM does sound silly, and I am all for selecting the most reasonable option. TAG and Hilston just make a stronger claim, and I was hoping someone would be able to back it up.

[sentientsynth]

I asked why the Christian God is necessary. To provide ontological bases for the axioms of knowledge and the aspects of existence.. Why couldn't a god that didn't send His Son down here be the ontological foundation for morality? Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)

And I am guessing you don't have a reason to object to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possible foundation for all axioms. FSM cannot provide an ontological basis for justice or love, as neither are essential to her eternal character (random murder, arbitrary law.) If you are just going by what feels right, or makes the most sense, that's fine. The FSM does sound silly, and I am all for selecting the most reasonable option. True, I value both intuition and reasonability. Your presentation of the nature of FSM has been protean, making it up as you go along. The true Living God has testified for all mankind and his Book is the world's bestseller ever. Bringing up silliness such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes people not take you seriously. As a fallible human being, you ought not think you are clever enough to make up a god that will pass the test. TAG and Hilston just make a stronger claim, and I was hoping someone would be able to back it up. I still have yet to find out what TAG means, but if you carefully read what I've written thus far, I too have supported that the inexistence of God is impossible to defend rationally, as reason itself must have an ontological basis, the only possibility of which is a rational God. If you deny a rational God then you have no basis for assuming the uniformity of nature, just as Bertrand Russell correctly pointed out. I'm sorry if you've become disinterested. It is the advantage of the Christian that he knows he is fighting for a worthy cause, even if he must put up with such nonsense as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

SS

[mighty_duck]

Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)
So God was not moral before He sent his Son here?

And why CAN'T a God who didn't send His Son be moral?


FSM cannot provide an ontological basis for justice or love, as neither are essential to her eternal character (random murder, arbitrary law.)

Why must Her character be the same as what She created? I can create a virtual world on my computer, which would be very different from my nature. I'm sure an all powerful entity like the FSM or God could do the same with our universe.

The FSM provides a perfect ontological basis for everything, since we presuppose She created everything according to Her whim. Why does logic work? Because the FSM made it that way, Why do we love? Because the FSM made it possible. Its as flasifiable as your so called ontological basis.

[sentientsynth]

So God was not moral before He sent his Son here? Right when sin entered the world, God had this plan. He is eternally righteous.

And why CAN'T a God who didn't send His Son be moral? He would either be completely just and thereby unloving or completely loving and thereby unjust. The problem of man's evil must be resolved without a violation of either of these. The true Living God is perfectly balanced in His justice and His love.

Why must Her character be the same as what She created? It doesn't have to necessarily. However, if she is amoral, then how does she establish morality? Morality would be a product of her fiat, which as you yourself have demonstrated, is completely arbitrary. The nature of the moral law found in the Bible is of the essence of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." His decrees are righteous because He is righteous. Your FSM murders indiscriminately. Therefore her decree for man to not murder is arbitrary, being neither moral nor immoral.

The FSM provides a perfect ontological basis for everything, since we presuppose She created everything according to Her whim. Why does logic work? Because the FSM made it that way, Why do we love? Because the FSM made it possible. Its as fasifiable as your so called ontological basis. The problem is that you don't believe this. Also, from the info you've provided about your FSM, she is internally incoherent. If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love. (And of course any being the indiscriminately murders isn't love.) Either that or love does not truly exist, but is an illusion.

m_d, you seem pretty stuck on this contradictory FSM of yours. If you are willing to defend an idea that you yourself deem as silly, why on earth will you not acknowledge the true Living God?

SS

[Johnny]

Bringing up silliness such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes people not take you seriously. As a fallible human being, you ought not think you are clever enough to make up a god that will pass the test.No, bringing up the such silliness as the flying spaghetti monster reveals just how silly your entire argument is. Frankly, I'm disappointed Hilston is still pushing this crap.

No one is convincing anyone that the Christian God is the only one who can "provide ontological bases for the axioms of knowledge and the aspects of existence.." As I said before, my digital camera does, if I have blind faith that it does. Even as a Christian, I find this argument's legs made of straw.

[Johnny]

Also, from the info you've provided about your FSM, she is internally incoherent. If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love. (And of course any being the indiscriminately murders isn't love.) Either that or love does not truly exist, but is an illusion.FSM says you're using the Christian defintion of love. If you would read her book and use it as your foundation for love, as you do the Bible, then you would find that she is internally coherent and is qualified as the ontological basis for love.

[sentientsynth]

FSM says you're using the Christian defintion of love. If you would read her book and use it as your foundation for love, as you do the Bible, then you would find that she is internally coherent and is qualified as the ontological basis for love.
Johnny, do you know what blasphemy is? Don't you see how you have just profaned God? You are utterly dispicable to me.

[Mr Jack]

If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.

Simpler? In what possible way is god simpler than an emergent universe? A few basic laws of behaviour vs. a being of infinite power and wisdom?

The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe.

So what? I used to be Christian, now I'm an atheist - does that mean every Christian should become an atheist? Just because I did? People have differing views, what matters is understanding why they hold those views.

Found this interesting..There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.

Again, so what?

[avatar382]

Johnny, do you know what blasphemy is? Don't you see how you have just profaned God? You are utterly dispicable to me.

Actually, please show us just how Jonny has profaned God. I don't see it myself.

[Balder]

Why couldn't a god that didn't send His Son down here be the ontological foundation for morality?

Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)
This presupposes that violent and painful punishment is the only way to render "justice." And in my view, that presupposition is questionable. It also overlooks the fact that there might be any number of other ways for a loving God "ultimate being" to demonstrate love and "balance" or "justify" the order of the world.

[Johnny]

Johnny, do you know what blasphemy is? Don't you see how you have just profaned God? You are utterly dispicable to me.I have not blasphemed God. I was pointing out your fallacy of thinking. You said "If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love." I was pointing out that since you base your definition of love on the attribute of God, then of course FSM doesn't qualify as the basis of love as defined by God. But if a believer based their definition of love on an attribute of FSM, then FSM would clearly qualify as an ontological basis.

My faith does not require intellectual prostitution.

[mighty_duck]

SS,
I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.

You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.

For example:
If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).

I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.

I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.

[mighty_duck]

SS,
I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.

You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.

For example:
If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).

I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.

I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.

[lovemeorhateme]

Some deep discussion going on here. Keep it up guys, this is interesting!

*Gets Popcorn*

[sentientsynth]

Actually, please show us just how Jonny has profaned God. I don't see it myself.
To profane means to make common. Johnny has just put the Holy Bible on common playing ground as an inexistent message from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Had this not come from a Christian, I wouldn't have responded in such a way.

SS

[sentientsynth]

... there might be any number of other ways for a loving God "ultimate being" to demonstrate love and "balance" or "justify" the order of the world.
Such as?

m_d,

It's been stimulating. You've made some good points, and put me to hard thinking. I find it telling, though, that you would rather defend the Flying Spaghetti Monster versus your professed atheistic worldview.

SS

[mighty_duck]

While Stratnerd's 4th post lacked the punch of his previous one, it began cutting in to Jim's core argument (which is really irrelevant to this debate). Stratnerd asked a lot of the questions that have been popping up in this thread, which should help make Jim's case clearer, and focus back on the topic at hand.

1. I would like to see the debaters agree on what science is. Stratnerd has made this point in the last two posts, that science without the assumption of MN is worthless. But he has not put Jim in the corner of accepting this argument. Jim is trying to dance around the issue because it would kill his whole argument.

2. Makes a great point about how under Jim's definiton of science, almost anything can be considered science. Strangely, a broad definition actually hurts Jim's case, so it is in his best interests to narrow it down.

3. Jim never seperates his two presuppositions - The God of the Bible, and the Inerrant Bible itself, because they support one another in a circular way. Any attempt to separate them, like stratnerd has done, will be met with a lot of resistance.

4.

Explanations are tentative… not the tools and methods


I don't quite agree with this assertion, and Jim will shred it to bits.
The point that should have been made is that these tools and methods ARE science. Even if science is irrational under an atheist worldview like Jim claims, this is what science IS.
From there it is a hop a skip and a jump from unerstanding that evolution is science.

Overall ,a great post, if a bit unfocused.

[Nineveh]

Thanks to Knight for hosting this debate and thanks to Hilston and Stratnerd for all the time and effort they are putting into it! Awsome guys! Many thanks! :)

[Stratnerd]

Nineveh,

It does consume a ton of time... (un)holy cow!

[Balder]

Such as?
Just as an example, mixing Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian paradigms, you could have a loving creator God who creates a profoundly interrelated cosmos and sets up the "law" of karma, in which one's actions have repurcussions. In this universe, the loving creator God could manifest avatars who, like Buddhist bodhisattvas, vow to enter into any "world" that sentient beings generate through their karma and to work there tirelessly for their liberation. Here, karma would have a comparable corrective function to Christian "justice," but would not entail punishment for the sake of punishment as a means of obtaining "balance" in the universe. The bodhisattva avatars, by electing to incarnate among suffering beings everywhere (no matter how difficult) in order to teach and uplift, would lead self-emptying lives of love as ultimate transformative "gestures" of the divine.

[GuySmiley]

HQ21: Of the Biblical miracles Stratnerd is familiar with, which one would he claim was a violation of natural law?

SA_HQ22. . . .(snip) . . ., a man from dust,

So can we assume Stratnerd does not believe in the primordial soup that life supposedly sprang from in naturalistic views of the world? Since natural law is violated by 'man from dust' Stratnerd must believe in miraculous creation.

[mighty_duck]

So can we assume Stratnerd does not believe in the primordial soup that life supposedly sprang from in naturalistic views of the world? Since natural law is violated by 'man from dust' Stratnerd must believe in miraculous creation.

RNA molecule from primordial soup is quite different from a fully formed man from dust. Just like Anothony Flew concluded, if you wish to hang on to this God of the Gaps, its pointless to argue with you. He will continue to shrink as the gaps get smaller. Easier to concede this point, and get on to more interesting topics.
Like Evolution, which happens to be the topic of debate...

[GuySmiley]

RNA molecule from primordial soup is quite different from a fully formed man from dust. Just like Anothony Flew concluded, if you wish to hang on to this God of the Gaps, its pointless to argue with you. He will continue to shrink as the gaps get smaller. Easier to concede this point, and get on to more interesting topics.
Like Evolution, which happens to be the topic of debate...
Are RNA molecules alive?

[mighty_duck]

Are RNA molecules alive?

Under most definitions, the answer is "no". But at some point there must have been a case of life from "non life", no matter how we play with definitions. This is called abiogenesis, and is a different field of research than Evolution.
If you want to call this an act of God, so be it. Science has not solved this mystery yet, and considering it happened 3 or 4 billion years ago, there are chances it never will.
If your next question is "so you have nothing but faith that it happened naturally? how is that different from faith in God?", then the answer is simple.
We have seen things happen naturally. We have seen science solve many mysteries. We have seen these mysteries previously claimed as an act of God, only to have God shrink away after they are discovered. We have also never seen any positive scientific proof of God, or anything supernatural. It is therefore a reasonable conlcusion that abiogenensis was also a natural event.
Either way, this has little to do with Evolution, which explains processes in populations of critters that are already alive.

[GuySmiley]

If your next question is "so you have nothing but faith that it happened naturally? how is that different from faith in God?"
It's like you read my mind, are you sure you dont believe in the supernatural? (kidding, no response required)

[sentientsynth]

Just as an example, mixing Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian paradigms, Some dissection will be necessary, of course. In what ways you "mix" these three very different worldviews is of primary importance in order to maintain internal consistency within the hybrid.

you could have a loving creator God who creates a profoundly interrelated cosmos and sets up the "law" of karma, in which one's actions have repurcussions. Do you mean in the sense that all causes have effects per se, or that if you are evil you will reap suffering? Would you see these two as one in the same? On what basis is one action deemed "evil" and another "good"?

I'd like you to pay particular attention to this question:

Is suffering necessarily an undesirable state? Why or why not?


Here, karma would have a comparable corrective function to Christian "justice," but would not entail punishment for the sake of punishment as a means of obtaining "balance" in the universe. How does your world-view explain man's propensity to do what he ought not?

SS

[sentientsynth]

It is therefore a reasonable conlcusion that abiogenensis was also a natural event.Why is nature uniform?

[mighty_duck]

Why is nature uniform?

That's a philosophical question, when we are dealing with a scientific issue.

Why? That is the nature of the universe. Is anyone denying it is so?

[sentientsynth]

That's a philosophical question, when we are dealing with a scientific issue. I like that dodge. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool.

That is the nature of the universe. Have you observed the entire universe eternally to verify this experimentally (scientifically)? If not, it's just a statistic.

[Mr Jack]

Have you observed the entire universe eternally to verify this experimentally (scientifically)? If not, it's just a statistic.

Not it's an empirically verified statement about the local universe. Since we live in the local universe, this is pragmatically sufficent. It may be that the universe operates entirely differently in different places, but it makes no difference to me.

I think the likely answer to "why is the universe uniform in its behaviour?" is because it's simpler than any alternative, but the current best answer must be "we don't know".

[mighty_duck]

I like that dodge. If you don't want to talk about it, that's cool.

Have you observed the entire universe eternally to verify this experimentally (scientifically)? If not, it's just a statistic.

This is not a dodge of any sort. It's very much akin to the age old question "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to witness it, does it still make a sound?"

Ask this of a scientist, and he will say yes, based on numerous other trees that have made a sound while falling.

To which you reply "But have you ever observed an unobvserved tree fall down? you are just going by statistics!"

This is why scientists do not answer that age old question, but prefer to differ it to the philosophy department down the hall. Science assumes a certain level of uniformity, based on observation.

If you maintain that nature is not uniform, please give an example.

[sentientsynth]

I'm not claiming nature isn't uniform. I'm claiming that it isn't scientifically proven until you verify it experimentally in every case for all time. The uniformity of nature is then only a scientific theory, which at least hypothetically may be falsified in the future. What is observed as "the uniformity of nature" may be only a temporary phenomena in the history of the universe.

SS

[Mr Jack]

I'm not claiming nature isn't uniform. I'm claiming that it isn't scientifically proven until you verify it experimentally in every case for all time. The uniformity of nature is then only a scientific theory, which at least hypothetically may be falsified in the future. What is observed as "the uniformity of nature" may be only a temporary phenomena in the history of the universe.

Yes, this is so. But as I pointed out earlier we do have observational evidence for the uniformity of nature for last 13.8 billion years, and at distances of up to 13 billion light years (although, strictly, we only have evidence that the universe was uniform to these distances at a time past proportional to the distance away).

[sentientsynth]

Yes, this is so.

Woo hoo!! :eek:

But as I pointed out earlier we do have observational evidence for the uniformity of nature for last 13.8 billion years, and at distances of up to 13 billion light years.

This assumes:
1. space has never expanded dis-uniformally.
2. the speed of light has always been 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

Seems to me that you're still using the uniformity of nature to prove the uniformity of nature.

SS

[Mr Jack]

1. space has never expanded dis-uniformally.
2. the speed of light has always been 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s
Neither of those assumptions are required. In fact, the only assumption that is being made is that the light (and other signals) reaching our instruments are not being faked. The evidence for uniformity comes from the fact that the physical models developed by observation here on earth are borne out by observations of the behaviour of objects in space: that predictions of how the Big Bang happened based on QFT are borne out in the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background, that the spectral patterns of stars matches that of spectral patterns observed on earth, that the movements of expelled matter from supernova matches speed of light measurements taken in Earthly laboratories; etc. etc. On the question of discontinuities of expansion, our evidence comes from the lack of observed discontinuity; any discontinuity in expansion should show up as a discontinuity in the observations of the CMB, and of spectral patterns of stars, as well as "bunching" effects in assertained distances.

Now, of course, it is <i>possible</i> that we're wrong. There could be discontinuities, across which it just so happens that changes in the behaviour of the universe exactly cancel the effect of the discontinuities and give us observed light patterns that exactly match what we'd expect without any discontinuity or change in the universes behaviour - just as it's possible that invisible fairies are responsible for gravity; working dilligently to make all the apples fall and the planets swing in their great arcs - but it's not even remotely <i>likely</i>.

So we can be confident in the uniformity of nature.

[sentientsynth]

Now, of course, it is <i>possible</i> that we're wrong. There could be discontinuities, across which it just so happens ...

The point is that we can't assume to know.

According to the scientific method, we must continue to observe phenomena in order to be ensured of the uniformity of the character of matter, space/time, and thermodynamics. To assume that the previously observed character of reality is an eternal property of the universe (inductive principle) is unscientific.

The brilliant atheist Bertrand Russell says it this way.


The inductive principle, however, is equally incapable of being proved by an appeal to experience. Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. [Emphasis added][Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy,

With science, the case is never closed.

SS

[Mr Jack]

The point is that we can't assume to know.
Why not? Science makes assumptions; and those assumptions are borne out in the success of science as a pragmatic tool.

To assume that the previously observed character of reality is an eternal property of the universe (inductive principle) is unscientific.
No, it isn't. All science makes that assumption at it's very heart; without it science is simply not possible. Science cannot be used to justify itself; just as logic cannot be used to justify deduction and induction cannot be used to justify induction. Which brings me neatly back to my earlier point about certainty.

(It also, as an aside, runs into my big beef with the Philosophy of Science which is that it spends its whole time assuming logic as if it has an a priori primacy over induction)

[aharvey]

Can someone help me out here? Jim, in many many words, is striving to answer the question of whether evolution is science with discussions of the fundamental source of all logic. I am better versed in graphic design than in philosophy, so I confess to struggling with the chain of logic here. As I am a professional biologist, I freely acknowledge that I accept the scientist's view of science more than the fundamentalist theologian's view of science, and therefore may be overlooking or misrepresenting Jim's position. I wonder if y'all can help me distill the essential points fairly, accurately and concisely?

“Evolution is not science.”
- “Evolution is not science because it is illogical.”
-- “Evolution is illogical because it contradicts God, who is the source of all logic."
--- "We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."
--- “Evolution contradicts God specifically by contradicting God's version of what actually happened."
---- "God told us what actually happened through His Word, also known as the Bible."
----- "All events that are reported in the Bible happened exactly as originally written, and we have the complete and accurate version of what was originally written."
[sorry, I'm missing the justification for the above two claims]
----- "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is."
------ "God tells us it is His Word through His Word, also known as the Bible."

Replacing "evolution" with other scientific theories or discplines seems to support this interpretation. "The Big Bang Theory" is not science, for the reasons given. "Cell Theory," "Germ Theory," "Chemistry," "Ecology," on the other hand, are not disqualified as science.

I want to make this as accurate as possible. If you don't think this accurately describes the line of reasoning, please help me clarify it. But make sure that your reasoning would properly identify evolution as non-science and other scientific disciplines as either science or non-science.

[Stratnerd]

According to the scientific method, we must continue to observe phenomena in order to be ensured of the uniformity of the character of matter, space/time, and thermodynamics. To assume that the previously observed character of reality is an eternal property of the universe (inductive principle) is unscientific.

I take you are not a scientist! I've never seen any arguments like this or the ones being put foward in the main ring come out a scientist which actually get out of their comfy chairs and do science (and make contributions to knowledge). The aforementioned arguments come from folks in the other hall that sit in their comfy reading chairs to perform feats of mental "mastication" and almost never contribute anything useful - althought they make pure thought more interesting (if you have that kind of time).

There are a few that have made important contributions to science such as, but not limited to Bacon, Kuhn and Popper. Look at the types of arguments these guys made compared to the types of arguments floating around these pages.

You guys need to stop stroking your medulla oblongatas and actually sit down, or more appropriately stand up and get your boot on, and do some science.

aaaah... that felt good.

[Stratnerd]

should I add... "I'm in trouble now"?

[Knight]

should I add... "I'm in trouble now"?Stratnerd I would like thank you for your efforts to this point in BR IX. You have done an excellent job. I was really hoping to get a person that would put in good effort against Hilston because I knew Hilston would be well prepared and I must tell you I am very happy with your effort. :up:

[Johnny]

aharvey, looks good to me

[SUTG]

I'm not claiming nature isn't uniform. I'm claiming that it isn't scientifically proven until you verify it experimentally in every case for all time. The uniformity of nature is then only a scientific theory, which at least hypothetically may be falsified in the future. What is observed as "the uniformity of nature" may be only a temporary phenomena in the history of the universe.

SS

Science doesn't really assume the uniformity of nature. It concludes the uniformity of nature. Of course, that conclusion is tentative, and not the sort of conclusion we can achieve in the fields of mathematics or logic.

We can ask whether or not the sun will rise next Thursday, but we cannot answer with complete confidence since we do not know the future. Still, most of us will guess in the affirmative.

How does the Christian God change any of this?

[Stratnerd]

Thanks Knight!

[mighty_duck]

Can someone help me out here? Jim, in many many words, is striving to answer the question of whether evolution is science with discussions of the fundamental source of all logic. I am better versed in graphic design than in philosophy, so I confess to struggling with the chain of logic here. As I am a professional biologist, I freely acknowledge that I accept the scientist's view of science more than the fundamentalist theologian's view of science, and therefore may be overlooking or misrepresenting Jim's position. I wonder if y'all can help me distill the essential points fairly, accurately and concisely?

“Evolution is not science.”
- “Evolution is not science because it is illogical.”
-- “Evolution is illogical because it contradicts God, who is the source of all logic."
--- "We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."
--- “Evolution contradicts God specifically by contradicting God's version of what actually happened."
---- "God told us what actually happened through His Word, also known as the Bible."
----- "All events that are reported in the Bible happened exactly as originally written, and we have the complete and accurate version of what was originally written."
[sorry, I'm missing the justification for the above two claims]
----- "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is."
------ "God tells us it is His Word through His Word, also known as the Bible."

Replacing "evolution" with other scientific theories or discplines seems to support this interpretation. "The Big Bang Theory" is not science, for the reasons given. "Cell Theory," "Germ Theory," "Chemistry," "Ecology," on the other hand, are not disqualified as science.

I want to make this as accurate as possible. If you don't think this accurately describes the line of reasoning, please help me clarify it. But make sure that your reasoning would properly identify evolution as non-science and other scientific disciplines as either science or non-science.

That's pretty close to Jim's argument. I bet your logic senses are screaming "circular logic". The way he gets around this is by presupposing 1) God of the Bible, 2) Inerrancy of the Bible. So these two are axioms in his worldview, need no support, and support everything else. So far so good, as this is all logically VALID!

The next step is where his argument messes up, when he infers that an atheist worldview is irrational, and so is every other worldview. This is wrong because he is judging one logic system, using another logic system. The trick is that his logic system has an axiom that explains an axiom of the other system. He tries to obfuscate the fact that his axioms are just as internally unfounded, by defining them as founded.

[aharvey]

That's pretty close to Jim's argument. I bet your logic senses are screaming "circular logic". The way he gets around this is by presupposing 1) God of the Bible, 2) Inerrancy of the Bible. So these two are axioms in his worldview, need no support, and support everything else. So far so good, as this is all logically VALID!
I'm not exactly buying this (amazingly enough). First, I have yet to see where anyone has explained the difference between a "presupposition" and an "assumption." Without a valid and relevant distinction, "presupposing one's conclusions" still counts as circular logic. Why do I insert "relevant" here? Because the way people use the word "presupposition" here, one gets the sense that they are not referring to the kind of assumption that scientists use, which we might call a "working assumption." We make assumptions so we can do our work, but we know that one reason hypotheses fail is because our assumptions are incorrect. Jim and his ilk, however, quite explicitly remove the consideration of their presupposition from the table; they know with certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that it is correct. However, this is not a relevant difference when it comes to circular logic.

The other point that I want to make is there is only one presupposition here: the second one (Biblical inerrancy). The first statement follows directly and inevitably from the second.

The next step is where his argument messes up, when he infers that an atheist worldview is irrational, and so is every other worldview. This is wrong because he is judging one logic system, using another logic system. The trick is that his logic system has an axiom that explains an axiom of the other system. He tries to obfuscate the fact that his axioms are just as internally unfounded, by defining them as founded.
I confess I have little patience for these little word games, especially as used to attack evolution. It reeks of the typical Creationist tactic of attacking from vantage points as far away as possible from what evolutionary theory actual deals with: information theory, the big bang theory, laws of thermodynamics, the origin of life, the ultimate basis for logical thought ... evolutionary theory says nothing about any of these (cripes, there are no living organisms mentioned in these arguments at all!), and makes no assumptions concerning them any different from any other branch of scientific inquiry. It's as if creationists have learned that evolutionary biologists know what they are talking about, so let's find areas that they don't know so much about, which has pretty much forced biology out of the discussion altogether.

But in any case, it seems to me that the argument: "IF my presuppositions are correct, then anything that contradicts them is incorrect" is inevitably correct but trivial. IF you're right, then (duh!) you're right! That's hardly justification for us all to conclude that you are right!

[Highline]

Thanks to the debaters for their efforts, it has been interesting reading.

I agree that the series of questions in the last few posts fairly sum up the creationist's arguments. I was surprised that TOL would use a bible literalist for this debate, but both debaters seem intelligent and thoughtful. This must be hard work.

One question I have for the bible literalists out there (and I realize this is probably on the wrong thread) is how do they support the story of Noah? The flood, possible, but getting two of every animal one one ship, and for those animals to live and not eat each other? Or die of disease?

Second question. Younger earth than the millions of years required for evolution, maybe. But only 6,000 years old seem unrealistic. There are 20,000 years of ice layers on the greenland ice shelf, the science of measuring them is pretty basic (it is colder in winter, warmer in summer, like tree rings). I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts.

[Knight]

Thanks to the debaters for their efforts, it has been interesting reading.

I agree that the series of questions in the last few posts fairly sum up the creationist's arguments. I was surprised that TOL would use a bible literalist for this debate, but both debaters seem intelligent and thoughtful. This must be hard work.

One question I have for the bible literalists out there (and I realize this is probably on the wrong thread) is how do they support the story of Noah? The flood, possible, but getting two of every animal one one ship, and for those animals to live and not eat each other? Or die of disease?

Second question. Younger earth than the millions of years required for evolution, maybe. But only 6,000 years old seem unrealistic. There are 20,000 years of ice layers on the greenland ice shelf, the science of measuring them is pretty basic (it is colder in winter, warmer in summer, like tree rings). I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts.These are great questions but lets not get off track on this thread OK?

Feel free to start any threads you wish here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1).

Thank you very much for your input.

[Hilston]

There are quite a lot of posts I'd like to respond to, and I prefer to respond in the order in which they were posted. But since aharvey has offered to summarize my argument and has asked for feedback on it, it is fitting that I should make an exception and respond to this first.
As I am a professional biologist, I freely acknowledge that I accept the scientist's view of science more than the fundamentalist theologian's view of science, and therefore may be overlooking or misrepresenting Jim's position.From much of what has been written here, scientists seem wont to claim that they don't really have a "view of science," i.e., an explanation that justifies their use of scientific methods. They "just do it." That is, they seem to blindly accept induction and the uniformity of nature, because they claim to have no choice. They don't question it. Nor do they allow others to question it. It is sacrosanct. But that's not rational. And it doesn't justify what they're doing. The Biblical Creationist, on the other hand, is able to not only know, but to justify what he knows, to understand that his knowledge, as well as the tools by which he acquires and organizes that knowledge, are rationally grounded.
I wonder if y'all can help me distill the essential points fairly, accurately and concisely?
“Evolution is not science.”Evolution (capital "E") as a paradigm is not science, for two reasons: (1) Because it makes claims concerning events that are outside the purview of science, and (2) because the knowledge and conclusions held according to that paradigm cannot be justified without begging crucial questions concerning the verity of the tools and methods used.- “Evolution is not science because it is illogical.”See above.
-- “Evolution is illogical because it contradicts God, who is the source of all logic."Evolution uses logic and the tools and methods of science, but without justification and to deliberately exclude God, the Source of logic and the tools and methods of science, from the equation. It's being called "methodological naturalism" by Stratnerd.
--- "We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."It's not an inference. It is explicitly stated in the Bible, which is God's inerrant and infallible revelation to mankind.
--- “Evolution contradicts God specifically by contradicting God's version of what actually happened."Since God was the only one who was there to witness (and cause) what actually happened, it follows that His version is the true version, and all other variations are indeed false.
---- "God told us what actually happened through His Word, also known as the Bible."God told us exactly, albeit not exhaustively, what happened with regard to the creation of the universe. The justification of this claim is that the verity of the Bible is necessary to make sense of the tools and methods of science.
----- "All events that are reported in the Bible happened exactly as originally written, and we have the complete and accurate version of what was originally written." [sorry, I'm missing the justification for the above two claims]Correct. All Biblical accounts are exact, albeit not exhaustive. As to the accuracy of the Biblical texts, there are many writings of that period, which have much worse credentials than the text of the Bible, yet we don't find people questioning whether or not the texts of Plato are "accurate." There are no scientific reasons to question the overall accuracy of extant Biblical texts. As to its completeness, if God exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then there is no existential reason to question its completeness. The justification of this claim is that the verity of Biblical text is necessary to make sense of the tools and methods of science. If the Bible were not true, then any knowledge acquired or organized according to those unjustified tools and methods cannot be verified or validated. They we would then have to be held, ultimately, by blind faith.
----- "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is."He both told us and has proven it by various means: Through personal human experience, through the testimony of creation, through rational faculties of man and through the necessity of God's Word to justify the tools and methods of science.
------ "God tells us it is His Word through His Word, also known as the Bible."See above.
Replacing "evolution" with other scientific theories or discplines seems to support this interpretation. "The Big Bang Theory" is not science, for the reasons given. "Cell Theory," "Germ Theory," "Chemistry," "Ecology," on the other hand, are not disqualified as science."Evolution," capital "E", is to science as "The Big Bang Theory" is to science. I do not deny the science of evolution (lower case "e") and cell theory and all the rest, provided they limit their claims to that which is within the actual purview of their particular domains of science. However, I would claim that any proponent of Evolution (capital "E") who presumes to do chemistry by the use of scientific tools and methods does so without justification.

That's pretty close to Jim's argument. I bet your logic senses are screaming "circular logic".It's not circular when we start with the existence and attributes of God, which are necessary to justify the logical processes that you otherwise accept axiomatically (i.e. as magic).
The way he gets around this is by presupposing 1) God of the Bible, 2) Inerrancy of the Bible.It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.
So these two are axioms in his worldview, ...These are not axioms. If they were axioms, wouldn't you accept them as well? The fact that you reject them disqualifies them as axioms.
... need no support, and support everything else. So far so good, as this is all logically VALID!There is plenty of support, but whether or not you accept it depends on the assumptions about reality that you bring to the discussion.

The next step is where his argument messes up, when he infers that an atheist worldview is irrational, and so is every other worldview. This is wrong because he is judging one logic system, using another logic system.My logic is no different than yours, m_d. If you think it is, please give me an example.
The trick is that his logic system has an axiom that explains an axiom of the other system.First, you must have a different definition of axiom. Secondly, if a so-called axiom explains other things that are otherwise inexplicable, those other things are no longer axioms. They become justified and are therefore no longer merely axiomatic.
He tries to obfuscate the fact that his axioms are just as internally unfounded, by defining them as founded.Here's a question that you don't need to answer; I just want to put it our there: Will you at least acknowledge that the existence and attributes of the God of the Bible, if he existed, would justify the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature? If so, then the claims of the Bible are not merely "obfuscation." And even if you don't grant the coherence of the Biblical thesis, at least I've made an effort to justify the tools and methods of science in a way that doesn't beg the question. If you still want to call that obfuscation, then we're just going to have to disagree. Of course, my disagreement with you is justfied, whereas your disagreement with me is not.

[Balder]

The justification of this claim is that the verity of Biblical text is necessary to make sense of the tools and methods of science. If the Bible were not true, then any knowledge acquired or organized according to those unjustified tools and methods cannot be verified or validated. They we would then have to be held, ultimately, by blind faith.
One day I may get over it, but I always trip up over the audacity of this claim! To say that no other paradigm accounts as sufficiently for "the world as we know it," with all its regularities and its apparent order, as the Biblical worldview, is a bold statement. But totally unsubstantiated...and likely indefensible.

And as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Bible makes some patently false statements about the nature of the cosmos. The sky is not a metal dome, there is no celestial ocean, nor any floodgate to mediate it ... though that's what many of the neighbors of the Biblical authors thought, and what the Biblical authors apparently thought as well.

[Balder]

That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around."
Too early to use the word "proof"! No proof has been given.

You should amend your statement to: "That's an extraordinary claim..."

Everyone will agree!

[Hilston]

One day I may get over it, but I always trip up over the audacity of this claim! To say that no other paradigm accounts as sufficiently for "the world as we know it," with all its regularities and its apparent order, as the Biblical worldview, is a bold statement. But totally unsubstantiated...and likely indefensible.It is indeed substantiated, if only by the fact that no one has offered a defensible, sustainable, rational alternative. If I recall correctly offered an alternative in the form of mindless, impersonal, amoral, non-volitional universal forces, and despite the irrationality of it, you seem convinced that such forces can somehow give rise to minds, personality, morality and volition.
And as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Bible makes some patently false statements about the nature of the cosmos. The sky is not a metal dome, there is no celestial ocean, nor any floodgate to mediate it ...These are hermeneutical issues that you've disqualified yourself from cogently assessing. Those whose fundamental perception of reality is opposed to the claims of scripture are self-excluded from justifiably making the assumptions you've made here.
... though that's what many of the neighbors of the Biblical authors thought, and what the Biblical authors apparently thought as well.The operative term here is "apparently." There is nothing in the Biblical text that requires the thoughtful reader to accept your assumptions about the passages to which you are alluding.
Too early to use the word "proof"! No proof has been given.It has, Balder. The argument as stated is proof. You can deny it, but in so doing, you sacrifice rationality on the altar of that denial.

[Balder]

Hilston,

You're quite bright, and I've enjoyed talking with you in the past, and I certainly appreciate the careful way you craft many of your arguments (even though I disagree with your conclusions), but I think it is intellectually dishonest to call a bald, unsubstantiated claim "proof." That is a misuse of the word.

If I recall correctly offered an alternative in the form of mindless, impersonal, amoral, non-volitional universal forces, and despite the irrationality of it, you seem convinced that such forces can somehow give rise to minds, personality, morality and volition.
No, that is not what I said in our discussion, nor what I believe. But that's a separate discussion -- which I'm happy to take up again elsewhere, if you or any other presuppositionalist would like to try to "prove" what you claim: that all non-Christian, non-Biblical worldviews must necessarily self-implode.

Best wishes,
Balder

[Hilston]

... but I think it is intellectually dishonest to call a bald, unsubstantiated claim "proof." That is a misuse of the word.I will concede that the statement is bald, as it should be. But what would constitute substantiation in your opinion? What on your view constitutes proof?

[Hilston]

... if you or any other presuppositionalist would like to try to "prove" what you claim: that all non-Christian, non-Biblical worldviews must necessarily self-implode.You've seen it here over and over again, Balder. They resort to the "axiom-of-the-gaps" argument, and that is self-implosion of the highest order.

I do apologize for not recalling correctly your claims of how you justify the tools & methods of science. I may be confusing you with another Buddhist from my past. I, too, would like to take that up again sometime.

Cheers,
:j

[Balder]

If I recall correctly, we went around this idea of what constitutes "adequate proof" of a worldview a number of times. If a presuppositionalist claims that all other worldviews are necessarily flawed and self-contradictory, then the onus is on the presuppositionalist to demonstrate this: to demonstrate the weakness and irrationality of those worldviews. Which entails more than saying, or demonstrating, that their model differs from the Biblical one.

So, for one, I'd like to see a presuppositionalist succeed in backing up this bald/bold claim... Or at least seriously attempt to do so, instead of resorting to the "impossibility of the contrary" refrain. (I concede that you made a fairly concerted effort in our discussion on presuppositionalism.)

Concerning more positive presuppositionalist substantiation, do you have any idea how the Biblical God is necessary to understand (and ground) things like ... oh ... instincts, viruses, birth defects, men with nipples, and humans with tail bones?

[Hilston]

If I recall correctly, we went around this idea of what constitutes "adequate proof" of a worldview a number of times. If a presuppositionalist claims that all other worldviews are necessarily flawed and self-contradictory, then the onus is on the presuppositionalist to demonstrate this: to demonstrate the weakness and irrationality of those worldviews. Which entails more than saying, or demonstrating, that their model differs from the Biblical one.Of course, and any view that wants to compete with the Biblical view must get in line. I'm only one person.

Furthermore, I don't make the claim on my own authority or experience. As a Biblical Creationist, it should come as no surprise that I defer to the claims of Scripture, one of which being that no other worldview can justifiably account for the intelligibility of human experience, the laws of science and logic, human dignity or moral standards and values. For every view that's been presented, the challenge is to expose the inevitable flaws and self-contradictions and to make them evident. But of course, to those who are happy to believe in magic (axioms) and science fiction (cosmogony myths), the flaws and self-contradictions are not bothersome, despite their exposure. This is the classic unthirsty-horse-led-to-water scenario. Just because the one purporting the competing view is unconvinced by the Bible's refutation does not make my demonstration of their flaws and self-contradictions any less cogent or sound (i.e. proof).

So, for one, I'd like to see a presuppositionalist succeed in backing up this bald/bold claim... Or at least seriously attempt to do so, instead of resorting to the "impossibility of the contrary" refrain. (I concede that you made a fairly concerted effort in our discussion on presuppositionalism.)This surprises me, Balder, because I do remember this much: I never felt I had a knowledgeable enough grasp of your thesis to even begin a presuppositional critique of it. I spent the bulk of our discussion trying to understand what exactly I was up against and I never felt satisfied that I understood it sufficiently. By the way, the "refrain" you mentioned has not been sung once by me in this discussion or the debate. Of course, I've made the claim in various ways, to varying degrees, but that violates the definition of "refrain," doesn't it?

Concerning more positive presuppositionalist substantiation, do you have any idea how the Biblical God is necessary to understand (and ground) things like ... oh ... instincts, viruses, birth defects, men with nipples, and humans with tail bones?It isn't enough to say, "Hey, can you ground your understanding of this vestigial physiological phenomenon?" An efficient critique of competing worldviews does not spend time addressing about such particulars (not that it couldn't; it's just not efficient). Rather, the critique goes to a more fundamental level, an example of which I hinted at in my previous post to you. Here it is again, in the same form of Socratic Irony that I employed in the aforementioned post: Why did you choose to ask specifically about men with nipples or humans with tail bones?

[Highline]

This whole thing seem to be incredibly off subject to me. Hilston, you seem to be debating God and existence, I thought this was about the theory of eveloution verse creationism. Explain and discuss the fossil record- why would a creator set up situation in which 99% of the species ever created are extinct? Aside from the Bible, what is your evidence of the age of the Earth? Why do viruses and bacteria mutate? Why are there so many unique species located on Islands and isolated continents? Why can't humans invent their own morality, in fact, isn't morality one of our evolutionary advantages?

Life is messy and history is life's dead ends. Why is life by far the most compicated thing on Earth, why did the designer not make complicated non-living things?

Oh, and of course people question Plato and build on his ideas.

[mighty_duck]

First a definiton. I am using this definition of Axiom (from dictionary.com), as it relates to one logic system (a set of axioms and their deductive conclusions) :

ax·i·om:
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

You can replace the word axiom with presupposition, as they are equivalant in this regard.


It's not circular when we start with the existence and attributes of God, which are necessary to justify the logical processes that you otherwise accept axiomatically (i.e. as magic).


Agreed. It is not circular because you presuppose God, and that ends the circularity.

If you start with Logic as your presupposition, then that is just as rational and non-circular.


It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.


Jim, I am very unimpressed with this assertion. There is no magic or myth. We create a logic system with axioms, and deduce conclusions from them. Axioms are rational within that logic system (you call it a worldview). Asking for proof or rationalization for an axiom is like asking why a circle is round. Its is true by definition.

We have different axioms, and a as result we have different worldviews. Our use of logic is the same though.

Let me give you an example:
Person A holds the following axioms.
All Dogs have hair.
Rex is a dog.

He therefore comes to a conclusion that Rex has hair. He is justified, and rational.

Person B has these axioms:
All Aliens have hair,
All dogs are aliens.
Rex is a dog.

Person B is also justified and rational in proclaiming that Rex has hair. He can claim that his axioms provide a rational explaination to why dogs have hair, and therefore Person A is irrationally holding his axioms. But how did he reach this conclusion? By using his own axioms to judge the axioms of another system.

Person A can likewise claim that Person B is irrational if he claims that Rex is an alien. He is commiting the same fallacy, of judging one rational system using the axioms of another rational system.

What your argument does, is say that Person B can claim Person A is irrational, but not the other way around. This is wrong logic.

So how can two people both be rational means, and still come to different conclusions? They have different axioms. So the next question, is which axioms are "better". The fact that person B has a rational explanation for person A's axiom, by no means guarantees anything.

[Hilston]

This whole thing seem to be incredibly off subject to me. Hilston, you seem to be debating God and existence, I thought this was about the theory of eveloution verse creationism.The debate is about whether or not Evolution is science or science fiction. In my opening post, I explained that certain aspects of evolution can be regarded as science. I defined science thus: First, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs.However, whenever the Evolutionist presumes to make claims or conclusions based on assumptions that extend beyond the above descriptions, it ceases to be science. The very foundation of methodological naturalism is Godless, the stated exclusion of any notion of the extra-natural. Given that claim, I am warranted in challenging the Evolutionist to justify the tools and methods by which they claim to do science by ignoring the extra-natural. I have a justification for my use of those tools and methods, and that is the existence and attributes of God. I'm not asking my opponent(s) to believe in God; my goal is not to compel my opponent(s) to believe in God. Rather, my goal is to show that the Evolutionist cannot rationally justify the very tools he uses to do science, and to demonstrate that the Creationist can.

Explain and discuss the fossil record- why would a creator set up situation in which 99% of the species ever created are extinct?Before I answer, I'm curious to know if you personally counted and did the arithmetic to arrive at this statistic.

Aside from the Bible, what is your evidence of the age of the Earth?My evidence? I'm not a geologist. I don't have or offer any on my own authority. There are dozens of books on the subject if you're interested. Google should be helpful there.

Why do viruses and bacteria mutate?Since I'm not a microbiologist, I couldn't give you any details on this. My guess is that creatures have been designed by God to adapt to their environments. Which suggests that human beings can have children with a different content of melanin in their skin because of the effects of the environment on them or their ancestors. It does not, however, mean that humans will someday have wings or prehensile tails. Again, as above, there are dozens of books on this subject. All you have to do use a search engine to find them.

Why are there so many unique species located on Islands and isolated continents?Probably because isolated populations give rise to unusual characteristics. Don't we see this even among humans? Does that mean those humans would eventually become something other than human?

Why can't humans invent their own morality, in fact, isn't morality one of our evolutionary advantages?What is morality? And by what authority should one human or even a consensus of humans impose that standard on others? Does might (and consensus) make right?

Life is messy and history is life's dead ends. Why is life by far the most compicated thing on Earth, why did the designer not make complicated non-living things?Is there some kind of axiom I'm unaware of? "For God to exist, non-living things must be as complicated as living things"? Is "complicated" a virtue or a liability in your view? Whence derives this value judgment?

Oh, and of course people question Plato and build on his ideas.Are you serious about this remark? If so, you could not have missed the point by a wider margin if you had tried.

[Hilston]

First a definiton. I am using this definition of Axiom (from dictionary.com), as it relates to one logic system (a set of axioms and their deductive conclusions) :

ax·i·om:
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

You can replace the word axiom with presupposition, as they are equivalant in this regard.It's not circular when we start with the existence and attributes of God, which are necessary to justify the logical processes that you otherwise accept axiomatically (i.e. as magic).Agreed. It is not circular because you presuppose God, and that ends the circularity.

If you start with Logic as your presupposition, then that is just as rational and non-circular.It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic. It is question-begging in the extreme. Logic cannot justify itself. This is why we must get behind what is logic and discuss it in terms of necessity. What is necessary for logic to be universally reliable? What must be the case in order for induction to be trustworthy? What conditions must exist in order for nature to be uniform? On the non-Theistic worldview, there is no cogent answer to these questions, hence the appeal to the Axiom-of-the-Gaps. If there were an answer to these questions, then the acceptance of logic would not be axiomatic. On the Creationist view, the necessary foundation, the existential conditions are the character and attributes of a personal, purposeful, volitional, all-knowing and all-powerful infinite God whose very nature is reflected in the laws of logic.

It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.Jim, I am very unimpressed with this assertion.Of course. It wasn't intended to impress or to persuade you, or any non-theist Evolutionist. But it's no mere assertion. It's been proven over and over again in this very thread. The appeal to the "Axiom of the Gaps" is devastating to the methodological naturalist, because those who hold to methodological naturalism are committed in advance to dismissing anything and everything extra-natural in their experience or reasoning. But of course, the Axiom of the Gaps, as well as reasoning and the principles that govern that activity are themselves extra-natural. The non-Theist Evolutionist's thesis collapses under its own weight. And no one wants to face up to, let alone be impressed by, that sort of self-refutation.

There is no magic or myth. We create a logic system with axioms, and deduce conclusions from them.You created them? Did you create them to be universal? Or are they merely conventions?

Axioms are rational within that logic system (you call it a worldview). Asking for proof or rationalization for an axiom is like asking why a circle is round.Not at all. Roundness is an attribute of a circle, as it is of ellipses and spheres and cones. Justification (which is what I'm requesting) is not an attribute of a law of logic. Asking for justification of the laws of logic is not the same as asking why a shape has a particular attribute.

Its is true by definition.If the laws of logic are only analytically true (true by definition), why then do the laws of logic have so much success in our experience (synthetically true)? "True by definition" has no usefulness or value unless it comports with what is found in our experience. If we change the definition, does that then change what we find in our experience? Of course not. Does reality align with the way we stipulate terms? Or are we compelled by the nature of reality to conform our understanding to what we find in our experience, in reality? The answer is obvious.

We have different axioms, and a as result we have different worldviews. Our use of logic is the same though.

Let me give you an example:
Person A holds the following axioms.
All Dogs have hair.
Rex is a dog.

He therefore comes to a conclusion that Rex has hair. He is justified, and rational.You just stated a meaningless tautology. On whose authority do you define all dogs as having hair? If your own (meaning that you've looked at all dogs), then you didn't have to infer that Rex has hair, because, having investigated all cases of dogs, Rex would have been among them. You're basically saying: All dogs have hair. Period.

The larger question is: If you do not have infinite and exhaustive knowledge about the dogs, how do you justify the general premise? You can't even get started until you've done something that only an infinite and all-knowing God can justify, i.e. exhaustive knowledge concerning hirsute canines. Even by setting up your syllogism, you tacitly affirm the God you're determined to push away from you. Furthermore, how do you know that modus ponens is going to work in this case? Does modus ponens always work? How do you know? If you don't know, then on what basis do you proceed on the assumption that it is going to work this time?

Person B has these axioms:
All Aliens have hair,
All dogs are aliens.
Rex is a dog.

Person B is also justified and rational in proclaiming that Rex has hair. He can claim that his axioms provide a rational explaination to why dogs have hair, and therefore Person A is irrationally holding his axioms. But how did he reach this conclusion? By using his own axioms to judge the axioms of another system.Again, m_d, you're missing the larger question. How do you get to the "All aliens ..." and "All dogs ..." premises to begin with? Don't you see that in order to justify knowledge, you have to pretend there is such a thing as exhaustive infinite knowledge? Even in your attempts to deny the foundation of all reasoning -- i.e. God -- you affirm His necessity! Not to mention the fact that syllogistic construct itself has not been justified.

Person A can likewise claim that Person B is irrational if he claims that Rex is an alien. He is commiting the same fallacy, of judging one rational system using the axioms of another rational system.

What your argument does, is say that Person B can claim Person A is irrational, but not the other way around. This is wrong logic.Incorrect. I'm saying both Person A AND Person B, by presuming to state a universal claim that they themselves could not possibly know by personal experience, are pretending to be Creationists, without openly affirming it.

So how can two people both be rational means, and still come to different conclusions? They have different axioms. So the next question, is which axioms are "better". The fact that person B has a rational explanation for person A's axiom, by no means guarantees anything.Neither Person A nor Person B, apart from having a means to confirm the verity of their universal statements ("All dogs ...", "All aliens ...") has justified knowledge. They both conclude rightly that Rex has hair, and one may have a correct chain of logic to make the inference, but neither can justify any aspect of their knowledge unless they can ground their so-called Axioms (which would no longer be axioms if they grounded them, right?). And the only way to do that is appeal to the Infinite Source that holds exhaustive knowledge, God Himself.

Thanks for that post, m_d. It was exceptional and quite useful to demonstrate some important points in my argument.

Jim

[mighty_duck]

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic.
How did you reach this conclusion? You used your own worldview, with your axioms, and judged that in your worldview you have an explanation for logic. Much like person B has an explanation for why dogs have hair.
If you had used my worldview, there is no way you could have reached that conclusion, since logic is an axiom, and therefore is rational by definiton.


You created them? Did you create them to be universal? Or are they merely conventions?

Every person must choose their axioms, and make deductions based on those. Their conclusions are only as good as their axioms.


If the laws of logic are only analytically true (true by definition), why then do the laws of logic have so much success in our experience (synthetically true)? "True by definition" has no usefulness or value unless it comports with what is found in our experience. If we change the definition, does that then change what we find in our experience? Of course not. Does reality align with the way we stipulate terms? Or are we compelled by the nature of reality to conform our understanding to what we find in our experience, in reality? The answer is obvious.


For the Non-Theist, the axioms aren't chosen arbitrarily. They are self evident, and as a result model reality pretty well. But that is immaterial for a rational explanation. Rational explanations only rely on the analytical truth of the axioms.


You just stated a meaningless tautology. On whose authority do you define all dogs as having hair? If your own (meaning that you've looked at all dogs), then you didn't have to infer that Rex has hair, because, having investigated all cases of dogs, Rex would have been among them. You're basically saying: All dogs have hair. Period.


That's what axioms are. They need no proof, no authority, no foundation, and they are still rational within that worldview. I didn't have to look at one dog to build my axiom that they are all aliens. Whether it is synthetically true is another matter altogether (how do we choose our axioms?).


The larger question is: If you do not have infinite and exhaustive knowledge about the dogs, how do you justify the general premise? You can't even get started until you've done something that only an infinite and all-knowing God can justify, i.e. exhaustive knowledge concerning hirsute canines. Even by setting up your syllogism, you tacitly affirm the God you're determined to push away from you. Furthermore, how do you know that modus ponens is going to work in this case? Does modus ponens always work? How do you know? If you don't know, then on what basis do you proceed on the assumption that it is going to work this time?


I don't need any knowledge at all to posit an axiom, and build a rational system. Chances are, if I do choose an arbitrary axiom, it will start conflicting with reality- (IE if I do find a hairless dog, I may have a problem. But since I have a sure, unwavering, unshakable belief in my axioms, chances are I will find a way to claim that the hairless dog either has hair, or isn't a dog. Remind you of anyone?). It is best to choose a very obvious axiom, or an unfalsifiable one.


Incorrect. I'm saying both Person A AND Person B, by presuming to state a universal claim that they themselves could not possibly know by personal experience, are pretending to be Creationists, without openly affirming it.


They aren't pretending to be anything. They have axioms, and they make valid deductions from them. They are both making rational decisions.

But you will claim "holding those axioms is itself irrational!". How would you make that deduction, except by using YOUR worldview and YOUR axioms. Had you used their axioms, then you would have deduced they are rational. This is an external critique, instead of an internal one. Internally, all axioms are rational. If external critiques are fair game, then I will happily critique your God and Bible axioms from within MN.


Neither Person A nor Person B, apart from having a means to confirm the verity of their universal statements ("All dogs ...", "All aliens ...") has justified knowledge. They both conclude rightly that Rex has hair, and one may have a correct chain of logic to make the inference, but neither can justify any aspect of their knowledge unless they can ground their so-called Axioms (which would no longer be axioms if they grounded them, right?). And the only way to do that is appeal to the Infinite Source that holds exhaustive knowledge, God Himself.


You moved from claiming they are irrational, to them lacking "absolute" knowledge of the verity of their axioms. If you are willing to make this concession, which I hoped I have demonstrated in the last two posts, then we can move on to this grounding business.

Will you concede that both worldviews are internally rational? This in no way means either is true, just that deductions made are internally justified, when reduced to the systems axioms.

[chatmaggot]

Stratnerd,

Maybe this has already been pointed out...maybe not. I didn't feel like reading through all the posts. If, as according to your last post, you have just been recently introduced to TAG then it seems are at somewhat of a disadvantage because you are unfamiliar with your opponent and his line of reasoning.

I say this because you are committing some of the exact same "mistakes" as Dr. Stein did in what is referred to as "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein. As an example since you claim that all claims, observations, or whatever else you called them are tentative then your conclusions are tentative or speculative or even subjective as well. The reason is because you have nothing to base your "laws" of logic on. "How do you xyz is true?" on emight ask. And then the repsonse would be "Well, because it has been that way forever." This exact same line of questioning was addressed in the above mentione debate. If there are "laws" of logic then where did they come from? If they are conventions of men then what happens when two men disagree? How would one go about proving one view is correct...without using the "laws" of logic? If you have no originator of these so called "laws" then they are merely conventions among men. So if you are logical deducing that Evolution is true the question is "How do you know that you are logical deducing correctly?"

You might want to check out the website http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm and listen to the debate if you have time. Go to the site and it is about halfway down the page. Or just to a "find" on the page for "Stein".

If you don't...you might just make the "crackers in the pantry fallacy"...which would just not be good.

[Highline]

The debate is about whether or not Evolution is science or science fiction. In my opening post, I explained that certain aspects of evolution can be regarded as science. I defined science thus: [indent]First, science can comprise the enterprise of researching, discovering, analyzing, testing and synthesizing data. Second, science can refer to a certain body knowledge that results from the aforementioned enterprise. Third, science can pertain to the application of the aforementioned body of knowledge to real-world circumstances and needs..

Before I answer, I'm curious to know if you personally counted and did the arithmetic to arrive at this statistic.

My evidence? I'm not a geologist. I don't have or offer any on my own authority. There are dozens of books on the subject if you're interested. Google should be helpful there.

Since I'm not a microbiologist, I couldn't give you any details on this. My guess is that creatures have been designed by God to adapt to their environments. Which suggests that human beings can have children with a different content of melanin in their skin because of the effects of the environment on them or their ancestors. It does not, however, mean that humans will someday have wings or prehensile tails. Again, as above, there are dozens of books on this subject. All you have to do use a search engine to find them.

Probably because isolated populations give rise to unusual characteristics. Don't we see this even among humans? Does that mean those humans would eventually become something other than human?

What is morality? And by what authority should one human or even a consensus of humans impose that standard on others? Does might (and consensus) make right?

Is there some kind of axiom I'm unaware of? "For God to exist, non-living things must be as complicated as living things"? Is "complicated" a virtue or a liability in your view? Whence derives this value judgment?

Are you serious about this remark? If so, you could not have missed the point by a wider margin if you had tried.

No, I have not counted all the extinct species, but I believe what I have read and others have summarized about history, and that is in the 1700 and 1800 people started digging up bones of all sorts of creatures that did not exist in the present. They did not have an agenda, and were surprised about what they found. Present scientists, who might have an agenda or at least are strongly influenced the evolutionary theory, keep find confirming evidence in the form of new species. It is a good question as to how many they have actually found to get that number (99% of species that existed are extinct) and how many they have deducted their must be.

The age of the earth? I am sure there are dozens of books, I know what the prevailing theory is to make the earth 5 billion years old are what it is. Summarize the other theories, or summarize the problems with the prevailing theory. This is a debate, that is the point.

What is morality? I'm not sure. But it is possible that groups of humans who did not come up with laws and codes are the ones who were left in the dust. In other words, some tribe or civilization that did not come up with "Don't committ adultry", disintegrated into chaos and did not prepare for droughts or other environmental threats (human attackers), thus we, and our morality, are the ones who are left.

As for the absence of complicated non-living things, I did not say this disproves God; I just said it does support evolution in that evolution is a mechanism for living matter to become increasingly diverse and complicated. Non-living matter has no such mechanism. This isn't about the absence of God, I beleive in God and evolution, I just don't take the Bible literally.

The variety of animals on isolated islands is much more signifcant that the pigment of humans from different continents. The animals are similar in significant ways, but different in significant ways. For example, the differences in the beaks of finches involves DNA changes that are much more substancial that those of different humans. Although the finches are still quite similar to each other, they don't mate in the wild (can't remember if they do in captivity).

I don't mean to be rude, I appreciate your effort in all this. I have to go, my kids want me, and my evolutionary duty is to pay attention to them.

[Hilston]

Apology ...

On the hope that Stratnerd will have look here, and in the interest of those following the debate, I must offer an apology for missing a good chunk of questions at the end of Stratnerd's Round-IV post. As time was running out for me, I saw that line of asterisks preceding the section of his responses to my questions and falsely assumed that the remainder of his post were only his answers to my questions, which, in the interest of time, I would reserve for comment in a later round. I began to recall questions from my initial reading of his post that he had asked, which I had not answered, and upon further scrolling, I realized my oversight.

I'll also send Stratnerd a private message in case he doesn't see this.

I'll be more careful next time.

Jim

[Metalking]

Simpler? In what possible way is god simpler than an emergent universe? A few basic laws of behaviour vs. a being of infinite power and wisdom?
Darwin himself,in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species,pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproduvtive powers.This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account.It seems that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for new and enormously powerfull argument to favor Intelligent Design.


So what? I used to be Christian, now I'm an atheist - does that mean every Christian should become an atheist? Just because I did? People have differing views, what matters is understanding why they hold those views.
Of course,that is why we discuss.


Again, so what?
Never hurts to share information.

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

A few thoughts and questions...

Balder wrote: And as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Bible makes some patently false statements about the nature of the cosmos. The sky is not a metal dome, there is no celestial ocean, nor any floodgate to mediate it ...

Hilston replied: These are hermeneutical issues that you've disqualified yourself from cogently assessing. Those whose fundamental perception of reality is opposed to the claims of scripture are self-excluded from justifiably making the assumptions you've made here.
Can you explain what you mean here? Are you suggesting that, because I do not believe the Bible is divine and infallible, I am incapable of assessing its claims or interpreting its ideas? Is unwavering, unshakeable belief in something a prerequisite for being able to properly evaluate it?

As a Biblical Creationist, it should come as no surprise that I defer to the claims of Scripture, one of which being that no other worldview can justifiably account for the intelligibility of human experience, the laws of science and logic, human dignity or moral standards and values. For every view that's been presented, the challenge is to expose the inevitable flaws and self-contradictions and to make them evident. But of course, to those who are happy to believe in magic (axioms) and science fiction (cosmogony myths), the flaws and self-contradictions are not bothersome, despite their exposure. This is the classic unthirsty-horse-led-to-water scenario.
Knowing your taste for irony, I imagine you with a wicked grin and little horns sprouting out as you say something like this…

Because surely you’re well aware that this criticism has been directed more than once at fundamentalist believers: “You can’t reason with them. Evidence and rationality count for nothing if they contradict something fundamentalists already believe.”

Having fun turning the tables?

Balder wrote: So, for one, I'd like to see a presuppositionalist succeed in backing up this bald/bold claim... Or at least seriously attempt to do so, instead of resorting to the "impossibility of the contrary" refrain. (I concede that you made a fairly concerted effort in our discussion on presuppositionalism.)

Hilston responded: This surprises me, Balder, because I do remember this much: I never felt I had a knowledgeable enough grasp of your thesis to even begin a presuppositional critique of it. I spent the bulk of our discussion trying to understand what exactly I was up against and I never felt satisfied that I understood it sufficiently. By the way, the "refrain" you mentioned has not been sung once by me in this discussion or the debate. Of course, I've made the claim in various ways, to varying degrees, but that violates the definition of "refrain," doesn't it?
Searching this thread, I only found one instance of you saying this, but the IOTC argument was a topic of discussion for at least several pages of this thread (starting on page 5). I do recall you using it with me in the past; but if you’ve dropped it (as a “big gun” in your arsenal), I applaud you.

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic. It is question-begging in the extreme. Logic cannot justify itself. This is why we must get behind what is logic and discuss it in terms of necessity. What is necessary for logic to be universally reliable? What must be the case in order for induction to be trustworthy? What conditions must exist in order for nature to be uniform? On the non-Theistic worldview, there is no cogent answer to these questions, hence the appeal to the Axiom-of-the-Gaps. If there were an answer to these questions, then the acceptance of logic would not be axiomatic. On the Creationist view, the necessary foundation, the existential conditions are the character and attributes of a personal, purposeful, volitional, all-knowing and all-powerful infinite God whose very nature is reflected in the laws of logic.
What do you mean by “laws of logic”? Can you articulate them? I take it you are familiar with various human systems of thought and modes of cognition, the higher forms of which do not exist a priori, but which are developmentally emergent. Are you talking about something other than this? What specific Biblical passages are you drawing on to support your claim that God is supremely logical? (He seems rather hot-headed and unpredictable in many OT descriptions of him.)

It's not a "way around" it. It's the testimony of a book, apart from which no knowledge is justified, the rejection of which destroys all justified knowledge. That's an extraordinary proof, not merely "a way around." On the other hand, the non-theist must believe in magic, and create a myth, a "science fiction", in a futile attempt to ground the methods and tools of learning that they otherwise take for granted.
What fun! Dismissing the scientific worldview as a myth while defending an account replete with talking snakes and magic fruit!

I do understand and appreciate your desire to challenge base materialism, however, and agree that it is rather “thin” as a paradigm.

It isn't enough to say, "Hey, can you ground your understanding of this vestigial physiological phenomenon?" An efficient critique of competing worldviews does not spend time addressing about such particulars (not that it couldn't; it's just not efficient). Rather, the critique goes to a more fundamental level, an example of which I hinted at in my previous post to you. Here it is again, in the same form of Socratic Irony that I employed in the aforementioned post: Why did you choose to ask specifically about men with nipples or humans with tail bones?
Have you ever read Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? A naturalist’s poetic reflections on the natural order? In it, Dillard discusses the often horrific and violent “order” of the natural world; her encounters with these “facts of nature” challenge her understanding and faith in God. She points to the excesses of reproduction, for instance, with many insect and aquatic species producing huge numbers of offspring, most of which perish in a few days in order for the few strong and lucky ones to survive.

I wasn’t thinking of this book, really, when I posed my question, but I was thinking of those features of the natural world which seem unnecessary, inefficient, almost incidental (I think engineers call them kludges.) In many ways, the order of the world is majestic and breathtaking, but there are aspects of it which, at least from a design perspective, don’t make a lot of sense – especially if a Perfect Designer is supposed to have made things this way on purpose. And if God is also loving, just, and compassionate, one wonders why the whole natural world – and not just fallen man – lives largely by “tooth and claw,” tormented by diseases and parasites, regularly threatened by the elements.

Is our universe the way God designed it, or do you believe that diseases began to spread, animals to eat each other, and stars to die, only after Mankind disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit?

Best wishes,

Balder

[mighty_duck]

Notes from Hilston's 4th post.

Jim's latest post addresses my concern that he is way off topic on several grounds. It also happily tries to justify it and continues staying off topic. I am afraid we are heading for a stalemate, as the debaters are not debating the same thing, and will likely talk past each other for most of what's left. As long as stratnerd stays on topic though, I will consider it a victory, if a hollow one. I'm sure Jim;s supporters will disagree.

1. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Sure it preceded it, but so did the formation of earth, the solar system and the big bang. They are all off topic. Continuing to bring this up is a bit of a desperation move from Jim.

2. The question before us is not about justified knowledge, as Jim would like us to believe. It is about whether evolution is science. If Jim wants to claim that science can't achieve justified knowledge without god, that is another debate. Not clarifying at all, this is a shift in to another debate.

3. Stratnerd's alleged justification. Stratnerd already answered this point in his 4th post. The methods are part of his definition of science, and therefore don't require further justification. Again, the validity of science is another debate.

4. Jim would like science to deal with the super natural. It doesn't. If this is the real crux of his argument, then he has lost. Even if we were to grant that creationism is true, Evolution is still science.

5. Even if science does not deal with the mechanics of the alleged supernatural, It should at least see it's effects. We should be getting a concensus on the age of the earth, global flood etc.. even when only using MN. Claiming this is all because of interpretation is too broad a stroke.

6. In Stratnerd's last post, Jim was asked to justify his premises. And how does he do it in this post? by using another unjustified assertion:

Here's the justification and the support: the rejection of the God of the Bible reduces all reasoning and science to absurdity.

That itself is unsupported. And that still doesn't mean his premises are justified. This is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma, because even if it is true, it does not guarantee that accepting the bible doesn't reduce all reasoning to absurdity - he must show that his premises are justified,

7.

All axioms are magical

I wonder if this can apply to Jim's axioms as well? If it does, then according to Jim's own argument, we are all irrational. Thus the word is rendered meaningless.

[mighty_duck]

...when his comrade, mighty_duck, ....

Ouch Jim! It doesn't take much on these forums for a guy to get labled as a pinko commie. I guess my fate here is sealed :(

:Commie:

[Stratnerd]

Maybe he thinks you're a fellow home brewer. Join me, and I guarantee eternal hoppiness.

[Hilston]

It is not rational (logical) to assume the verity of logic.
How did you reach this conclusion? You used your own worldview, with your axioms, and judged that in your worldview you have an explanation for logic.I don't have axioms, m_d. You've missed the point. You and I agree on the verity of logic, but you have to pretend to be a Creationist in order to think that way. The Creationist understands that the nature and character of the Creator makes sense of universal laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature, and is indeed the Source of them. Hence, the Creationist does not need to resort to "axioms" because his tools and methods of learning are justified. He can confidently rely on the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature because of the God who is back of them.

Much like person B has an explanation for why dogs have hair.The error in that thinking is two-fold, m_d. First, you're missing a fundamental metaphysical question in all of this: What is modus ponens and how is it justified? P implies Q. How did you get to "P"? Let alone "Q" and that word in-between ("implies")? You must borrow from the Creationist's toolbox in order to even set up your example. You can plug anything you want for "P" and "Q" ("All glick have cooties; Blark is a glick; Blark has cooties"), but you still cannot justify why the chain follows.

Second, the statements themselves must be justified in order to have any meaning or value. It is inane to stipulate "all dogs have hair," without any concern of whether or not it is a true statement. So neither person in your syllogism has a justified explanation. If either person wants to stipulate "All dogs have hair," he will have to either assert that it is true by definition, which is meaningless, or he will have to claim to have exhaustive knowledge, which is impossible for finite beings.

If you had used my worldview, there is no way you could have reached that conclusion, since logic is an axiom, and therefore is rational by definiton.You continue to miss the point, m_d. You walked into the Creationist world the moment you thought "All ..." With every subsequent thought and its attending word that entered your mind, "dogs" ... "have" ... "hair," you firmly planted yourself into the Creationist paradigm.

You created [laws of logic]? Did you create them to be universal? Or are they merely conventions?Every person must choose their axioms, and make deductions based on those.So obviously, then, everyone must end up with different axioms, right? That must mean there are all kinds of different sorts of logic being applied everywhere in academia, right? So I would guess, in the preface of every textbook, publication and paper, there must be an explanation of the types of logic being used in that particular work, otherwise, those reading it would not be able to follow it, right? But then again, I wonder what kind of logic would be used in every case to explain what kind of logic was being used in every case?

Their conclusions are only as good as their axioms.Since you admittedly cannot justify any of your axioms (hence the term "axiom"), your conclusions are unjustified. Given your definition of axiom above, "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate," how do you ascertain which axioms are "good"?

If the laws of logic are only analytically true (true by definition), why then do the laws of logic have so much success in our experience (synthetically true)? "True by definition" has no usefulness or value unless it comports with what is found in our experience. If we change the definition, does that then change what we find in our experience? Of course not. Does reality align with the way we stipulate terms? Or are we compelled by the nature of reality to conform our understanding to what we find in our experience, in reality? The answer is obvious.For the Non-Theist, the axioms aren't chosen arbitrarily. They are self evident, ...What does "self-evident" have to do with what axioms are "chosen"? What does "self-evident" mean? Are we "obligated" (since it isn't arbitrary) to "choose" only the "self-evident" axioms? Why?

... and as a result model reality pretty well.You're begging the question in the extreme, m_d. You're using "axioms" to make a value judgment about how well "axioms" model a reality that presume to understand by way of "axioms."

The larger question is: If you do not have infinite and exhaustive knowledge about the dogs, how do you justify the general premise? You can't even get started until you've done something that only an infinite and all-knowing God can justify, i.e. exhaustive knowledge concerning hirsute canines. Even by setting up your syllogism, you tacitly affirm the God you're determined to push away from you. Furthermore, how do you know that modus ponens is going to work in this case? Does modus ponens always work? How do you know? If you don't know, then on what basis do you proceed on the assumption that it is going to work this time?Chances are, if I do choose an arbitrary axiom, it will start conflicting with reality- (IE if I do find a hairless dog, I may have a problem. ...You're not getting this, m_d. What if I said, "I think the inductive principle stopped working this morning." Do you see the problem with the statement?

Incorrect. I'm saying both Person A AND Person B, by presuming to state a universal claim that they themselves could not possibly know by personal experience, are pretending to be Creationists, without openly affirming it.They aren't pretending to be anything. They have axioms, and they make valid deductions from them. They are both making rational decisions.Anyone who presumes to use modus ponens, regardless of how they identify P or Q, whether by investigation or by so-called axiom, is pretending to be a Creationist. That is to say, the logical relationship posed by modus ponens only makes sense and is only justified on the Creationist worldview.

But you will claim "holding those axioms is itself irrational!". How would you make that deduction, except by using YOUR worldview and YOUR axioms.You're missing the point again, m_d. Holding ANY axioms is irrational. The Creationist doesn't have any axioms.

Had you used their axioms, then you would have deduced they are rational. This is an external critique, instead of an internal one. Internally, all axioms are rational. If external critiques are fair game, then I will happily critique your God and Bible axioms from within MN.You can't without presuming my worldview. To invoke something called "Methodological Naturalism," you have to presume to understand what "Method" means. The concept of method requires the Creationist conception of reality in order to make sense. In every sentence you make, in every thought you have, and with your every expectation that your next breath will give you lung-filling life-sustaining air, you presume upon the Creationist worldview in order to so.

Neither Person A nor Person B, apart from having a means to confirm the verity of their universal statements ("All dogs ...", "All aliens ...") has justified knowledge.How so? Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of the sensory faculties, they cannot justify the use of their eyes. Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of their minds, they cannot justify moving from concept A to concept B. Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of the inductive principle, they cannot justify the logical construct of the proposition, regardless of what the proposition purports to say. You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

You moved from claiming they are irrational, to them lacking "absolute" knowledge of the verity of their axioms.It's a package deal, m_d. Lacking exhaustive knowledge about their claim forces them to relegate the claim to "axiom." Their inability to ground their axioms (which is what makes them axioms) while blindly accepting them to be true is what makes them irrational. Their inability to account for the verity of the inductive principle makes them irrational.

Will you concede that both worldviews are internally rational?You've got to be kidding me. I know you want me to at least concede the form of the argument is consistent within a particular worldview, whether we're talking about dogs and hair, or glick and cooties. What I'm telling you is that all worldviews wander into the Creationist worldview in order even construct the argument. It's a shell game, m_d, and you don't even realize that you're doing it.

This in no way means either is true, just that deductions made are internally justified, when reduced to the systems axioms.Note what you're proposing: A worldview in which knowledge can be rational and justified AND untrue (!!!). And I'm supposed to find this a compelling argument for Methodological Naturalism? You've GOT to be kidding me.

[Hilston]

Are you suggesting that, because I do not believe the Bible is divine and infallible, I am incapable of assessing its claims or interpreting its ideas? Is unwavering, unshakeable belief in something a prerequisite for being able to properly evaluate it?The Bible indicts those who oppose it. Therefore, there is a built-in conflict of interest for those who oppose it when it comes to understanding what it says. Those who are opposed to the concept of God and the Bible will find myriad reasons to dismiss the Book. Those who affirm that it is God's infallible and inerrant Word will give reasons to support the Book and to explain supposed discrepancies or contradictions. It's not that you're incapable of understanding what it says. But you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly. Having unwavering, unshakeable belief in God and the Bible as His Word means that the believer no longer foolishly sits in judgment of it, but rather realizes that it sits in judgment of him.

Because surely you’re well aware that this criticism has been directed more than once at fundamentalist believers: “You can’t reason with them. Evidence and rationality count for nothing if they contradict something fundamentalists already believe.”I can't speak for the fundies, but I can tell you that the statement itself presumes my worldview. Evidence and rationality are meaningless (let alone something called a "contradiction") in a Godless, mindless, impersonal universe. The moment someone wants to criticize me for not being convinced of evidence, I want to know why they're pretending to be a Creationist. The use of evidence invokes the uniformity of nature and logical inference, neither of which is justified in the methodological naturalist's view of reality.

Having fun turning the tables?"There is no table" in the Methodological Naturalist's world.

What do you mean by “laws of logic”? Can you articulate them?This kind of question always intrigues me, because you understand the words I write, and I don't have to explain to you the laws of grammar. Logic is inherent in grammar, isn't it? Yet I don't have to articulate the relationship between subjects and predicates, inference and uniformity, etc. Without logical inference, you would not be able to understand my syntax. Without uniformity, you would not be able to understand my semantic. The very posing of the question shows that you and I know perfectly well what we're talking about when we say "laws of logic."

I take it you are familiar with various human systems of thought and modes of cognition, the higher forms of which do not exist a priori, but which are developmentally emergent. Are you talking about something other than this? You're scaring me, Balder. Latent forms of cognition? Or further sophistication of existing forms of cognition? How do you tell the difference?

What specific Biblical passages are you drawing on to support your claim that God is supremely logical?Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:

Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain (= inane, empty) in their reasoning, and their foolish* heart was darkened.
(*foolish = Greek asunetos - unintelligent, refusal to synthesize and comprehend)

(He seems rather hot-headed and unpredictable in many OT descriptions of him.)By the way, this is exactly what I meant when I said: "... you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly." Believers understand God is longsuffering and just. They look at God's actions, which gainsayers call "hot-headedness" and "unpredictability," as due wrath and due process.

What fun! Dismissing the scientific worldview as a myth ...This is your presumption. I haven't dismissed the scientific worldview. I've described the Foundation of it, which most people irrationally reject. Science is wonderful. The advances of technology are wonderful and real. And this is all in spite of man's rejection of his Creator. Adam continued to till the ground and grow his food -- to use the tools of science -- even after he rebelled against his Creator. Science didn't stop working because of man's rebellion. It doesn't mean that rebels cannot do science. It means that they cannot justify, in terms of their rejection, what they are doing. They cannot justify, in terms of their presumed autonomy, the things they claim to know.

... while defending an account replete with talking snakes and magic fruit!Again, this is exactly what I meant when I said: "... you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly." Believers understand that the "talking snake" was a shining seraph, a glorious angel named Lucifer. Critics mistakenly miss the symbolic language. The word translated "serpent" in the English is actually "shining one" in the Hebrew. Word correlations and usage bear this out even further. And you miss the point by referring to the "magic fruit." The fruit wasn't the issue. Nor was the eating of it. The issue was presumed autonomy. Would man rely upon God's knowledge and wisdom, or would man try to become his own god? Lucifer tempted Adam, through Eve, to become autonomous in his reasoning. Adam was standing right there and watched as Eve, his guinea pig, ate the fruit. Adam presumed to autonomously judge God's commands and to test them using an experiment suggested by Lucifer. This is essentially what you're doing, Balder. You're conducting your own experiments, presuming to think autonomously and to question God's wisdom. You want to be your own god and to sit in judgment of God's commands.

Have you ever read Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? A naturalist’s poetic reflections on the natural order? In it, Dillard discusses the often horrific and violent “order” of the natural world; her encounters with these “facts of nature” challenge her understanding and faith in God.This shows that Dillard, like Adam, is not committed to her Creator. She presumes to sit in judgment of Him based on her own autonomous reasoning.

I wasn’t thinking of this book, really, when I posed my question, but I was thinking of those features of the natural world which seem unnecessary, inefficient, almost incidental (I think engineers call them kludges.)I'm sure the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was viewed by Adam as a kludge. What autonomous men call "junk DNA" will probably come back to haunt them someday.

In many ways, the order of the world is majestic and breathtaking, but there are aspects of it which, at least from a design perspective, don’t make a lot of sense – especially if a Perfect Designer is supposed to have made things this way on purpose. And if God is also loving, just, and compassionate, one wonders why the whole natural world – and not just fallen man – lives largely by “tooth and claw,” tormented by diseases and parasites, regularly threatened by the elements.The Fall did not only affect man. It affected all of Creation.Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.But again, the presumed autonomy of human beings refuses to pay attention to what the Creator says, and rather sits in judgment of Him. It's no wonder He can be such a "hot-head."

Is our universe the way God designed it, or do you believe that diseases began to spread, animals to eat each other, and stars to die, only after Mankind disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit?Yes, and yes.

Thanks for your questions.

In contrapposto,
Jim

[Balder]

Second, the statements themselves must be justified in order to have any meaning or value. It is inane to stipulate "all dogs have hair," without any concern of whether or not it is a true statement. So neither person in your syllogism has a justified explanation. If either person wants to stipulate "All dogs have hair," he will have to either assert that it is true by definition, which is meaningless, or he will have to claim to have exhaustive knowledge, which is impossible for finite beings.
Creationists are in the same boat. The Bible does not contain pronouncements about everything in nature; it does not contain infinite information. It consists of a finite number of statements, most of which are not even relevant to scientific or naturalistic inquiry. If you do not find any mention in the Bible of whether or not all leopards have spots, you are similarly incapable of commenting upon the characteristics of leopards with "absolute certainty" (or the pretension thereto). You can't appeal to the character of God, either, to help you answer this question with more assurance than any follower of any other paradigm. You are similarly unjustified in making any such pronouncement, according to your paradigm.

[Balder]

Darn the lack of an edit button on this thread; strike the word similarly in the last sentence.

[Balder]

Hi, Jim,

Unless they acknowledge the Creator as the source of the inductive principle, they cannot justify the logical construct of the proposition, regardless of what the proposition purports to say. You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

If the whole natural world fell along with man, and if the heart of man is wicked and deceitful (both Biblical claims), then how do you know you can still trust your senses or what you see in the world, both of which are cut from the same “fallen” fabric? The universe is now messed up; its order has been overturned by our rebellion. You have admitted elsewhere that Christians are just as capable of being deceived and of having hallucinations as anyone else. In a fallen, disordered world, in a body that is wedded to sin and corruption, with a mind that is hopelessly wicked and deceitful, you have very shaky ground indeed to stand upon in making pronouncements about what is “real,” in a scientific sense, because your entire context is corrupt. You should, in fact, live in constant doubt about what you see, if in fact the Flesh (incl. your senses) and the Universe are products of the disorder Adam unleashed.

It doesn’t matter if a good and logical God gave you your senses or created the world, because our fallen, deceitful ancestors are the true “creators” of the present order we inhabit.

The Bible indicts those who oppose it. Therefore, there is a built-in conflict of interest for those who oppose it when it comes to understanding what it says. Those who are opposed to the concept of God and the Bible will find myriad reasons to dismiss the Book. Those who affirm that it is God's infallible and inerrant Word will give reasons to support the Book and to explain supposed discrepancies or contradictions. It's not that you're incapable of understanding what it says. But you refuse to embrace what it IS, and that precludes your ability to assess and to interpret it properly. Having unwavering, unshakeable belief in God and the Bible as His Word means that the believer no longer foolishly sits in judgment of it, but rather realizes that it sits in judgment of him.
Aren’t you saying, essentially, that, because the believer has unwavering faith that this book contains absolute truth and is infallible, as an a priori belief, he will do everything he has to to “rationalize” what he finds in it? This recipe – starting out from such an inflexible position – will very likely work with any system of thought you come across. And, in fact, it does: It is called fundamentalism, and it has led to men to commit all sorts of logical contortions, and to carry out all sorts of violence, in order to preserve their “inviolable” position against perceived threat. A threat which, by the way, is established at the outset by taking that very position!

Do your ideas here also preclude you from being able to pass proper judgment on Evolution, as a belief system? After all, you do not believe in it with unwavering faith, and its proponents condemn you for that lack of belief in what is perfectly “evident.”

I can't speak for the fundies, but I can tell you that the statement itself presumes my worldview. Evidence and rationality are meaningless (let alone something called a "contradiction") in a Godless, mindless, impersonal universe. The moment someone wants to criticize me for not being convinced of evidence, I want to know why they're pretending to be a Creationist. The use of evidence invokes the uniformity of nature and logical inference, neither of which is justified in the methodological naturalist's view of reality.
I agree with you that, in an utterly insentient or mindless universe, it is hard to explain the eventual emergence of subjectivity and sentience, along with the particular expressions of those things that you are discussing here. But I disagree that the only “answer” to the existence of sentience and rationality and meaning is to presuppose your particular worldview.

This kind of question always intrigues me, because you understand the words I write, and I don't have to explain to you the laws of grammar. Logic is inherent in grammar, isn't it? Yet I don't have to articulate the relationship between subjects and predicates, inference and uniformity, etc. Without logical inference, you would not be able to understand my syntax. Without uniformity, you would not be able to understand my semantic. The very posing of the question shows that you and I know perfectly well what we're talking about when we say "laws of logic."
I ask because experience shows logic and reason to be quite useful, but not infallible, at least when humans employ them. You speak of the universal validity of logic, but since reason and logic are not perfect tools in human hands, I take it that you have not found them to be infallible in your own life. You have drawn wrong conclusions before, I am sure. Do you think it is possible that there might be cognitive functions that are even higher and more exact than the logical rules we follow to make sense of the world? Present research shows that many of our apparently abstract and “universal” categories of thought and “tools” of reasoning are grounded in embodied, sensorimotor experience. If you aren’t familiar with this thesis, check out Philosophy in the Flesh. If there is a supreme intelligence in and behind the universe, that intelligence may go far deeper in its knowing capacity than the connect-the-dots tools that we use.

I haven’t gotten to all of your questions, but this is what I could manage for now!

Best wishes,

Balder

[Metalking]

Followers of the risen Christ were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking. Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
The truth will cause believers to reject sin and never allow them to yield to the lust of the flesh. Any doctrine that gives the believer the freedom to be devilish and antichrist is not of God.
Found this intetesting --It is an uncontested fact that the oldest worship site in the world is Glastonbury. Worship services had been carried on there and all about the "scepter'd isle" in the succession of St. Paul ( for whom the London Cathedral is named ) and St. Joseph of Arimathea ( who founded the wattle church there and planted his staff which still grows " The Holy Thorn ") . All this ecclesiastical history was occurring while the Romans were still feeding Christians to the lions.

[mighty_duck]

Jim,
I feel our exchange has become over heated, and that was not my intent. I will personally try to tone it down, but I'm an emotional guy :)
Thanks for taking the time to answer, in addition to the formal debate, and your already busy life.

I don't have axioms, m_d. You've missed the point. You and I agree on the verity of logic, but you have to pretend to be a Creationist in order to think that way. The Creationist understands that the nature and character of the Creator makes sense of universal laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature, and is indeed the Source of them. Hence, the Creationist does not need to resort to "axioms" because his tools and methods of learning are justified. He can confidently rely on the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature because of the God who is back of them.
...
You're missing the point again, m_d. Holding ANY axioms is irrational. The Creationist doesn't have any axioms.
...


A presuppositionist without a presupposition (axiom) is like a tuna sandwich without the tuna, or the sandwich ;)

From what I understand, you differentiate between an axiom and your presuppositions in that the latter are "justified" or somehow grounded.

I think the main problem with our misunderstandings is that you haven't made you argument clear. We've gotten bits and pieces, but I still feel I am fighting a shadow. Please make your argument clear, especially how you feel your axioms are "justified".

The two presuppositions/axioms you have mentioned are:
1. The existence of the God of the Bible.
2. The inerrancy of the Bible.

From what I understand of TAG, it goes something like this. You have these axioms which builds your worldview, but they are really justified. How are they justified? Because of the impossibility of the contrary. Why is the contrary impossible? Because it is irrational. How do you determine if a different worldview is irrational? You take your own worldview with your own (yet unjustified) axioms, and use them to judge another. If the other worldview conflicts with yours, it is irrational. A conflict includes an axiom for which your worldview has a justification for.

Is this an accurate account? You may have guessed where I find the fatal flaw to be.


So obviously, then, everyone must end up with different axioms, right? That must mean there are all kinds of different sorts of logic being applied everywhere in academia, right? So I would guess, in the preface of every textbook, publication and paper, there must be an explanation of the types of logic being used in that particular work, otherwise, those reading it would not be able to follow it, right? But then again, I wonder what kind of logic would be used in every case to explain what kind of logic was being used in every case?


That's the beauty of MN. Everyone agrees on it, whether by axiom, or by deduction. If others add further axioms, that is their business, and they will either state it beforehand, or publish in places where their intended audience share these extra axioms.


Since you admittedly cannot justify any of your axioms (hence the term "axiom"), your conclusions are unjustified. Given your definition of axiom above, "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate," how do you ascertain which axioms are "good"?

What does "self-evident" have to do with what axioms are "chosen"? What does "self-evident" mean? Are we "obligated" (since it isn't arbitrary) to "choose" only the "self-evident" axioms? Why?

You're begging the question in the extreme, m_d. You're using "axioms" to make a value judgment about how well "axioms" model a reality that presume to understand by way of "axioms."


The only time when a decision is unjustified, is if it can't be deduced from it's axioms. That is what justification is.
A system is internally flawed, only when you can show there are internal conflicts, especially when mapped to reality.

For example, most people are wired so that pain feels bad, as does bodily injury. They will accept this as an axiom. If they suddenly adopt an axiom that gravity is for sissies (it's just a theory!) , they will find an internal conflict when they meet the next cliff.

So a "good" axiom, would be one that models reality well. This is assuming you accept reality and the human experience. If you don't, I will judge you (externally), and refuse to talk to you. That's the kind of guy I am. Same for someone who rejects logic, etc. God axioms are OK though, as we have enough common ground to talk, and hopefully for me to convince you that your axioms and deductions are internally at conflict.


You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

So now, All worldviews aren't just wrong, they don't really exist? I think you are misunderstanding how one builds a logic system, and what is an external and internal critique.


Note what you're proposing: A worldview in which knowledge can be rational and justified AND untrue (!!!). And I'm supposed to find this a compelling argument for Methodological Naturalism? You've GOT to be kidding me.

If person A or B has justifiably and rationally deduced that all dogs have hair, and you show them a hairless dog, their worldview should crumble, as it does a lousy job of modeling reality.

I have not began to argue for MN yet, I am attempting to show you where your argument fails. Once you no longer have an argument that "grounds" your axioms, then we can begin discussing why the God axiom should be rejected.

[Johnny]

Three questions:

1) Since you believe in uniformity, why do the very same principles that work well for nuclear physics fail to yield any explanatory power when applied to evolutionary science?

2) If it is because they contradict God, then where did they go wrong? In other words, if the universe was created within the past 7,000 years, then the proper application of logic, induction, the scientific method, etc, should yield data that points that way. Why does it not?

3) I am a Christian evolutionist. Although you certainly disagree with my interpretation of scripture, I have the same foundation for my logic as you do. Am I unjustified in my application? What if, hypothetically, Genesis was understood as non-literal?

[Mr Jack]

Followers of the risen Christ were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Christianity is far from having a monopoly on people who have died for their religion. If their actions are evidence for Christianity, why are these others not evidence for their own religions truth?

Found this intetesting --It is an uncontested fact that the oldest worship site in the world is Glastonbury.

*boggle* It is most certainly contested, most historians view as pure mythology. Have you any evidence?

[aharvey]

Common Hilston theme:

"When the Creationist scientist sees unusual behavior in the laboratory, he does not immediately assume that God did something differently, rather, he searches for a reason that is consistent with God's Word and the uniformity God has imposed on His creation. When the Methodological Naturalist adds 2+2, sits in a chair and does work in the laboratory, he is, in practical terms, unwittingly pretending to be a Creationist, because according to his own espoused conception of reality, none of this makes sense. In conceptual terms, he is actually appealing to magic and science fiction."

You repeatedly fault non-Biblical literalists because their justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to magic, whereas your view is better because your justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to the God of the Bible. But what do you mean by “magic”? My dictionary has several definitions of magic, most dealing with human control of certain natural or supernatural forces, or else “any extraordinary, seemingly inexplicable power.” I’m guessing you mean the latter, but better to hear it from you directly. And remember: Your definition of magic had better not apply to your conception of God, had it?

[Hilston]

Hi Balder,

You write:
The Bible does not contain pronouncements about everything in nature; it does not contain infinite information.Of course. I haven't claimed otherwise. I don't get how this is relevant to the discussion.

It consists of a finite number of statements, most of which are not even relevant to scientific or naturalistic inquiry.Its very existence is not only relevant, but essential. The passages I quoted are both necessary and sufficient conditions for the success of scientific inquiry.

If you do not find any mention in the Bible of whether or not all leopards have spots, you are similarly incapable of commenting upon the characteristics of leopards with "absolute certainty" (or the pretension thereto).The point is not whether my particular senses or my particular reasoning are infallible (i.e., "absolutely certain" -- I know they're not -- I see things incorrectly and reason incorrectly all the time). Rather, the issue concerns whether or not the very concept of sensory data providing true data about the world, and whether or not such concepts as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature are true.

You can't appeal to the character of God, either, to help you answer this question with more assurance than any follower of any other paradigm. You are unjustified in making any such pronouncement, according to your paradigm.You and m_d both seem to be hung up on the Ps and Qs. First, why would anyone make such a pronouncement ("all leopards have spots")? The point I was making was that the form of the argument, known in Rhetorical parlance as a syllogism, is itself unjustified according to Methodological Naturalism. Major premise: All Ps are Q.
Minor premise: X is a P.
Conclusion: Therefore X is a Q.It doesn't matter if you want to plug P and Q with leopards and spots, dogs and hair, or glick and cooties. It is the form of the argument, the logical relationship, that the Methodological Naturalist cannot ground.

[Hilston]

Hi aharvey,

You write:You repeatedly fault non-Biblical literalists because their justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to magic, whereas your view is better because your justification for using logic and reason ultimately boils down to an appeal to the God of the Bible. But what do you mean by “magic”? My dictionary has several definitions of magic, most dealing with human control of certain natural or supernatural forces, or else “any extraordinary, seemingly inexplicable power.” I’m guessing you mean the latter, but better to hear it from you directly. And remember: Your definition of magic had better not apply to your conception of God, had it?This is an excellent question. When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining.

Sadly, this is also what we're being asked to do regarding Methodological Naturalism. Nature is the magician. We are asked to suspend our disbelief that life could arise from non-life, that moral standards make any sense in a Godless, mindless universe, that the laws of inference and of mathematics could come into existence by accident.

Whereas the supernatural power to which I appeal is not inexplicable, let alone "seemingly so." There are the inscrutible, transcendent aspects of God that defy our comprehension, but our inability as finite creatures to comprehend the infinitude of God is not an appeal to magic as described above. There is no suspension of disbelief, because this God is the Creator and can do the things He claims to do.

If one wants to say there is a "magic" about the Existence and Being of God in that His infinitude defies explanation, that's fine. But the "magic" of God's Being posits a personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind that is behind such things as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature. It makes sense of human experience, the laws of logic and mathematics, human dignity and moral standards. But to believe that these things could arise from the Void is to truly suspend one's disbelief. The sad thing is that this is not merely about entertainment or a magic show. This is about reality, and science, and how we know what we know.

Thanks for your excellent question.

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

You write:This is an excellent question. When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining.

Sadly, this is also what we're being asked to do regarding Methodological Naturalism. Nature is the magician. We are asked to suspend our disbelief that life could arise from non-life, that moral standards make any sense in a Godless, mindless universe, that the laws of inference and of mathematics could come into existence by accident.

Whereas the supernatural power to which I appeal is not inexplicable, let alone "seemingly so." There are the inscrutible, transcendent aspects of God that defy our comprehension, but our inability as finite creatures to comprehend the infinitude of God is not an appeal to magic as described above. There is no suspension of disbelief, because this God is the Creator and can do the things He claims to do.

If one wants to say there is a "magic" about the Existence and Being of God in that His infinitude defies explanation, that's fine. But the "magic" of God's Being posits a personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind that is behind such things as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature. It makes sense of human experience, the laws of logic and mathematics, human dignity and moral standards. But to believe that these things could arise from the Void is to truly suspend one's disbelief. The sad thing is that this is not merely about entertainment or a magic show. This is about reality, and science, and how we know what we know.

Thanks for your excellent question.
I will certainly thank you for an excellent answer if one is forthcoming. You have yet to define what you mean by "magic," as you pejoratively and creatively apply the term to scientific inquiry. I already know that you disapprove of our supposed reliance on "it." Tell us what you mean by it.

And why it doesn't apply equally to your bulletproof God concept, especially as you agree that one could apply the term "magic" to God, but meaning something else. But what? Well, you say that God is not inexplicable (and thus can be "explained, understood, and accounted for," but is instead inscrutable (and thus "cannot be easily understood, is completely obscure and mysterious, unfathomable, and enigmatic"), transcendant (and thus "beyond the limits of possible experience"), and defies our comprehension.

I hope your entire argument is not based on such silly word games.

[Hilston]

"Now you see it ..."

Hi aharvey,

All I would ask is for you to read more carefully what I've written.You have yet to define what you mean by "magic," ...What I mean by magic is what we understand when we see a magician: Someone using deception to give the appearance of inexplicable power. I thought what I wrote might have sufficed to define it: "When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining." Let me make it even more precise: Magic is the use of sleight of hand, legerdemain, prestidigitation, parlor tricks, misdirection and deception in order to give the appearance of inexplicable power.... as you pejoratively and creatively apply the term to scientific inquiry.I've never applied the term "magic" to scientific inquiry. I apply it to the worldview of those who presume to do science as Methodological Naturalists.... Well, you say that God is not inexplicable (and thus can be "explained, understood, and accounted for,") ...Correct, that is, regarding that which God has revealed about Himself to us in His Word. We are given information about God that explains certain of His attributes, His character, His nature, etc.

... but is instead inscrutable (and thus "cannot be easily understood, is completely obscure and mysterious, unfathomable, and enigmatic"), transcendant (and thus "beyond the limits of possible experience"), and defies our comprehension.Correct, that is, regarding his Being and Existence. If you'll re-read what I wrote above, I was careful to indicate what exactly is inscrutable about God: His Being and Existence.

I hope your entire argument is not based on such silly word games.Not word games, aharvey. Just an effort to be precise, albeit admittedly flawed.

[SUTG]

If one wants to say there is a "magic" about the Existence and Being of God in that His infinitude defies explanation, that's fine. But the "magic" of God's Being posits a personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind that is behind such things as the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature. It makes sense of human experience, the laws of logic and mathematics, human dignity and moral standards. But to believe that these things could arise from the Void is to truly suspend one's disbelief.

The could just as easily arise from the "Void". If you could only show the impossibility of the contrary, you could raise the above statements from the level of fanciful assertion to something more meaningful.

Given Hume's Inductive Skepticism, how does positing a "personal, volitional, powerful and purposeful mind" solve anything? The same problems remain.

Induction always makes an inference from the observed to the unobserved. Even if you believe in the UoN based on your presuppositions, your inductive inferences still aren't any more certain than those of a non-presuppositionalist. You might choose to say that non-presuppositionalists have no reason whatsoever to infer that the sun will rise next Thursday. Your reason might be that 'the Christian God has created the universe such that it reflects His logical character', or whatever, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're making an inference to the unobserved. (next Thursday) Neither of us has any idea whether the Sun will rise next Thursday, according to Hume.

Say we were given the following sequence of data taken from some sort of measurements in the natural world and asked to guess on the continuation of the sequence:

1,2,3,4,5,6...

We can invoke induction and guess that the unobserved, or the data represented by the remainder of the sequence, will resemble the observed. You would say that only the Creationist (or one pretending to be a Creationist) has any justification for filling in the continuation of the sequences. He is justified in placing a numeral '7' at the end of the first list whereas the non-creationist is not. An Inductive Skeptic would say that no-one, including Creationists, has any reason at all to say that it is even more likely for there to be a '7' in the next position than any other numeral.

What about a Creationist who thinks that the sequence will go 1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6...? Is he also justified? His justified reasoning is that the sequence will repeat every sixth place. What about a Creationist who think the sequence will go 1,2,3,4,5,6,4,4,7,8? His justified reasoning is that the series is identical to the integers but with the addition of two number 4s after every 6 integers.

This is what is interesting about Inductive Skepticism. It is logically possible for the next number in the sequence to be anything. We don't know until we are given the next measurement. What can justify our guess of the next number? Only the presupposition of the Christian God?

If you agree with the Inductive Skepticist about our reasoning without God to justify it, how does positing the Christian God fix the problem?

[aharvey]

Okay, I didn't expect you to favor the card shark definition of "magic"! So when you refer to "magic", you are saying someone invokes it as a conscious form of misdirection, i.e., when they know otherwise. So we've got proponents of MN saying that something is inexplicable that they know really isn't, versus you saying that that something really is explicable as being an attribute of an inexplicable entity... No, no word games there!

It would also be useful for you to demonstrate that MN knowingly deceive in this manner. Otherwise you're falsely accusing people who really don't know the ultimate basis for something.

And just out of idle curiosity, where is that explicit reference in the Bible for the Godly basis for logic? You may recall this exchange:

Originally Posted by aharvey

"--- We infer that God is the source of all logic because He created the universe and everything in it, which would thus include logic."

Response by Hilston

"It's not an inference. It is explicitly stated in the Bible, which is God's inerrant and infallible revelation to mankind. "

Where does the Bible explicitly state that God is the source of all logic?

Honestly, I suspect that all this "logical" verbiage is a red herring, and that in fact the reason you reject evolutionary theory (and the Big Bang theory) and accept other scientific disciplines, is simply and entirely because the first two make statements that conflict with your Biblical presupposition, and the others don't. The underlying logic is much more direct than you are admitting:

If the Bible is inerrant, then anything that contradicts any part of it in any way is incorrect.

You don't need any more than that. Unfortunately, you don't have any more than that. Your conclusions are only as correct as your presuppositions, but that fact doesn't make your presuppositions correct! So you're stuck making peculiar, self-limiting claims like if the Bible is inerrant, then parts of the Bible are inerrant and supporting evidence for my presuppositions exists all right, but they won't make any sense to you unless you already accept my presuppositions as true.

[Hilston]

"Now you see it ..."

Hi aharvey,

All I would ask is for you to read more carefully what I've written.You have yet to define what you mean by "magic," ...What I mean by magic is what we understand when we see a magician: Someone using deception to give the appearance of inexplicable power. I thought what I wrote might have sufficed to define it: "When a magician claims to have magical powers, we know it isn't actually true, but we politely humor him and gasp in awe at his apparent "power." We pretend, for the sake of entertainment; we suspend our disbelief and play along. It's fun and entertaining." Let me make it even more precise: Magic is the use of sleight of hand, legerdemain, prestidigitation, parlor tricks, misdirection and deception in order to give the appearance of inexplicable power.... as you pejoratively and creatively apply the term to scientific inquiry.I've never applied the term "magic" to scientific inquiry. I apply it to the worldview of those who presume to do science as Methodological Naturalists.... Well, you say that God is not inexplicable (and thus can be "explained, understood, and accounted for,") ...Correct, that is, regarding that which God has revealed about Himself to us in His Word. We are given information about God that explains certain of His attributes, His character, His nature, etc.

... but is instead inscrutable (and thus "cannot be easily understood, is completely obscure and mysterious, unfathomable, and enigmatic"), transcendant (and thus "beyond the limits of possible experience"), and defies our comprehension.Correct, that is, regarding his Being and Existence. If you'll re-read what I wrote above, I was careful to indicate what exactly is inscrutable about God: His Being and Existence.

I hope your entire argument is not based on such silly word games.Not word games, aharvey. Just an effort to be precise, albeit admittedly flawed.

Thanks again for the exchange.

[Hilston]

Can't explain why my post showed up twice. Please forgive the redundancy.

[SUTG]

Can't explain why my post showed up twice. Please forgive the redundancy.

So much for the Uniformity of Nature!

[mighty_duck]

So much for the Uniformity of Nature!

Of course not. It was probably an act of god.

I dare you to prove me wrong ;)

[Hilston]

Hi m_d,

I appreciate your concern regarding the level of heat in our discussion. When exchanges begin to multiply, I try to say things more tersely and I can come off as abrupt. I am often miscontrued as being abrasive, annoying and other a-words. It is rarely my intent to offend; and when I do want to offend, I make sure it is obvious. It's not difficult to get caught up in the excitement of the exchange and to forget that there is a human being with feelings and sensibilities at the other end. I am enjoying our exchange and I do not want to give the impression that I'm trying to disparage you in any way.

I don't have axioms, m_d. You've missed the point. You and I agree on the verity of logic, but you have to pretend to be a Creationist in order to think that way. The Creationist understands that the nature and character of the Creator makes sense of universal laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature, and is indeed the Source of them. Hence, the Creationist does not need to resort to "axioms" because his tools and methods of learning are justified. He can confidently rely on the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature because of the God who is back of them.
...
You're missing the point again, m_d. Holding ANY axioms is irrational. The Creationist doesn't have any axioms.

A presuppositionist without a presupposition (axiom) is like a tuna sandwich without the tuna, or the sandwich.They're not the same. A presupposition is nothing like an axiom, m_d.

From what I understand, you differentiate between an axiom and your presuppositions in that the latter are "justified" or somehow grounded.Not at all. There are plenty of untrue and unjustified presuppositions that people hold. I would agree with Greg L. Bahnsen's definition of a presupposition:"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]

Please make your argument clear, especially how you feel your axioms are "justified".I don't have axioms, m_d. For the Creationist, the use and application of the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature are justified because of the existence and attributes of God. The laws of logic and the principle of induction can be relied upon as universal and invariant because they reflect the nature of God. The uniformity of nature is assured because of the sovereign control of God upon His creation. The Methodological Naturalist has no justifiable grounds on which to take these laws as reliable, let alone proceeding on the assumption that they will continue to work. That is not to say that they don't work. That is not to say that their use is not reliable. That IS to say that the Methdological Naturalist must pretend to be a Creationist in order to use them at all.

The two presuppositions/axioms you have mentioned are:
1. The existence of the God of the Bible.
2. The inerrancy of the Bible.I reject the conflation of presupposition and axiom. As presuppositions, those are correct.

From what I understand of TAG, it goes something like this. You have these axioms which builds your worldview, but they are really justified.No, my worldview comes pre-built. It's not "mine," per se. It's what the Bible teaches.

How do you determine if a different worldview is irrational? You take your own worldview with your own (yet unjustified) axioms, and use them to judge another. If the other worldview conflicts with yours, it is irrational. A conflict includes an axiom for which your worldview has a justification for.No. When a competing worldview comes along, I look at its claims and I ask: Does this view provide a way of making human experience intelligible and can it account for the things we all take for granted, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, moral standards, etc.? One way of approaching this assessment is to ask what the competing view has to offer as necessary and sufficient conditions for the intelligibility of human experience and rationality to be possible. When it fails (and all non-Biblical worldviews inevitably do), then that worldview is determined to be irrational.

That's the beauty of MN. Everyone agrees on it, whether by axiom, or by deduction.I don't agree with it. It is irrational and self-refuting to exclude the extra-natural from one's science. The very notion undermines reality. If the extra-natural were excluded, the tools of science, such as the extra-natural principle of induction, would be excluded. It is self-refuting. If the extra-natural were not present in every atom, reality would obliterate. Then we wouldn't have to worry about induction.

A system is internally flawed, only when you can show there are internal conflicts, especially when mapped to reality.Methodological Naturalism is therefore flawed, because it has the internal conflict of excluding the extra-natural, which is itself an extra-natural stipulation.

For example, most people are wired so that pain feels bad, as does bodily injury. They will accept this as an axiom. If they suddenly adopt an axiom that gravity is for sissies (it's just a theory!) , they will find an internal conflict when they meet the next cliff.In all of your examples, you assume induction and the uniformity of nature. According to the exclusions stated by MN, there is no reason to assume that a certain stimulus that caused pain today will cause pain tomorrow. There is no justifiable reason to assume that gravity that works today will work tomorrow. You're pretending to be a Creationist.

So a "good" axiom, would be one that models reality well.The very concept of "model" is creationistic. You have to presume upon the Creationist worldview to even conceive of such a thing as a "model."

You might complain that I've used my worldview to critique yours, but you're wrong. The moment you began to speak, regardless of the subject of discussion (dogs, aliens, verity, statements, knowledge), you walked into the Creationist conception of reality. You are being critiqued internally.

[quote=mighty_duck]So now, All worldviews aren't just wrong, they don't really exist?That's not my view. All other worldviews must necessarily presume upon the Creationist worldview, albeit unwittingly, but they do so inconsistently and without duly recognizing the Source and Sustainer of the tools by which they presume to understand their own worldview.

If person A or B has justifiably and rationally deduced that all dogs have hair, and you show them a hairless dog, their worldview should crumble, as it does a lousy job of modeling reality.You're missing the point, m_d. It doesn't matter what your Ps and Qs are. You must pretend to be a Creationist in order to set up the syllogism.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[sentientsynth]

The aforementioned arguments come from folks in the other hall that sit in their comfy reading chairs to perform feats of mental "mastication" and almost never contribute anything useful - althought they make pure thought more interesting (if you have that kind of time).

Hey Stratnerd,

Guess what I want to be when I grow up?

An ecologist!! :doh:

aaaah... that felt good. If it feels right, do it. Right?

SS

[mighty_duck]

Jim,
I'm enjoying this dialog as well. You're one of the better TAGers I've seen. It is unfortunate that your weapon of choice is fatally flawed, but it is a credit to you as a debater to carry on wielding it so well.

They're not the same. A presupposition is nothing like an axiom, m_d.
..
Not at all. There are plenty of untrue and unjustified presuppositions that people hold. I would agree with Greg L. Bahnsen's definition of a presupposition:"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]
...


Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type. I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification. I still claim that we all use axioms, even a creationist, but more on this at a later time.


No. When a competing worldview comes along, I look at its claims and I ask: Does this view provide a way of making human experience intelligible and can it account for the things we all take for granted, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, moral standards, etc.? One way of approaching this assessment is to ask what the competing view has to offer as necessary and sufficient conditions for the intelligibility of human experience and rationality to be possible. When it fails (and all non-Biblical worldviews inevitably do), then that worldview is determined to be irrational.


Here's my problem. There are really two issues at hand, but they are intertwined, and difficult to separate. You seem to be using only one at a time, pulling out the one that suits your purposes.
1. The verity of a presupposition.
2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.

What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational. Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.

This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule. If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion. Otherwise you are question begging. It would be like me presupposing that Jesus was actually Satan, and then dismissing anything you say because you are really a lying cheating Satan worshiper, therefore proving my case.

#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means. It is also ambiguous, as you have shown:

You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform. Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.

I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?

You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God. You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.

I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.



I don't agree with it. It is irrational and self-refuting to exclude the extra-natural from one's science. The very notion undermines reality. If the extra-natural were excluded, the tools of science, such as the extra-natural principle of induction, would be excluded. It is self-refuting. If the extra-natural were not present in every atom, reality would obliterate. Then we wouldn't have to worry about induction.

Methodological Naturalism is therefore flawed, because it has the internal conflict of excluding the extra-natural, which is itself an extra-natural stipulation.


As stratned so eloquently demonstrated in his 5th post, science CAN'T consider supernatural causes, since we can't say anything about them. I'll leave this point open though, as it infringes too closely on the actual formal debate at hand. I'm sure you will give a more detailed response in your next debate post.

[Metalking]

Christianity is far from having a monopoly on people who have died for their religion. If their actions are evidence for Christianity, why are these others not evidence for their own religions truth?
I do not see anyone with a stronger case, but thats just my opinion.


*boggle* It is most certainly contested, most historians view as pure mythology. Have you any evidence?
When the West Saxons captured Glastonbury there already existed there, as at Glendalough or Clonmacnoise, a group of small churches built in typical Celtic fashion and occupied by the British monks. One of these, the oldest and most venerated of all, the vetusta ecclesia or lignea basilica, was preserved, and by its survival stamped the later buildings at Glastonbury with their special character.You do have good points about truths being mixed in with legends.

[BillyBob]

Is your name 'Me talking' or is it 'Metal king'?

[SUTG]

Is your name 'Me talking' or is it 'Metal king'?

His name is "Me Talking'. This was discussed a few pages ago. Ronnie James Dio is the only True Metal King.

[koban]

His name is "Me Talking'. This was discussed a few pages ago. Ronnie James Dio is the only True Metal King.


My welding teacher called himself "The Metal King"

Had business cards and everything. :chuckle:

[sentientsynth]

Ask a scientist, any scientist, if they consider the question of the source of logic, uniformity of nature, etc in their work. First, you’ll get a blank look. Then a “what?” Then ask them if they accept logic, and uniformity of nature, etc blindly. First, you’ll get a blank look. Then a “what?”. Then they’ll say “the philosophy department is down on Thatch Street across from the Stupid Onion (Student Union).”

Dr. Stacey Mixon is a physical chemist. He and I have discussed these topics on occassion and he is very aware that what pins his methodology to reality is the super-natural imposition of God's nature upon reality. Perhaps I can get him to post in this forum under his own name. But just so you know, Stratnerd, there is at least one scientist that takes this question seriously (and there are others, I'm sure.) Bottom line:. Not everyone is capable of the compartmentalization and double-think that you would like them to be.


SS

[Jukia]

When the West Saxons captured Glastonbury there already existed there, as at Glendalough or Clonmacnoise, a group of small churches built in typical Celtic fashion and occupied by the British monks. One of these, the oldest and most venerated of all, the vetusta ecclesia or lignea basilica, was preserved, and by its survival stamped the later buildings at Glastonbury with their special character.You do have good points about truths being mixed in with legends.

I live in Glastonbury CT. While we do not have the oldest church we do have the oldest continuously operating ferry in the US. It shuts down when the river ices over but other than that it has been ferrying people, horses, and now a few cars at a time, over the Connecticut River since 1655.

[Alethia]

I have to say that as a Christian with honest questions about evolution, I have found this debate to be very disappointing and of no value whatsoever so far. So far as I have seen, there has been no actual discussion of the topic yet.

Hilston has attempted to take it off into a pure philosophical direction, as if, like the ancient Greek philosophers, he felt the answers could be determined without crass, materialistic things like the actual evidence. He argues that it is a waste of time to look at evidence, because everyone will simply interpret the evidence according to their own biases. Sorry, but they will also evaluate his philosophical meanderings by the same standard. It is a fundamental principle that you cannot determine whether God exists by pure reason alone, yet that seems to be his approach.

Hilston says:
a) He has an unshakable faith in God.
b) He has an unshakable belief that God contradicted evolution.
In that case, there really is no opportunity for discussion of the evidence for evolution.

Hilston shows an extremely facile debating style that is most impressive. It is most impressive at being able to sound like he's winning without ever making any sense. His approach that evolution must be false because God says so, and our only tools for evaluating the evidence are God given, therefore ipso facto, his case is proven, is absolutely and totally circular, yet so well stated as to obscure that reality.

I really don't care to hear this subject argued on a basis of pure philosophy. It appears to be that neither scientists nor Christians would either. Scientists want testable evidence. Christians should distrust philosphy.

In my view, the whole question of evolution boils down to this: If Evolution is impossible, then creation had to have occurred, so there must be a God. If evolution can be proven, then there might not need to be a God (though there could be). Scientists assert that they can prove that evolution occurred. If we tell them we are uninterested in hearing their evidence because our minds are already made up, they have good reason to discount our opinion, both about evolution, and also about God.

In short, I would really love to see a true consideration of the factual evidence for and against evolution, with each side competently defended. It does not appear that this is going to happen in this debate. Stratnerd seems willing, but Hilston doesn't want it to go there. Although my bias and leaning is heavily toward creation rather than evolution, and I doubt evolution for both religious and scientific reasons, Hilston's apparent avoidance of consideration of the science makes his case look weak to me.

[Jukia]

Alethia: As a Christian with a belief in evolution I have to say that I thought your post was right on. I think Hilston has made a conscious effort to avoid dealing with the real issue as posed by the original question. Is evolution science?

[GuySmiley]

In short, I would really love to see a true consideration of the factual evidence for and against evolution, with each side competently defended. It does not appear that this is going to happen in this debate. Stratnerd seems willing, but Hilston doesn't want it to go there. Although my bias and leaning is heavily toward creation rather than evolution, and I doubt evolution for both religious and scientific reasons, Hilston's apparent avoidance of consideration of the science makes his case look weak to me.
Debates in which scientists throw evidence at each other have been done. Scores of books have been written on the subject. You should have more than enough evidence available to make up your mind. I think a new approach to the subject is refreshing. I also thought the debate would be about the evidence for evolution, but according to both participants, its not about that. The topic concerns what is valid science and what is not, which I think, demands a rather philosophical approach. And I think the answer will depend heavily on each person's worldview, so I think Hilston is hitting the nail on the head. Your disatisfaction with the debate seems to come from a misunderstanding of the topic.

[SUTG]

The topic concerns what is valid science and what is not, which I think, demands a rather philosophical approach.

...or at least an agreement on a definition of science.

Still, the TAG is terrible philosophically, and at this point all that Hilston can do is repeat his claims over and over again, or change the subject.

[Jukia]

Debates in which scientists throw evidence at each other have been done. .
Evidence, imagine that.

[Alethia]

Debates in which scientists throw evidence at each other have been done. Scores of books have been written on the subject. You should have more than enough evidence available to make up your mind. I think a new approach to the subject is refreshing. I also thought the debate would be about the evidence for evolution, but according to both participants, its not about that. The topic concerns what is valid science and what is not, which I think, demands a rather philosophical approach. And I think the answer will depend heavily on each person's worldview, so I think Hilston is hitting the nail on the head. Your disatisfaction with the debate seems to come from a misunderstanding of the topic.Yes, you could be right about that. I probably misunderstood the topic. Whether or not Evolution is "science" seems to me to a far less interesting, important or relevant question than whether it is the true. If the debate is only about whether it meets someone's definition of "science" then I really don't much care, as that is merely a semantic discussion. What you call it is not nearly so important as whether it works, and whether it actually happened. A philosophical or semantic debate about what is truly "science" could be interesting, but then can we debate whether psychology and psychiatry are "science"? Is economics "science"? Is "rocket science" actually "science" or is it really "engineering" (the latter is generally agreed to be true, but the question is not really, shall we say, rocket science). Fun, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing. Then we can move on to numerating terpsicorian messengers on pinheads.

Yes, scores of books have been written about it, but almost all of them are one-sided, one way or the other. The books tend to either highly technical books that I cannot readily follow and that assume evolution to be true; condescending popularizations which assume evolution to be true; or religious based arguments that assume it to be false. How exactly should I make up my mind among those? I'm not really all that sure. It is true that most people's answer depends on their pre-existing "worldview," and I would like to take a look at the issue in as unbiased a way as possible by letting proponents of each side debate it, so I can better evaluate their arguments.

The fundamental assumption seems to be that everyone's mind is made up by their (choose your own word carefully here) "worldview", "presuppositions", "biases" or whatever you call it. I don't think that is totally true, or at least, I hope not. If it is, then discussion is a total waste of time anyway and why bother? If it is, then all those books are a waste of ink. I concede that people are heavily influenced, but I think that people do have the ability to overcome that, otherwise, I am merely a victim of whatever I already believe, and I am stuck with it. The very fact that I can raise the question proves to me that I am capable of rising above my biases to some degree. I does not appear to me that Hilston is able to do so. His "worldview" is his answer.

[Highline]

Alethia - I agree with you. Maybe Hilston is on topic, but it is boring. I'd prefer to talk about evidence and observations.

[mighty_duck]

Debates in which scientists throw evidence at each other have been done. Scores of books have been written on the subject.

You'd be surprised, but TAG (Transcendent Argument for God) debates have also been done. Many times. I can give you links if you'd like.
The reason there aren't scores of books about them, is that it is a very weak argument. It is readily refuted with a little work, as we are trying to demonstrate to Hilston on this thread. The debate topic is a bit dishonest though, if you want a TAG debate go ahead and state it up front.

Instead of working on a common ground which everyone can agree on, the TAGer tries to move the debate to more favorouble ground. This makes it very uninteresting. If creationism were true, there would be no reason to presuppose it to prove it, all the evidence would be pointing to that conclusion. It's not like scientists sat around and presupposed a 5 Billion year old earth, they came to that conclusion from multiple sources, based on observation. This included honest Christian scientists, who may have wished to confirm the Bible, but stuck to the scientific method.

[mighty_duck]

Dr. Stacey Mixon is a physical chemist. He and I have discussed these topics on occassion and he is very aware that what pins his methodology to reality is the super-natural imposition of God's nature upon reality. Perhaps I can get him to post in this forum under his own name. But just so you know, Stratnerd, there is at least one scientist that takes this question seriously (and there are others, I'm sure.) Bottom line:. Not everyone is capable of the compartmentalization and double-think that you would like them to be.

SS

This may be true, SS. Some scientists are also part time philosophers, and can hold any theistic conclusions they like.

But if this physical chemist ever introduced the super natural in a hypothesis, or discards an observation because it conflicts with the Bible, he has ceased using the scientific method.

I doubt there is one mention of the above in any of his work. Also, believing in God is a far cry from being a Biblical literalist.

[GuySmiley]

You'd be surprised, but TAG (Transcendent Argument for God) debates have also been done. Many times. I can give you links if you'd like.
The reason there aren't scores of books about them, is that it is a very weak argument. It is readily refuted with a little work, as we are trying to demonstrate to Hilston on this thread. The debate topic is a bit dishonest though, if you want a TAG debate go ahead and state it up front.

The point is that the topic of the debate was never, "Evidence for Evolution: Is it correct?" That might have been what many people, me included assumed, but it never was. I'm sure TAG debates have been done before also, and I think there aren't scores of book about it because it is really boring to the general population. You can say its a weak argument, but thats just a product of your worldview. ;) I'm enjoying the debate, and I think Hilston is kicking rear end. But that also is a product of my worldview. Although Alethia brought up something interesting in that our worldviews dont really dictate everything we believe as if we are incapable of changing our minds.

[aharvey]

The point is that the topic of the debate was never, "Evidence for Evolution: Is it correct?" That might have been what many people, me included assumed, but it never was. I'm sure TAG debates have been done before also, and I think there aren't scores of book about it because it is really boring to the general population. You can say its a weak argument, but thats just a product of your worldview. ;) I'm enjoying the debate, and I think Hilston is kicking rear end.
Ka-boom!

Let me clarify.

In this debate Hilston has spent tens of thousands of words trying to make the case that "only Creationists blah blah blah logic therefore blah blah blah and evolution is not science." (you can replace "blah blah blah" with however you want to phrase it; I'm sure my phrasing would be criticized, providing a pretext to avoid my core point). Hilston's argument starts with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, from which he (supposedly) generates his conclusions about logic and then (supposedly) applies these conclusions to show that big-E Evolution is not (what he calls) science.

But wait! Let's go back to the beginning there. "Hilston's argument starts with the [/i]presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant.[/i]" Well, you can stop right here. If you presuppose a literal and inerrant Bible then you automatically conclude that anything that contradicts it in any way, say, Evolution or the Big Bang Theory, is incorrect. No further justification needed, it's a slam-dunk no-brainer guarantee. The link between this presupposition and this conclusion is so direct that it makes suspicious efforts to take a longer, more roundabout route.

"But wait," it is your turn to say! "Hilston isn't using his presupposition to prove that Evolution is wrong, he's using it to prove that Evolution's not even science." Alas, this puts him in a distinct quandary. All science, not just big-E Evolution, fails to qualify as science under Hilston's requirements. And yet Hilston has repeatedly stated that he does consider other areas of science, including little-e evolution, to be scientific. I can think of a number of possible resolutions to this contradiction:

a. I am incorrect, and areas of science other than Evolution (and the BBT) do in fact properly acknowledge an inerrant Bible as the source for all logic.
b. Hilston is incorrect about little-e evolution and the others, and there is in fact no such thing as true science.
c. Hilston is not correctly articulating how he determines what is and isn't science.
d. Hilston's concept of science is incorrect.

Myself, I'm leaning towards c and d. But, lacking sure, unwavering, unshakable certainty in the correctness of my worldview, I'd be most interested in learning how, say, ecologists do in fact properly acknowledge the divine origins of the logic they use in their work!

[bob b]

Actually part of evolutionary theory may be science but part definitely isn't. The main objections to swallowing the whole thing are: [1] the so-called mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection can not add enough information to the genome to be a significant factor in uphill change, and [2] there is no plausible naturalistic mechanism to produce the first cell.

Similarly for the Big Bang, there are several main objections to swallowing the whole thing, even though it is possible that parts of it may be correct. These objections are: [1] singularities appear only in mathematics, not the real world, [2] there is no credible naturalistic mechanism to create the universe, [3] the concept of multiple universes is not scientific but is instead metaphysics. http://creationsafaris.com/crev200512.htm#20051218a

The value of the Bible is not to be a science textbook, but instead to alert us when our reconstructions of the past are way off the mark. In other words it is a valuable guidebook in many areas, including science.

[GuySmiley]

Ka-boom!
Ka-Pow!!!


In this debate Hilston has spent tens of thousands of words trying to make the case that "only Creationists blah blah blah logic therefore blah blah blah and evolution is not science."

:chuckle:


Hilston's argument starts with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, from which he (supposedly) generates his conclusions about logic and then (supposedly) applies these conclusions to show that big-E Evolution is not (what he calls) science.

He doesn't start with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant. He starts with logic and reason, then shows that we must presuppose a God since logic and reason work (I think we can agree on that.) He then says that only the Christian God fits reality (which I'd like to see some detail on) and then takes the Bible as literal and inerrant. The literal and inerrant Bible is the outcome, not the presupposition. That's how I see it, maybe Hilston will come correct me though. I won't take your word for it though, since you have to pretend to be a creationist to even think about the subject. (its just a joke, be calm please)

All science, not just big-E Evolution, fails to qualify as science under Hilston's requirements. And yet Hilston has repeatedly stated that he does consider other areas of science, including little-e evolution, to be scientific.
Bit of an overstatement. It might be true of Evolution since it rules out the necessary presupposition (in Hilston's view), but why would all science fail in Hilston's view? It sounds as if you think all science contradicts the Bible.

[mighty_duck]

Actually part of evolutionary theory may be science but part definitely isn't. The main objections to swallowing the whole thing are: [1] the so-called mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection can not add enough information to the genome to be a significant factor in uphill change, and [2] there is no plausible naturalistic mechanism to produce the first cell.


#1. Is an interesting point made by many creationists. It is dead wrong, but that would have at least made an interesting point for debate. Hilston hasn't gone anywhere near it, because Stratnerd would eat him alive. No one likes to look bad.

#2 Has nothing to do with Evolution. If you want to claim goddidit (for the first repducing living organism), that's fine. It doesn't effect the Evolutionary theory one bit.
You don't have to swallow abiogenesis to accept Evolution.

[mighty_duck]

The literal and inerrant Bible is the outcome, not the presupposition.

No, It is both the outcome and the presupposition. Which is why you see us complaining so much about the circularity of this argument.

[sentientsynth]

m_d,

Thank you for replying thoughtfully.

This may be true, SS. Some scientists are also part time philosophers...

I would maintain that all scientists are also philosophers, and indeed all people, regardless of whether or not they have formalized their philosophy and actively sharpen their philosophical acumen.

But if this physical chemist ever introduced the super natural in a hypothesis, or discards an observation because it conflicts with the Bible, he has ceased using the scientific method.

This is true. But if you think that the theistic scientist (as I will be in a couple dozen moons) would offer a super-natural hypothesis for why a chemical product is optically active when it "ought" not be, or for why a certain acreage of soil has become barren phenomenally quickly, then perhaps the theistic position has been misrepresented to you.

Also, believing in God is a far cry from being a Biblical literalist.

Of course. But it is the logical conclusion. ;)


SS

[Highline]

#1. Is an interesting point made by many creationists. It is dead wrong, but that would have at least made an interesting point for debate. Hilston hasn't gone anywhere near it, because Stratnerd would eat him alive. No one likes to look bad.

#2 Has nothing to do with Evolution. If you want to claim goddidit (for the first repducing living organism), that's fine. It doesn't effect the Evolutionary theory one bit.
You don't have to swallow abiogenesis to accept Evolution.

Bob B's point number 2 was that there was no plausible mechanism for the first cell. I agree with Might Duck on point #1. On #2, I agree but will add that simpler forms of life than the cell exist now (viruses are one of them) and have existed in the past. These came first, about 350 million years before the first bacteria (single celled organisms). As usual, many of these questions hinge on time and the age of the earth.

Admittably, the beginnings of simple life is the most troubling unanswered question life science.

[mighty_duck]

Bob B's point number 2 was that there was no plausible mechanism for the first cell. I agree with Might Duck on point #1. On #2, I agree but will add that simpler forms of life than the cell exist now (viruses are one of them) and have existed in the past. These came first, about 350 million years before the first bacteria (single celled organisms). As usual, many of these questions hinge on time and the age of the earth.

Admittably, the beginnings of simple life is the most troubling unanswered question life science.

This hinges on the definition of what "life" is. As far as I can tell, a virus is not considered alive. Science usually examines Evolution as starting with the first reproducing cell. The move from an RNA world to that first cell is still considered part of abiogenesis (and even that hypothesis is far from being widely accepted).

Science will always have unanswered questions, see this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24576) thread for some more interesting ones. The fact that theists still bring out God-of-the-Gaps arguments is amusing, considering how many times it has blown up in their faces in the past.

[aharvey]

He doesn't start with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant. He starts with logic and reason, then shows that we must presuppose a God since logic and reason work (I think we can agree on that.) He then says that only the Christian God fits reality (which I'd like to see some detail on) and then takes the Bible as literal and inerrant. The literal and inerrant Bible is the outcome, not the presupposition. That's how I see it, maybe Hilston will come correct me though. I won't take your word for it though, since you have to pretend to be a creationist to even think about the subject. (its just a joke, be calm please)
Sorry, but he starts with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant. Everything else follows from that. He's quite explicit about it. Go back and see for yourself.

Bit of an overstatement. It might be true of Evolution since it rules out the necessary presupposition (in Hilston's view), but why would all science fail in Hilston's view? It sounds as if you think all science contradicts the Bible.
Now you're confusing "is it correct?" with "is it science?" You'd better take a second look at his argumentation.

[Balder]

I posted this observation about presuppositionalism on another thread which is now closed, but I think it's relevant here as well...

It seems to me that the presuppositionalist apologetic is a disgruntled reaction rather than an honest position: someone noticed that debates between Christians and atheists often "presupposed" the criteria for determining "valid knowledge" that are common to the modern scientific worldview, and then said, "Hey, why do that? I can presuppose my own criteria, start from there, and demand that others accept those presuppositions or admit that they've 'lost already.'" After all, Christianity cannot pass the truth tests of "science" since it is not science. The reaction has been to turn the tables, essentially re-asserting the much maligned bumper sticker sentiment, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" -- hopefully in a more sophisticated way.

A problem here is a failure to differentiate non-reducible types of validity claims, either through ignoring or discrediting alternative modes, or "subjugating" one mode to another. Atheistic materialism has tended to emphasize empirical observation, concerning itself primarily with objective truth (correspondence, representation, propositional) and functional fit (systems theory, structural-functionalism, etc), and largely ignoring or devaluing subjective experience. Religious traditions have largely emphasized more interior (subjective) value claims and methods of validation, particularly truthfulness (sincerity, integrity, trustworthiness) and justness (cultural fit, mutual understanding,
rightness or righteousness).

These four different approaches are not really reducible to the terms of whatever method one happens to prefer, though society has been fragmented by the efforts of one camp or another trying to discredit other approaches, or to subjugate them to the "ultimate criteria" of its preferred method. I think this is what is going on here in this "reaction" of presuppositionalism (a form of narrow absolutism) to the equally narrow absolutism of the atheist materialists with which many Christians have been wrestling.

[Johnny]

I'm going to repost these--SS or Hilston or anyone who supports this nonsense can reply

1) Since you believe in uniformity, why do the very same principles that work well for nuclear physics fail to yield any explanatory power when applied to evolutionary science?

2) If it is because they contradict God, then where did they go wrong? In other words, if the universe was created within the past 7,000 years, then the proper application of logic, induction, the scientific method, etc, should yield data that points that way. Why does it not?

3) I am a Christian evolutionist. Although you certainly disagree with my interpretation of scripture, I have the same foundation for my logic as you do. Am I unjustified in my application? What if, hypothetically, Genesis was understood as non-literal?

[GuySmiley]

Now you're confusing "is it correct?" with "is it science?" You'd better take a second look at his argumentation.Well, I've been wrong before, only once. But I think Hilston's point is that Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God. So that would not be true of all scientific endeavors, but not restricted to Evolution either. Notice I made no statement about Evolution not being correct.

[Johnny]

But I think Hilston's point is that Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God.Does it? Where? There are many Christian evolutionists. Evolution says nothing as to the existence of God.

[Hilston]

Hi Johnny,

You write:1) Since you believe in uniformity, why do the very same principles that work well for nuclear physics fail to yield any explanatory power when applied to evolutionary science?I don't agree that uniformity works for nuclear physics but not for evolutionary science. I believe uniformity applies equally in all fields of science. That's not the issue here. On what basis does one prroceed on the assumption that nature will continue to be uniform, or that it was uniform in the past? On what basis does one reason at all, expecting reason to comport with reality, let alone expecting one's reasoning faculties to function properly? The Creationist who does evolutionary science or nuclear physics does so with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods, and the resulting knowledge is justified. The Methodological Naturalist who is a nuclear physicist or doing evolutionary science does not do their science with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods. In fact, they must borrow tools from the Creationist worldview in order to do science; they must use Creationistic logic and Creationistic induction in order to even ask the question. The knowledge of the Meth-Naturalist might be true, but it's not justified. It's stolen fire, to use a mythological analogy.

2) If it is because they contradict God, then where did they go wrong? In other words, if the universe was created within the past 7,000 years, then the proper application of logic, induction, the scientific method, etc, should yield data that points that way. Why does it not?It certainly does. But those who presume to ignore their Creator and to exclude all things extra-natural from their research and investigation will ignore any evidence that could possibly prove the Biblical God, and realization of their indictment before Him.

3) I am a Christian evolutionist. Although you certainly disagree with my interpretation of scripture, I have the same foundation for my logic as you do. Am I unjustified in my application?I need to know more about the foundation of your logic. Can you be more specific?

What if, hypothetically, Genesis was understood as non-literal?"Literal" is a term that is badly misused. The text of Genesis, indeed the whole Bible, is filled with language that is figurative, narrative, poetic, prophetic, symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical, etc., just as much, if not most, of literature throughout history. Whether we're reading Shakespeare or Stephen King or the prophet Isaiah, we ought to read the texts with a desire to understand them in the same way the writers intended and a thoughtful reader of their time and culture would have understood them. Given that approach, the days of creation in Genesis must be understood in the sense of a 24-hour solar day (yes, even before the existence of the sun). There is no way to understand the days of Genesis 1 as anything other than normative evening-and-morning days unless one (a) undermines the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible and (b) does violence to the Hebrew language.

Johnny, as a Christian, do you believe the words of Paul, who said that Christ created all things and holds all things together, which he wrote in his epistle to the believers at Colossae?Col 1:16 For by [Christ Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Thanks for your questions,
Jim

[Stratnerd]

Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God.
my God, how can anyone think this since I pointed out in every one of my posts this is not the case.

[Johnny]

I know that you are busy with the debate and I recognize that these things are very time demanding, so I want to thank you for your direct response Hilston. You may or may not be compelled to respond to this, but I wanted to respond.

I don't agree that uniformity works for nuclear physics but not for evolutionary science. I believe uniformity applies equally in all fields of science. That's not the issue here.On the contrary, this is a key issue. I can demonstrate that the same reasoning and application of logic that we have applied to nuclear physics has been properly applied to evolutionary theory. By nature of your claim you must disagree. I am asking for particular examples of the misapplication of these principles. In other words, based on the evidence alone why has modern science reached an entirely different conclusion? What evidence specifically has been misinterpreted?

On what basis does one prroceed on the assumption that nature will continue to be uniform, or that it was uniform in the past? On what basis does one reason at all, expecting reason to comport with reality, let alone expecting one's reasoning faculties to function properly?There is no basis. It is assumed. It is unproven. It doesn't matter. Perhaps we are both wrong and unjustified in our application of logic. Nonetheless, these axioms are still the foundation of science. Science does not represent or attempt to provide the absolute truth. It is simply our best explanation based on what is available to us. A hypothesis can fully qualify as "scientific" but can be completely wrong. What we do know is that science with its axioms (which may or may not be justified) "works" for us remarkably well. For this reason, most scientists do not concern themselves with philosophical arguments. They just do science because it works. Even you must admit that this process does not stop yielding explanatory power even when it addresses our origins.

These axioms are the underpinnings of science itself. If you argue that these axioms are unfounded then you argue that science is unfounded. The process of science does not assume God. He is not an axiom of science. Thus, you may argue that science is unfounded but you cannot argue that evolutionary theory alone is unfounded without redefining science. You have realized this and have thus taken the liberty to do so. Yet I can catagorically say that your definition is sloppy, unfounded, unsupported, and unused. You made it up.

Redefining a word to something it is clearly not is an unacceptable debate tactic. One can define any term to mean anything and then proceed to argue from that usage. I can define Creationists as "people who hate slugs" and then proceed to argue that the increase in slug corpses around Creationist meetings is a direct result of Creationists. My argument may be founded under my definition, but my definition is completely absurd. Stratnerd has objected to your definition many times on this basis. You have redefined science to something it is not. If you are going to honestly argue that Evolution is unscientific then you must do so within the confines of the acceptable usage of the word. This means that you must assume the same axioms of science and then work from that point to show that these axioms are not properly applied to evolutionary science. Any other approach--including redefining the word--is unacceptable.

The Creationist who does evolutionary science or nuclear physics does so with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods, and the resulting knowledge is justified. The Methodological Naturalist who is a nuclear physicist or doing evolutionary science does not do their science with a justification and grounding of their tools and methods. Yet by your own admission (your endorsement of uniformity), the proper application of logic should yield the same result whether done by a methodological naturalist or a Creationist. It is your job to show that the methodological naturalist has not properly applied his axioms.

In fact, they must borrow tools from the Creationist worldview in order to do science; they must use Creationistic logic and Creationistic induction in order to even ask the question. The knowledge of the Meth-Naturalist might be true, but it's not justified. It's stolen fire, to use a mythological analogy.See above.

It certainly does. But those who presume to ignore their Creator and to exclude all things extra-natural from their research and investigation will ignore any evidence that could possibly prove the Biblical God, and realization of their indictment before Him.Again, by definition science excludes the extra-natural. By arguing that science should include the extra-natural, and subsequently evolution is unscientific, you have redefined science to suit your purposes in order to claim that evolution is unscientific. You might as well redefine science to outright exclude evolution.

Whether we're reading Shakespeare or Stephen King or the prophet Isaiah, we ought to read the texts with a desire to understand them in the same way the writers intended and a thoughtful reader of their time and culture would have understood them.I disagree with this. I do not feel the same understanding is completely necessary. It is absolutely certain that we do not understand scripture the same way the ancient Hebrews did. We have entirely different world-views and knowledge-sets on which to work. Our views regarding scripture are largely the result of the enlightenment. But the beauty of scripture is that the truth contained within transcends the cultural context with which they are understood. It does not matter how Genesis is understood--literal or metaphorical. The truth that God is the originator of all things transcends the scientific context with which we understand creation.

Johnny, as a Christian, do you believe the words of Paul, who said that Christ created all things and holds all things together, which he wrote in his epistle to the believers at Colossae?Yes.

[aharvey]

Well, I've been wrong before, only once. But I think Hilston's point is that Evolution is not science because it rules out the necessary presupposition of God. So that would not be true of all scientific endeavors, but not restricted to Evolution either. Notice I made no statement about Evolution not being correct.
And yet again I'm forced to repeat that all scientific endeavor (excluding explicitly "creationist science", to give you the benefit of the terminological doubt here) does in fact "rule out the necessary presupposition of God" to exactly the same degree that Evolution does! All of it: chemistry; physics; geology; biology, and all the subfields within each. In principle, you could easily rebut this by demonstrating the differences in how Evolution and what you would consider "real" science handles "the necessary presupposition of God." You don't have to be comprehensive; a single generalizable example will suffice.

I want to make sure that you get the point here. To say that evolution is wrong because its explanations are discordant with those of the Bible is one thing. To say that evolution is not science because it does not presuppose a literal and inerrant Bible is something completely different. "Disagreement with a presupposedly literal and inerrant Bible" is a criterion that I would agree does place Evolution and BBT in the "necessarily wrong" bin, pretty much all other science in the "not necessarily wrong" bin. "Failure to presuppose a literal and inerrant Bible", however, places all (non-"Creation science") science in the "necessarily not science" bin. Again, if this last statement is false it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it.

[aharvey]

Jim (Hilston),

Even your fervent supporters seem to be unclear on your chain of reasoning (i.e., what's presupposed, what's inferred, what's deduced, etc.) that ultimately lead you to "Evolution is not science." Would it be possible to present your chain of reasoning in outline form so that we can all see, explicitly, step-by-step, where your argument starts (i.e., does it start with a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy or not?), and where you go from there. I presented what I thought was a reasonable beta version of such an outline, upon which you commented but did not emend, and your comments were such that I couldn't exactly tell which were agreement, disagreement, clarification, or what. In retrospect, I'm not sure my outline at all reflects your thought processes anyways. I'm not asking for tens of thousands of words of explication (in fact, I'm begging you not to go that route!), just a simple outline that organizes the ideas into the logical arrangement that you perceive for them.

Such an outline is unlikely to answer all questions (e.g., at what point do we no longer need to continue to justify our justifications?), but it will certainly help us follow and discuss your arguments.

Thanks!

[Balder]

Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:

Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain (= inane, empty) in their reasoning, and their foolish* heart was darkened.
(*foolish = Greek asunetos - unintelligent, refusal to synthesize and comprehend)


[The Bible's] very existence is not only relevant, but essential. The passages I quoted are both necessary and sufficient conditions for the success of scientific inquiry.
How are the passages you quoted necessary and sufficient for the success of scientific inquiry? Since probably most scientists don't think the above passages have anything to do with "doing science," would you say that science thus far is largely "unsuccessful"? How do you define success?

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

Since I can't edit, I'm adding this additional post:

Would it be fair to say that, within your paradigm, the only real scientists are those who profess to be Christian and who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Can "successful science" only be done by Christians?

Best wishes,

Balder

[aharvey]

Hi, Hilston,

Since I can't edit, I'm adding this additional post:

Would it be fair to say that, within your paradigm, the only real scientists are those who profess to be Christian and who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Can "successful science" only be done by Christians?

Best wishes,

Balder
Can I also note that Jim seems to be subtly shifting his position towards some real trouble? Whereas Jim first was using his arguments to identify "what is and is not science," he now seem to be using his arguments to identify "who is and who isn't a scientist," no doubt trying to wiggle out of the dilemma that his criteria, applied to science itself, would disqualify all of science.

But now we're heading directly towards the circumstantial ad-hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html) fallacy. And we're faced with the prospect of potentially coming to diametrically opposed conclusions regarding a single study depending on what we think the responsible parties' beliefs concerning the Bible might be? And we're still left scratching our heads about what constitutes real science, or is that no longer an important question?

[SUTG]

we're still left scratching our heads about what constitutes real science, or is that no longer an important question?

It is a question that can only be justifiably asked byborrowing from the worldview of the Creationist, by the impossibility of the contrary. :dead: I hereby declare victory for the transcendentalists in this debate, also by impossibility of the contrary. :chuckle:

[aharvey]

I'm not asking for tens of thousands of words of explication (in fact, I'm begging you not to go that route!), just a simple outline that organizes the ideas into the logical arrangement that you perceive for them.
Now you know why I made this request!

[mighty_duck]

Desperation marked the theme of Jim's latest post. Jim really wants us to expand Evolution in to places it doesn't belong. If stratnerd would have a similar MO, he would expand the Christian worldview to include Santa Claus, then call the entire thing irrational.

It was by far his longest post, but there was really nothing new there. Just restating the assertion that scientists must borrow from the creationist to do science. In many, many more words. I thought he would at least TRY to back this up by now, as his whole case rests on it...

1. Claims he could do science while invoking supernatural causes, which shows how Jim misunderstands what science is, even after all the virtual ink spilled by stratnerd the last few posts.

2. Underpinnings of Evolution - ie aboigenesis. The Evolutionary Theory doesn't care one bit where that first reproducing organism came from. It could have come about by nature like some atheists claim, it could have been created by God, it could have been implanted by aliens. All of these don't affect the theory one bit. We are looking at one scientific Theory, not a worldview (does God exist? different debate).

3. Cosmic "Evolution" vs Biological Evolution. What is Jim smoking (or home brewing)? Cosmic "Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological kind, which is the topic of debate. For the purposes of this debate, I would just concede the Cosmic "Evolution" is bunk, and focus on the real topic here. If we prove the biological Evolution, it has little bearing on abiogenesis, BBT, etc.

4. Worldviews extracted from Evolution. I agree with Jim, that is not science. But it is not claiming to be, so why bring this up? Does Jim really think any Secular Humanist who bases his views on some form of Evolution, is being scientific?? I call strawman.

5. Evolution and Methodological Naturalism are NOT worldviews. Metaphysical Naturalism is, but it need not be held to use the tools of Methodological Naturalism. Science is Meth-Nat. Jim has not brought any counter argument to that. This is where his argument falls apart.

6. Jim confuses "unproven" with supernatural. UoN, while it may not be "proven", is still natural.

7. Uses this line over and over (and over), without understanding it.

If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do [believe that supernatural forces are at work] - mathematics."
Basic reading comprehension please. Stratnerd is implying that he doesn't define natural as only five senses.

8.
The Methodological Naturalism hypothesis posits a causal relationship between the laws of logic/science and true explanations/results.
Is Jim disputing this statement? If he is, he just threw away all of science. If he isn't disputing it, then he has agreed to stratnerd's description of science.

9. Jim claims he has never seen a rational answer that is not correct. This is easy, just make a rational deduction when one of your premises is wrong. For example a premise of an inerrant Bible will lead you to some crazy deductions...

10. Stratnerd's request to Jim to back up his claims is met with a "I can, but you would dismiss it". No comment necessary..

11.In order to [verify] that a certain method "works," one cannot use that method to assess it.
This is the most ironic statement yet. Jim is basically saying you can't use your premise when trying to prove your premise, that would be circular. I heartily agree.

12. We need to define what natural is, because there is obviously a misunderstanding. If Jim claims that gravity is super-natural, we have a problem.

13. Jim claims induction can't fail. He later comments this is true only if one is omniscient. Induction produces unreliable results for humans, so why must we have 100% certain knowledge of its verity to use it? Our results our not going to be 100% acurate anyway.

[GuySmiley]

Desperation marked the theme of Jim's latest post. Jim really wants us to expand Evolution in to places it doesn't belong. If stratnerd would have a similar MO, he would expand the Christian worldview to include Santa Claus, then call the entire thing irrational.
Maybe you should PM Stratnerd with quotes from Christian theologians and show that the Christian worldview used to include Santa Claus, but has recently changed because of embarassment.

[GuySmiley]

[QUOTE=GuySmiley]Maybe you should PM Stratnerd with quotes from Christian theologians and show that the Christian worldview used to include Santa Claus, but has recently changed because its too hard to defend.QUOTE]

[GuySmiley]

oops! editing

[Metalking]

Next debate: Santa Claus or Satan Clause!

[mighty_duck]

Maybe you should PM Stratnerd with quotes from Christian theologians and show that the Christian worldview used to include Santa Claus, but has recently changed because of embarassment.

Do you really want to go there? Christians have said some very silly things in the past, everything from a flat earth, to witch burning etc.
They even inferred these things from your inerrant Bible. Does that mean that the a)Bible is errant, or that b)people can make some silly inferences?

Evolution is an explanation for the Diversity of life, starting from the first reproducing organism. Do you think that we continue to use the same tools of Biological Evolution to create hypothesis regarding the Big Bang, formation of the earth, or abiogenesis? stratnerd explained this pretty well in his 5th post, which is why it is looking like a desperation move by HIlston to keep bringining this up.

[Mr Jack]

Seems to me that Hilston spends a long time in his latest post trying to confuse the issue by conflagating the Theory of Evolution with the more general uses of the word evolution. What gets me most is that his quotes (apart from those from Dobhansky, of which there are several) quite clearly do not support his assertion.

Sagan refers to "Cosmic Evolution" not just plain "evolution" or the "theory of evolution", while the term "evolution" is entirely absent from the quote taken from Dawkins. To explain life, abiogenesis is certainly required, but ToE cannot explain the origin of life, since non-life does, by definition, lack the requisite characterisics for evolution to occur.

I might talk about "the evolution of car design", or "the evolution of medicine" but to confuse these terms with actual, biological, evolution is simply to misunderstand the subject.

[aharvey]

Seems to me that Hilston spends a long time in his latest post trying to confuse the issue by conflagating the Theory of Evolution with the more general uses of the word evolution. What gets me most is that his quotes (apart from those from Dobhansky, of which there are several) quite clearly do not support his assertion.

Sagan refers to "Cosmic Evolution" not just plain "evolution" or the "theory of evolution", while the term "evolution" is entirely absent from the quote taken from Dawkins. To explain life, abiogenesis is certainly required, but ToE cannot explain the origin of life, since non-life does, by definition, lack the requisite characterisics for evolution to occur.

I might talk about "the evolution of car design", or "the evolution of medicine" but to confuse these terms with actual, biological, evolution is simply to misunderstand the subject.
Suckerpunched again! This is one reason I object to the distinction between “big-E” and “little-E” evolution! This is why I have always tried, at least until I got lazy during this debate, to refer to “evolutionary theory” and not just “evolution.” Hilston has mined some quotes about “evolution” from popular papers (i.e, aimed at a general audience, not part of their research on evolution) written by some evolutionary biologists. None of these more expansive views about the general concept of “evolution” is part of “evolutionary theory.”

I would in fact be happy to acknowledge that this expansive, thought-provoking arm-waving does not represent science per se. It also does not represent evolutionary theory. A worldview may emerge from the consideration of a scientific theory, and you may even want to give the worldview the same name, as Jimmy does here, but that doesn’t make them one in the same!

As to the assertion that Stratnerd is trying to move the goalposts, I would suggest that it’s reasonable to assume that a debate on whether evolution is science would refer to the concept(s) of evolution that get studied by scientists, not those that get philosophical musings.

[aharvey]

Allow me to repeat my request to Jim H.: please provide an outline of his chain of reasoning. You know, make explicit and concise the exclusive relationship between Biblical inerrancy, logic, science, and "justification." Your latest logorrheic exercise almost seems designed to hopelessly muddy the waters.

Oh, and, incidentally, when Stratnerd remarked that, by your definition of supernatural ("Anything we can't detect with our five senses" or something like that), mathematics would be supernatural, I think he was pointing out the limitations/absurdity of your definition, not agreeing with it! Your last post has a rather embarrassing over-reliance on your hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural. Perhaps you want to return to the concept that most people, scientists or not, use? Something like "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature."

[aharvey]

9. Jim claims he has never seen a rational answer that is not correct. This is easy, just make a rational deduction when one of your premises is wrong. For example a premise of an inerrant Bible will lead you to some crazy deductions...

Top notch post overall, md. I just wanted to follow up on this one point. From the start Jim has tried to claim his arguments speak to "Evolution is not science," not "Evolution is false." But he can't seem to keep them straight. Perhaps this is the explanation why: he sees truth and rationality as interchangeable. I'm guessing he would not recognize your example as legit, though! In an earlier post, though, he did say that creationists were not always right, but they were always justified (one of his slippery terms, to be sure!). When a Creationist is wrong, is he therefore being irrational? For example, were all the geocentric explanations for why the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west irrational?

I think Jim's interpretation of the relationship between truth and rationality is fairly flexible.

[Metalking]

k of Nature"..what is beyond this term?... the 5th dimension? or is it in the same category, I think not.You can look at out of the norm and it is abnormal, but areas like ,time travel,turning lead to gold,evolution..etc..can simply be put best as Science Fiction under review.Example: Partical beam and lazer weapons are now no longer Science Fiction.

[Metalking]

"Freak of Nature" ..most of clipped that off my post by accident...sorry.

[Hilston]

I know I'm way behind, and may never catch up, but while I'm here, I thought I would take a dip in the hope of offering further clarity where possible. This is a combined reply to:
Mr. Jack
aharvey

Mr. Jack

Hi Mr. Jack,

Thanks for your post.

Seems to me that Hilston spends a long time in his latest post trying to confuse the issue by conflagating the Theory of Evolution with the more general uses of the word evolution. ...I think a more careful reading of what I wrote would disabuse you of this thinking, as it was not my intent. Confusion is not my goal, but clarity. I explicitly stated that we would stick to Stratnerd's definition. I explicitly stated that the reason for my quotes of various Evolutionists was to show that Stratnerd's effort to completely ignore the foundation and implications of Evolution is out of step with his predecessors.

What gets me most is that his quotes (apart from those from Dobhansky, of which there are several) quite clearly do not support his assertion. ... Sagan refers to "Cosmic Evolution" not just plain "evolution" or the "theory of evolution", ...Sagan was not a head-Buried-in-the-Sand (BS) Evolutionist. He knew quite well, and fully acknowledged without shame or embarrassment, his commitment to the Evolutionist worldview and all that it entails. He did not shrink away from the necessary foundational matters of the theory or avoid the necessary ramifications of biological Evolution the way we see many doing in this forum.

... while the term "evolution" is entirely absent from the quote taken from Dawkins.The subtitle of Dawkin's book is "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." The chapter from which I quoted is titled "Origins and Miracles." The term may be absent from the citation, but it is assumed throughout the book. To ignore that is to plunge one's head in the sand, right next to everyone else in this forum who refuses to acknowledge these things.

To explain life, abiogenesis is certainly required, but ToE cannot explain the origin of life, since non-life does, by definition, lack the requisite characterisics for evolution to occur.I agree, "by definition." I'm talking about more than its definition. I'm talking about its necessary foundation, what the theory is built upon, and it necessary implications, how the theory relates to what is actually true. To ignore these things is to be a BS Evolutionist.

I might talk about "the evolution of car design", or "the evolution of medicine" but to confuse these terms with actual, biological, evolution is simply to misunderstand the subject.Take the multiple-choice test for BS Evolutionism!

Question 1: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of biological traits across taxa
b. Shared ancestry of animal species
c. Survival of the fittest
d. Origin of life
e. Evolution of medicine

Question 2: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of brain function across taxa
b. Comparative neurology
c. Survival benefits of sentient animals
d. Origin of sentience
e. Evolution of car design

If you answered "d" and "e" to both questions, you're a BS Evolutionist. If you chose only "e" to both questions, then you're NOT a BS Evolutionist.

aharvey

Hi aharvey,

Thanks for your comments.Allow me to repeat my request to Jim H.: please provide an outline of his chain of reasoning.Here is my chain of reasoning:
God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
Therefore: Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.I realize you may want further detail or clarification. I leave it to you to request exactly what you're interested in. I will be happy to elaborate.

Oh, and, incidentally, when Stratnerd remarked that, by your definition of supernatural ("Anything we can't detect with our five senses" or something like that), mathematics would be supernatural, I think he was pointing out the limitations/absurdity of your definition, not agreeing with it!There was unequivocal affirmation in his statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."

Your last post has a rather embarrassing over-reliance on your hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural. Perhaps you want to return to the concept that most people, scientists or not, use? Something like "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature."That's the one I'm using, aharvey. We have to be careful not to confuse the supernatural (or extra-natural) itself from the application or effects of the extranatural. We all use the extranatural laws of logic and mathematics in our daily experience. But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.

Perhaps this is the explanation why: he sees truth and rationality as interchangeable.Stated more carefullly, I would say that which is true is the same as that which is rational, and vice versa, by the ordinary understanding of those terms.

I'm guessing he would not recognize your example as legit, though!Are you referring to an earlier post by mighty_duck? I'll have a look and try to comment later. There's a lot here I haven't read yet.

In an earlier post, though, he did say that creationists were not always right, but they were always justified (one of his slippery terms, to be sure!).It's Stratnerd's term, aharvey. I'm using it the way he does. You can check his posts for discussion of it. He gives plenty of examples. I don't think I've violated it in any way.

When a Creationist is wrong, is he therefore being irrational?Absolutely.

For example, were all the geocentric explanations for why the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west irrational?Absolutely.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Jim

[mighty_duck]

Jim,

If you plan to answer any of my posts, the only one I am really interested in is post 365. I'll quote it here:

Jim,
I'm enjoying this dialog as well. You're one of the better TAGers I've seen. It is unfortunate that your weapon of choice is fatally flawed, but it is a credit to you as a debater to carry on wielding it so well.


Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type. I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification. I still claim that we all use axioms, even a creationist, but more on this at a later time.



Here's my problem. There are really two issues at hand, but they are intertwined, and difficult to separate. You seem to be using only one at a time, pulling out the one that suits your purposes.
1. The verity of a presupposition.
2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.

What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational. Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.

This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule. If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion. Otherwise you are question begging. It would be like me presupposing that Jesus was actually Satan, and then dismissing anything you say because you are really a lying cheating Satan worshiper, therefore proving my case.

#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means. It is also ambiguous, as you have shown:

You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform. Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.

I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?

You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God. You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.

I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.

[Balder]

Hi, Jim,

Although I have a number of unanswered posts, I won't hold you to them. I know your hands are full!

But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.
I do not agree that concepts should be considered supernatural or extrasensory. They are "beyond" our usual Wenstern classification system of five senses, but that is not the only sensory classification system mankind has devised. Buddhist tradition speaks of mind as a sense as well, perceiving mental objects rather physical objects. Of course, what we perceive and conceive are very complexly interrelated, so "mind" is involved in the perception of external physical objects as well as "internal" objects such as ideas, images, concepts. To say "no one has tasted a summation" is as meaningful as saying "no one has ever heard the color red." Not being able to hear red no more disqualifies it as a "natural" sense object than not being able to taste a concept.

Best wishes,
Balder

[mighty_duck]

Take the multiple-choice test for BS Evolutionism!

Question 1: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of biological traits across taxa
b. Shared ancestry of animal species
c. Survival of the fittest
d. Origin of life
e. Evolution of medicine

Question 2: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of brain function across taxa
b. Comparative neurology
c. Survival benefits of sentient animals
d. Origin of sentience
e. Evolution of car design

If you answered "d" and "e" to both questions, you're a BS Evolutionist. If you chose only "e" to both questions, then you're NOT a BS Evolutionist.


I love multiple-choice personality tests! And from my experience with various tabloids, they are always right.really.

The first one is easy. a-c deal with traits and behavior of living things, while d-e do not.

The second one is harder. Origin of Sentience, that's a loaded term. Depends on your definition of sentience (according to your 1st or 2nd post I conlcuded that bacteria are sentient). And also the definition of Origin (how far back do you want to go).

If you define those terms as I do, That bacteria are NOT sentient, and origin in this case means a move from non-sentient to sentient, then Evolution explains this perfectly. Sentience is the result of our big brains. Our big brains are the result of Evolution.


Hi aharvey,

Thanks for your comments.Here is my chain of reasoning:
God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
Therefore: Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.I realize you may want further detail or clarification. I leave it to you to request exactly what you're interested in. I will be happy to elaborate.


The only thing missing from that is how you justify your belief in the existence of God. If God did not exist, then all of your deductions are false (according to you they are also irrational, but we differ on that point).

[Alethia]

Quote:

Oh, and, incidentally, when Stratnerd remarked that, by your definition of supernatural ("Anything we can't detect with our five senses" or something like that), mathematics would be supernatural, I think he was pointing out the limitations/absurdity of your definition, not agreeing with it!

There was unequivocal affirmation in his statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."No. You are very clearly misunderstanding his point. This appears to be obvious to everyone but you. Do you see the IF at the beginning of the sentence? That is a conditional. Stratnerd was clearly NOT making an affirmation that the natural is limited to those things detectable by the five senses. Rather, he was clearly pointing out that this was an absurd definition. It should be obvious to anyone that things like electricity, magnetism, x-rays, all sorts of nuclear forces, would be considered by most people to be "natural", yet they are not directly detectable by the five senses. To limit the natural to the five sentences would be absurd. That's why he put the IF at the beginning of the sentence.

Quite frankly, Mr. Hilston, if you can't see that, you are having a serious problem in comprehension. You need to take a very deep breath, a very big step back, and spend some time thinking here before you continue to misuse that statement, as your misuse of it makes a great deal of your posts meaningless.

[Hilston]

Combined reply to:
mighty_duck
Balder
mighty_duck
Alethia

mighty_duck

Hi mighty_duck,

Thanks for the re-post. That saved me some time.

Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type.To be clear. The word itself is fine. But not unlike the word "atheist," I don't think it has any reality or application in the real world. It is nothing like a presupposition, however. They are completely different, unrelated terms. You defined axiom as:ax·i·om: 3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.I don't believe there is any such thing that exists in reality, except as a concept that has no real correspondence in reality. If I ask you to prove something and you refuse, claiming something is "axiomatic," then you're not being rational and you shouldn't be wasting people's time debating them.

I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification.This is incorrect. You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions do need to be proven. Presuppositions do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]

1. The verity of a presupposition.

2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.

What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational.My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven. The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. Logic would not exist. Sentences would not exist. Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence. For you to believe that they could exist in a Godless, mindless, purposeless universe is an appeal to magic.

This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule.This is nothing new. It is expected. The Bible gives plenty of examples of this sort of ridicule. But the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. Why does the Bible say that? Because the very sentence: "There is no God," and the very process of discursive thought, prove His existence.

If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion.Again, the case is proven, whether or not you're persuaded.

#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means.It is not rational to accept wrong premises. Coming to a wrong conclusion always involves an error in reason, whether it is via a fallacious premise, or an erroneous chain of logic.

You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform.Not only "why," but how, in a Godless, purposeless, mindless universe, can you even begin to explain the use of logic and mathematics.

Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.I agree with you.

What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.Right, but we all have access to Someone who does. But most refuse to acknowledge that Source.

I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?There are rational answers to all of your questions. I can account for how God did and does what He did and does. You can read it for yourself. You can read about the how and why of God's moral and why they wouldn't be totally different. You can see for yourself why God is logical. Or I can just tell you. Your statements here are false, and anyone reading this should be made aware of that.

You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God.Think about this for a second. Use your imagination. Imagine God does exist. Just pretend for the sake of discussion. Consider it a hypothetical. Nevermind for the moment that everything I'm asking you to do is further proving to you of His actual existence. But for now, just humor me. God exists. We have His documented Word called the Bible. No one in the Bible asks God where He came from or why He exists. And God doesn't offer that information. Which is fitting to the personalities and writers of the Bible, since God claims to be transcendent and infinite (and such a Being could not have a "source" or "reason" for existence). Given all that, granting it as true for the sake of argument, does the fact that you find it unacceptable matter one whit? Does your dissatisfaction have anything to do with what is true? If God granted you an interview, do you actually think you would have rational grounds to say to Him: I find it unacceptable that You, the infinite and transcendent God cannot tell me why You exist.

This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God.How do you know your universe functions just fine without a God?

You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.What to you would be a sufficient explanation for why God exists?

I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.It's not a parallel. While it is true that logic is transcendental in character and has a necessity about it, logic is not personal; it is not volitional, it cannot justify itself. Similarly, the universe is not personal and not volitional and cannot sustain itself. God is personal and volitional. He has the creative power that brought the universe into existence. He has the sustaining power that keeps creation from obliterating.

Balder

Hi Balder,

I do not agree that concepts should be considered supernatural or extrasensory. They are "beyond" our usual Wenstern classification system of five senses, but that is not the only sensory classification system mankind has devised. Buddhist tradition speaks of mind as a sense as well, perceiving mental objects rather physical objects.If we expanded the definition of "sensory" to include the mind, do you agree that we'd still need to distinguish between tactile/concrete sensing and conceptual/abstract sensing?

Of course, what we perceive and conceive are very complexly interrelated, so "mind" is involved in the perception of external physical objects as well as "internal" objects such as ideas, images, concepts.I agree.

To say "no one has tasted a summation" is as meaningful as saying "no one has ever heard the color red."I agree, but you've missed the meaning I intended, and I blame myself for allowing that ambiguity. I wrote:No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses.I should have written:No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held, tasted, smelled, heard or seen a 2 or a 4. No one has or felt, tasted, smelled, heard or seen addition. No one has held, tasted, smelled, heard or seen a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses.

Not being able to hear red no more disqualifies it as a "natural" sense object than not being able to taste a concept.Not being able to feel, taste, smell, hear or see a concept disqualifies it from being natural. Concepts are extranatural, abstract, universal, conceptual.

mighty_duck

Hi m_d,

The only thing missing from that is how you justify your belief in the existence of God.It's not missing. It's a different argument.

If God did not exist, then all of your deductions are falseOf course. If God does not exist, there's no such thing as deduction. There would not only be no general principles from which to deduce particular truth claims, the discursive procedure of thought would not be impossible, thoughts would not be possible, minds would not be possible, brains would not be possible.

Alethia

Hi Alethia,

Thanks for your post and suggestions.

Hilston previously wrote: There was unequivocal affirmation in [Stratnerd's] statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."

No. You are very clearly misunderstanding his point. This appears to be obvious to everyone but you. Do you see the IF at the beginning of the sentence? That is a conditional. Stratnerd was clearly NOT making an affirmation that the natural is limited to those things detectable by the five senses.He is if I defined supernatural as being beyond the five senses, which is exactly what I did. If A, then B. Given A, therefore B.

It should be obvious to anyone that things like electricity, magnetism, x-rays, all sorts of nuclear forces, would be considered by most people to be "natural", yet they are not directly detectable by the five senses.Each of these are detectable by the five senses by the use of instruments, and that makes them natural. Compare that the Law of Contradiction. No has experienced this law. It is conceptual, extra-natural in character.

To limit the natural to the five sentences would be absurd.I would be happy to consider an alternate definition. What do you suggest?

Quite frankly, Mr. Hilston, if you can't see that, you are having a serious problem in comprehension.I welcome your assistance in helping me to improve my comprehension.

You need to take a very deep breath, a very big step back, and spend some time thinking here before you continue to misuse that statement, as your misuse of it makes a great deal of your posts meaningless.For example?

Thank you all for your remarks and contributions.

Chunkiest national brand,
Jim

[mighty_duck]

My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven. The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. Logic would not exist. Sentences would not exist. Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence. For you to believe that they could exist in a Godless, mindless, purposeless universe is an appeal to magic.

Hi Jim,

So let me get your argument straight.
1. Presuppose God and the Bible.
2. Look at another worldview and judge that it is irrational. (repeat as necessary for all worldviews).
3. Conclude that your presuppositions are justified (true).

Now how exactly can you judge another worldview to see if it is rational, without using logic? You can't, you obviously use logic.
So how can you justify your use of logic to prove another worldview is irrational? You use it because it relies on your presupposition. That, my friend, is circular. You can't use your premise (or anything derived from said premise) to prove your premise. This is where your whole justification falls apart.

Allow me to make a similarly silly argument.
1. Presuppose I am always right.
2. Look at any other worldview. If it disagrees with me on anything, then it is irrational because I am always right (see #1).
3. Conclude that I am always right.

Your presuppositions are completely unfounded and unjustified, and by your own definition you are irrational. It won't say "Check Mate" quite yet. I will say "Check".


What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.



Right, but we all have access to Someone who does. But most refuse to acknowledge that Source.


This alleged "access" does not help us, since it doesn't answer all our questions. We are left with things we can't account for. Which means that not being able to account for something doesn't mean your worldview is irrational.


There are rational answers to all of your questions. I can account for how God did and does what He did and does. You can read it for yourself. You can read about the how and why of God's moral and why they wouldn't be totally different. You can see for yourself why God is logical. Or I can just tell you. Your statements here are false, and anyone reading this should be made aware of that.


By all means enlighten me. How did God make a horse? Why is it necessary that God's morals include "adultery is wrong"? Why couldn't that have just been a decree? If you disagree with that particular moral point, choose another.


Think about this for a second. Use your imagination. Imagine God does exist. Just pretend for the sake of discussion. Consider it a hypothetical. Nevermind for the moment that everything I'm asking you to do is further proving to you of His actual existence. But for now, just humor me. God exists. We have His documented Word called the Bible. No one in the Bible asks God where He came from or why He exists. And God doesn't offer that information. Which is fitting to the personalities and writers of the Bible, since God claims to be transcendent and infinite (and such a Being could not have a "source" or "reason" for existence). Given all that, granting it as true for the sake of argument, does the fact that you find it unacceptable matter one whit? Does your dissatisfaction have anything to do with what is true? If God granted you an interview, do you actually think you would have rational grounds to say to Him: I find it unacceptable that You, the infinite and transcendent God cannot tell me why You exist.

What to you would be a sufficient explanation for why God exists?


To a certain degree, I see your point. But you are in fact agreeing that a presupposition need not be accounted for, in order for your worldview to be rational. It doesn't matter why it isn't accounted for, just that you really don't need an account to still be rational.

BTW, in that interview, I would point my finger at you, and tell Him that using Hilston logic I can't even rationally accept that God is who he says he is, and I would be irrational in believing anything he says.

Allow me to take you down a similar route. Shouldn't be too hard, since you used to be an atheist. Imagine that the universe has always existed, with certain laws as part of its nature. They have existed forever, infinitely. Does asking who created them make any sense? Does the fact that YOU can't make sense of the question "why does the universe exists?" change anything?


How do you know your universe functions just fine without a God?


That is my worldview, which is rational to me. I know it as well as I know anything else. I don't us circular logic to convince myself this knowledge is absolute though.


It's not a parallel. While it is true that logic is transcendental in character and has a necessity about it, logic is not personal; it is not volitional, it cannot justify itself. Similarly, the universe is not personal and not volitional and cannot sustain itself. God is personal and volitional. He has the creative power that brought the universe into existence. He has the sustaining power that keeps creation from obliterating.


The universe is perfectly capable of sustaining itself. The only reason you doubt that, is because you have presupposed an arbitrary creator that must sustain it.

Logic is not volitional or personal, and neither is the universe. So what? The parallel is that asking to account for an eternal and transcendant universe is just as impossible as accounting for God.

[sentientsynth]

Science, as the pursuit of reliable knowledge, must presuppose the commensurability of the noumenal to the phenomenal, so that the body of facts compiled by the scientific method is guaranteed to represent reality in itself and not merely as it is perceived by the mind. If the scientist does not make this vital presupposition, then he has no justification for assuming that any knowledge he possesses represents reality.

As there is no Archimedean point outside of the psyche by which to view the psyche, humans will never be in a position to verify to what degree any perceived event accurately and precisely describes the event in itself, if indeed any event in fact happened. The hallucinations of a psychotic are perceived by the psychotic as real in fact, yet they are only delusional fictions of the mind. The so-called "collective consciousness" of mankind, similarly, may very well be only a mass hallucination brought about by the uniform misrepresentation of reality by the human brain unto the consciousness of man.

We have Kant to thank for this completely valid insight into the epistomological problem of man. The condition is insoluble, and it seems as if we're stuck.

So what do we do? We're forced to assume the what we perceive does in fact represent reality as it is in itself so that we can simply live our lives and continue with the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, which has proven quite useful throughout the history of man.

But here's the difference between the theist and the non-theist. Theists presuppose that the phenomenal world of the psyche accurately represents the noumenal world of reality-in-itself because there exists a personal entity (God) which has formed the psyche so as to represent the noumenal world accurately to the mind of man. This presupposition then justifies the use of observations to extrapolate truths concerning the world as it truly is.

The non-theist if forced to accept that his phenomenal observation of the world is an accurate representation of the noumenal world-in-itself as a given without justification, as he can never observe the psyche from without in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays the world-in-itself. The pursuit of reliable knowledge from within the non-theistic framework is thus an exercise in futility.

In the final analysis, only the existence of a transcendant, supernatural Creator justifies the pursuit of this reliable knowledge, that is, science (scientia= "to know".)

In conclusion, every scientist, every philosopher, indeed every single individual that has ever made a truth claim is a Creationist, whethere they realize it and are willing to acknowledge it or not. Stratnerd, therefore, is a Creationist.

Any claim otherwise will be a truth claim, which by definition is impossible outside of the Creationist world-view.


I wonder what the next Battle Royale will be about?

SS

[PureX]

Science, as the pursuit of reliable knowledge, must presuppose the commensurability of the noumenal to the phenomenal, so that the body of facts compiled by the scientific method is guaranteed to represent reality in itself and not merely as it is perceived by the mind. If the scientist does not make this vital presupposition, then he has no justification for assuming that any knowledge he possesses represents reality.

As there is no Archimedean point outside of the psyche by which to view the psyche, humans will never be in a position to verify to what degree any perceived event accurately and precisely describes the event in itself, if indeed any event in fact happened. The hallucinations of a psychotic are perceived by the psychotic as real in fact, yet they are only delusional fictions of the mind. The so-called "collective consciousness" of mankind, similarly, may very well be only a mass hallucination brought about by the uniform misrepresentation of reality by the human brain unto the consciousness of man.

We have Kant to thank for this completely valid insight into the epistomological problem of man. The condition is insoluble, and it seems as if we're stuck.

So what do we do? We're forced to assume the what we perceive does in fact represent reality as it is in itself so that we can simply live our lives and continue with the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, which has proven quite useful throughout the history of man. This is a clear representation of the human condition and the intent of the scientific process in relation to it. Thank you.
But here's the difference between the theist and the non-theist. Theists presuppose that the phenomenal world of the psyche accurately represents the noumenal world of reality-in-itself because there exists a personal entity (God) which has formed the psyche so as to represent the noumenal world accurately to the mind of man. This presupposition then justifies the use of observations to extrapolate truths concerning the world as it truly is.So basically, the theist just pretends that there is a solution to the limitations of his human condition by pretending there is a God, and his pretense then becomes his solution. I agree. But it's all still make-believe. His "solution" may be real to him, as are the hallucinations of a psychotic to the psychotic, but he is still human and he is still limited by his human condition.
The non-theist if forced to accept that his phenomenal observation of the world is an accurate representation of the noumenal world-in-itself as a given without justification, as he can never observe the psyche from without in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays the world-in-itself. The pursuit of reliable knowledge from within the non-theistic framework is thus an exercise in futility.But neither the theist nor the non-theist can actually view the phyche from outside itself in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays reality, and that includes the theist's supposed "noumenal" reality.

So the choice, here then, appears to be to pretend that we can know what we can't really know, and let our pretense be our solution, or we can accept that as human beings we are limited in such a way that we will not be able to resolve our perceptual limitations and will then just have to be as honest as we can and trust in the unknowable.
In the final analysis, only the existence of a transcendant, supernatural Creator justifies the pursuit of this reliable knowledge, that is, science (scientia= "to know".)This is simply untrue. Necessity justifies the pursuit of reliable knowledge just as fully as the pretense of any divine being. And as for the fact that we cannot as limited human beings achieve perfect knowledge, well, we still can't do that as long as we remain human, even if God does exist.

So all you really have as a choice, here, is the employment of pretense for the purpose of self-deception regarding the limitations of the human condition, or the acceptance of the unknowable, and of a resultant life based on humility and faith. Why is it that the latter sounds more like it should be the theists method than the former, when it's based on a non-theist's choice? Interesting.
In conclusion, every scientist, every philosopher, indeed every single individual that has ever made a truth claim is a Creationist, whethere they realize it and are willing to acknowledge it or not. Stratnerd, therefore, is a Creationist.This is, of course, just nonsense based on a deceptive pretense, and stands as evidence for why it's unhealthy and dishonest to choose this intellectual response to the dilemma of the limitations of the human condition.
Any claim otherwise will be a truth claim, which by definition is impossible outside of the Creationist world-view.This is of course equally nonsensical, as it has already been established that human beings can't make truth claims without first pretending that they can know the truth. And since this claim would already be established to be a pretense, it's a false claim by default.

We can claim that God exists. Or we can claim that God does not exist. But we can't claim to know that our claim is true, or our claims in either case become untrue by default, whether God exists or not.

[Knight]

I. Justification Schmustification:chuckle: That was funny Stratnerd!

[SUTG]

Science, as the pursuit of reliable knowledge, must presuppose the commensurability of the noumenal to the phenomenal, so that the body of facts compiled by the scientific method is guaranteed to represent reality in itself and not merely as it is perceived by the mind. If the scientist does not make this vital presupposition, then he has no justification for assuming that any knowledge he possesses represents reality.

As there is no Archimedean point outside of the psyche by which to view the psyche, humans will never be in a position to verify to what degree any perceived event accurately and precisely describes the event in itself, if indeed any event in fact happened. The hallucinations of a psychotic are perceived by the psychotic as real in fact, yet they are only delusional fictions of the mind. The so-called "collective consciousness" of mankind, similarly, may very well be only a mass hallucination brought about by the uniform misrepresentation of reality by the human brain unto the consciousness of man.

We have Kant to thank for this completely valid insight into the epistomological problem of man. The condition is insoluble, and it seems as if we're stuck.

OK...

So what do we do? We're forced to assume the what we perceive does in fact represent reality as it is in itself so that we can simply live our lives and continue with the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, which has proven quite useful throughout the history of man.

Or, with Kant, we can decide not to be all that concerned, and admit that we can never have direct insight into the noumenal, and instead just operate with the phenomenal as sort of an epistemological middle-man.

But here's the difference between the theist and the non-theist. Theists presuppose that the phenomenal world of the psyche accurately represents the noumenal world of reality-in-itself because there exists a personal entity (God) which has formed the psyche so as to represent the noumenal world accurately to the mind of man. This presupposition then justifies the use of observations to extrapolate truths concerning the world as it truly is.

This presupposition is itself unjustified. Sure, you can invent a solution to make yourself feel certain. To use your own quote from the previous paragraph, you have entered into the realm of "delusional fictions of the mind".

The non-theist if forced to accept that his phenomenal observation of the world is an accurate representation of the noumenal world-in-itself as a given without justification, as he can never observe the psyche from without in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays the world-in-itself.

Well, if the non-theist were really that concerned, he could make something up just as well as the presuppositionalists. If all you have to do is assert absolute knowledge, you have an easy task before you.

In the final analysis, only the existence of a transcendant, supernatural Creator justifies the pursuit of this reliable knowledge, that is, science (scientia= "to know".)

No presuppositionalist will ever be able to provide this "final analysis". This thread, as well as Hilston's posts in the debate are great examples. You'll repeat this mantra over and over, as if it were shown (by someone, somewhere) to be true. Did bahnsen ever show this? No. Did Van Til ever cover this part of the TAG? No. Hilston? No. Do you the pattern?

[SUTG]

:chuckle: [/b]That was funny Stratnerd!

Yeah. Those always crack me up: Hilston, Schmilston. Knight, Schmight. Stratnerd, Schmatnerd. Axiom, Schmaxiom, etc... :chuckle:

[koban]

Yeah. Those always crack me up: Hilston, Schmilston. Knight, Schmight. Stratnerd, Schmatnerd. Axiom, Schmaxiom, etc... :chuckle:


I have an image of Billy Crystal from The Princess Bride. :chuckle:

[Metalking]

Theologically speaking...Merry Christmas to one and all. .even the Grinches.

[PureX]

Theologically speaking...Merry Christmas to one and all. .even the Grinches.Thanks, Metalking, and the same to you and to everyone.

[Metalking]

The scientific method (using observations about the natural world and the rules of logic to test hypotheses), the theory of evolution, creationism and intelligent design.
Evolutionary theory holds that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time driven by several processes, including natural selection.

Creationists believe the Earth and all life were created by God. Intelligent design advocates argue that that life is so well-ordered and "irreducibly complex" that it must have been designed.
This makes me an "Intelligent Creationist". : )

[mighty_duck]

This makes me an "Intelligent Creationist". : )

Oxymoron ;)

And Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah . Kooky Kwanza. (Circle which applies).

[Metalking]

Oxymoron ;)

And Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah . Kooky Kwanza. (Circle which applies).
Merry Christmas is circled.
The Bible contains many amazing scientific facts. When the rest of the world believed the earth was flat or was supported on the shoulders of the mythical god Atlas, or said that it rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a turtle that was swimming in a great endless sea, the Jewish prophets wrote that (Job 26:7)M, "God hangeth the earth upon nothing," and implied that the world was round (Isaiah 40:22) when it said, "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

[Hilston]

Hi m_d,

So let me get your argument straight.
1. Presuppose God and the Bible.
2. Look at another worldview and judge that it is irrational. (repeat as necessary for all worldviews).
3. Conclude that your presuppositions are justified (true).
What argument does that represent? That's no argument that I've made. I don't justify my presuppositions by looking at other worldviews. It's not a process of elimination. One way of seeing it is to say, if logic exists and human experience is intelligible, then the God of the Bible exists. Since logic exists and human experience is intelligible, therefore, the God of the Bible exists. It's a modus ponens line of reasoning. P implies Q. Given P, therefore Q.

Now how exactly can you judge another worldview to see if it is rational, without using logic? You can't, you obviously use logic.Of course. When did I ever suggest otherwise?

So how can you justify your use of logic to prove another worldview is irrational?You describe two different tasks, m_d. Justifying my use of logic is a separate issue from proving the irrationality of a competing worldview.

You use it because it relies on your presupposition. That, my friend, is circular.Of course, Logic relies on my presupposition. That is always the case, whether one is a theist or a non-theist. Your use of logic relies on blind faith in magic. Faith is the foundation of reasoning. In the case of the Creationist, reasoning is based on faith in the Creator. In the case of the anti-Creationist, reasoning is based on blind faith in magic.

You can't use your premise (or anything derived from said premise) to prove your premise. This is where your whole justification falls apart.If that's what I were doing, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I don't use my premise to prove my premise. That's the point of a transcendental argument. The whole point and form of the argument is to avoid question-begging. Since no one is able to transcend the use of logic, that is why one must frame the question in such a way that gets behind the premise. The way to do that is with transcendental argumentation, which asks the question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible? Or, what is the necessary set of conditions that must exist in order for logic and mathematics to function in the universe?

Allow me to make a similarly silly argument.
1. Presuppose I am always right.
2. Look at any other worldview. If it disagrees with me on anything, then it is irrational because I am always right (see #1).
3. Conclude that I am always right.You really seem to be having difficulty following this. I don't know how to help you, except to urge you to keep the issues straight and try not to jump to unrelated conclusions.

Your presuppositions are completely unfounded and unjustified, ...My presuppositions are very well-founded and entirely justified, m_d. The presupposition of the existence of God and the verity of the Bible is solidly founded on its unique and exclusive ability to account for contingent experience in the human condition, and universal laws of logic and mathematics, without violating rationality. Of course, someone may claim that it doesn't make my view right, and that perhaps some other view can be shown to be superior. And while I do not believe that is true at all, even if I were to grant that, you cannot rationally claim that my view is "unfounded and unjustified."

... and by your own definition you are irrational. It won't say "Check Mate" quite yet. I will say "Check".How are my presuppositions irrational by my own definition?

This alleged "access" does not help us, since it doesn't answer all our questions.Just because you don't find it helpful you doesn't mean the help isn't there, or that it isn't true and rational.

We are left with things we can't account for. Which means that not being able to account for something doesn't mean your worldview is irrational.Everything in our experience can be rationally accounted for in the Creationist worldview. God Himself, Who transcends human experience, needs no accounting, and in fact, because He is transcendent, it should be expected that there is no accounting for God, for if He could be accounted for, He would not be infinite and transcendent.

By all means enlighten me. How did God make a horse?By His power and volition. He willed it into existence, and brought it about via means not revealed.

Why is it necessary that God's morals include "adultery is wrong"?It depends on what part of the created order you're talking about. For Israel, adultery was wrong because it was the manifestation of blatant disrespect for one's family lines, among many other things. For this current biblical economy, adultery is wrong because, among many other things, it dishonors the Headship of Christ over the church and the role of the Son in the Godhead.

Why couldn't that have just been a decree?It WAS a decree.

To a certain degree, I see your point. But you are in fact agreeing that a presupposition need not be accounted for, in order for your worldview to be rational. It doesn't matter why it isn't accounted for, just that you really don't need an account to still be rational.You're trying very hard to equate logic and God as equally unaccounted for presuppositions, but the problem is, while God is self-justified, logic is not. God is volitional, personal, purposeful, powerfully creative, etc. Logic is an abstraction; it doesn't have volition, personality or purpose. It cannot sustain itself. It cannot justify itself. To believe that logic has existence the way God existence, or to believe that logic can somehow sustain or justify itself, is mythical.

BTW, in that interview, I would point my finger at you, and tell Him that using Hilston logic I can't even rationally accept that God is who he says he is, and I would be irrational in believing anything he says.How so?

Allow me to take you down a similar route. Shouldn't be too hard, since you used to be an atheist. Imagine that the universe has always existed, with certain laws as part of its nature.I wish I could, even for the sake of argument, but I can't without sacrificing rationality. I can pretend, the same way I do when I see a magician or watch a vampire movie, but I'm ever aware of the fictionality of the scenario.

They have existed forever, infinitely. Does asking who created them make any sense? Does the fact that YOU can't make sense of the question "why does the universe exists?" change anything?Again, you're asking me to suspend my disbelief to the point of believing a myth, something that the rational mind will not abide.

That is my worldview, which is rational to me.It really is amazing to me. As often as I encounter this claim, it always amazes me that people will be so deliberate and self-convinced of something so utterly irrational and mythical.

The universe is perfectly capable of sustaining itself.Really? Wow. Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?

The only reason you doubt that, is because you have presupposed an arbitrary creator that must sustain it.On the contrary. There are many, many reasons why I doubt it, not the least of which is the fact that a self-sustaining universe doesn't comport with reality and human experience. Every day things break, things decompose, things do not sustain themselves. If the universe is self-sustaining, it goes against everything we've learned from our personal interactions and observations of our world and everything in it. Interestingly, the Bible teaches exactly the same thing.

Logic is not volitional or personal, and neither is the universe. So what?So how does it make any sense that non-volitional, non-personal, non-physical entities create volitional, personal and physical beings?

Multi-region encoding,
Jim

[sentientsynth]

This reply covers all criticisms of my previous post. I have deliberately suspended the transcendent aspect of language in this post in order to demonstrate one of the theses of my previous post. In possible rebuttals will also be included.

awpoi ngidya kdjpadigi woiehaig mvnlhgaihhhzbdte jfdk fiejeiaifjei kafjeofjaz[z fniej8hjeijhfh83tya 84yt94q943 4t798q 4q498 834579q5

[mighty_duck]

Hi again Jim,
Its getting late, so I may be a bit abrupt. I apologize in advance :)

What argument does that represent? That's no argument that I've made. I don't justify my presuppositions by looking at other worldviews. It's not a process of elimination. One way of seeing it is to say, if logic exists and human experience is intelligible, then the God of the Bible exists. Since logic exists and human experience is intelligible, therefore, the God of the Bible exists. It's a modus ponens line of reasoning. P implies Q. Given P, therefore Q.


This is the TAG argument in a nutshell, I hope you are not making changes as you go along. Since you are being very obscure about your actual argument, I've had to try to make it for you. Please present it in Syllogism form. How the heck to you justify your presuppostions?
I'm too tired to look back, but I am sure you invoked the infamous "The impossibility of the contrary", or in slightly varied form. Possibly "Without God, use of Logic is not rational". How can you tell if a worldview that excludes God is not rational? You invoke logic, and therefore use your presuppositions to justify your presupposition.

Regarding the P -> Q you posted, how do you know that logic exists? How do you know the human experience is intelligible? Can you prove any of these? I'm not denying them, I'm asking how you know them to be true.
And how do you justify the modus ponens itself?

I beg you, I implore thee, please please please don't say "I already have" to any of the above. If you feel you have, then you have not done it clearly enough. I am still fighting a shadow, and others have mentioned the same. If your argument is so compelling, it should be in your best interests to be crystal clear. With multiple syllogisms, there is less room for misunderstandings.

Also, how do you disqualify this MP:
Logic exists -> Logic is part of the nature of the universe, which is eternal, infinite and transcendant.


You describe two different tasks, m_d. Justifying my use of logic is a separate issue from proving the irrationality of a competing worldview.

Proving the irrationality of a competing worldview requires logic. Using logic requires justification for logic. The only way you get justification for using logic, is by proving the irrationality of a competing worldview requires logic. See a circular pattern?


Of course, Logic relies on my presupposition. That is always the case, whether one is a theist or a non-theist. Your use of logic relies on blind faith in magic. Faith is the foundation of reasoning. In the case of the Creationist, reasoning is based on faith in the Creator. In the case of the anti-Creationist, reasoning is based on blind faith in magic.

Stop the press!
Your whole reasoning is based on your faith in a creator? So much for absolutes. I don't share your faith, so your whole argument means very little to me. Your presuppositions are unfounded (well, unless you call faith a foundation), unjustified, and you are irrational according to your own definition.

I wouldn't call my faith in logic blind. I have seen it work for every second of my waking existance, which gives me good reason to assume it is true. Ditto for gravity, etc.


If that's what I were doing, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I don't use my premise to prove my premise. That's the point of a transcendental argument. The whole point and form of the argument is to avoid question-begging. Since no one is able to transcend the use of logic, that is why one must frame the question in such a way that gets behind the premise. The way to do that is with transcendental argumentation, which asks the question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible? Or, what is the necessary set of conditions that must exist in order for logic and mathematics to function in the universe?


What are the necessary set of conditions that must exists for God to be logical? Oh, he just IS. That is part of his nature. He couldn't be any other way.

Replace "God" with "universe" and you understand why your questions make no sense.


My presuppositions are very well-founded and entirely justified, m_d. The presupposition of the existence of God and the verity of the Bible is solidly founded on its unique and exclusive ability to account for contingent experience in the human condition, and universal laws of logic and mathematics, without violating rationality. Of course, someone may claim that it doesn't make my view right, and that perhaps some other view can be shown to be superior. And while I do not believe that is true at all, even if I were to grant that, you cannot rationally claim that my view is "unfounded and unjustified."


I can and I do. According to your own parameters. All you have is blind faith in your presuppostions, which makes them, and anything you derive from them, unfounded and unjustified.


How are my presuppositions irrational by my own definition?


See above.



Everything in our experience can be rationally accounted for in the Creationist worldview. God Himself, Who transcends human experience, needs no accounting, and in fact, because He is transcendent, it should be expected that there is no accounting for God, for if He could be accounted for, He would not be infinite and transcendent.

By His power and volition. He willed it into existence, and brought it about via means not revealed.


You just contradicted yourself.

"brought it about via means not revealed" can be translated to "I don't know how". Which means you can't account for it. Which contradicts "Everything can be accounted for"

Just saying goddidit is not an account. You would be very upset if I answered all your questions with "Nature did it, by means we don't know yet".


It depends on what part of the created order you're talking about. For Israel, adultery was wrong because it was the manifestation of blatant disrespect for one's family lines, among many other things. For this current biblical economy, adultery is wrong because, among many other things, it dishonors the Headship of Christ over the church and the role of the Son in the Godhead.
It WAS a decree.


So God can have any morals. He could enjoy murdering humans, and finds it funny in a sadistic way that he decrees it they can't murder each other. There in no necessecity for God's own morals to match his decrees. You therefore have no way to know what God is really like.
Sure, it is possible that god personally dislikes murder. But it is in no way necessary.


You're trying very hard to equate logic and God as equally unaccounted for presuppositions, but the problem is, while God is self-justified, logic is not. God is volitional, personal, purposeful, powerfully creative, etc. Logic is an abstraction; it doesn't have volition, personality or purpose. It cannot sustain itself. It cannot justify itself. To believe that logic has existence the way God existence, or to believe that logic can somehow sustain or justify itself, is mythical.


What does it mean that God is self-justified?
Asking to justify a law of the universe that has existed forever makes no sense.


I wish I could, even for the sake of argument, but I can't without sacrificing rationality. I can pretend, the same way I do when I see a magician or watch a vampire movie, but I'm ever aware of the fictionality of the scenario.
Again, you're asking me to suspend my disbelief to the point of believing a myth, something that the rational mind will not abide.


Ouch! My irony meter just broke. I'll be sending you the bill :chuckle:


Really? Wow. Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?


No. What is your point? (Can't wait to finally see a classical creationist argument).


On the contrary. There are many, many reasons why I doubt it, not the least of which is the fact that a self-sustaining universe doesn't comport with reality and human experience. Every day things break, things decompose, things do not sustain themselves. If the universe is self-sustaining, it goes against everything we've learned from our personal interactions and observations of our world and everything in it. Interestingly, the Bible teaches exactly the same thing.


This is a new form of argument, one which tries to use more common sense. Please carry on.
I have never seen any supernatural events, no hand of God, no Holy Spirit, no miracles. I have never seen any of those reliably reproduced either. Everything seems to be regulated by natural laws. Human experience therefore denies a personal God. The Bible further makes the case stronger, since the God described there liked to meddle in our life here in very obvious ways, which is not what we see in the world.


So how does it make any sense that non-volitional, non-personal, non-physical entities create volitional, personal and physical beings?


They don't create physical beings. Matter has existed eternally. Natural laws do affect physical things. For example, gravity, a non personal, non volitional law of the universe, affects every piece of matter. Makes perfect sense.
See Evolution on how a non thinking bacteria can become a thinking human. No God Need Apply.
Irish are ok, though.

I need more sleep.
-mighty_duck

[Balder]

M_D,

So let me get your argument straight.
1. Presuppose God and the Bible.
2. Look at another worldview and judge that it is irrational. (repeat as necessary for all worldviews).
3. Conclude that your presuppositions are justified (true).
Spiritual regeneration is a lynchpin in Hilston's argument, if I recall. He says he doesn't use it to prove anything to unregenerate folks like you and me, but it is essential for how he "gets" his presuppositions: they are "given" or "implanted" directly by God, so that he doesn't have to look first at other worldviews, find them illogical, and then conclude that his view is correct. He starts with God giving him unwavering faith in a particular set of presuppositions, such as "God exists" and "The Bible is God's infallible word."

Just thought I should mention this; it was an important element in my discussion with him. Perhaps he hasn't brought it up because he's talking with scientists rather than another religionist.

Best wishes,
B.

[mighty_duck]

M_D,


Spiritual regeneration is a lynchpin in Hilston's argument, if I recall. He says he doesn't use it to prove anything to unregenerate folks like you and me, but it is essential for how he "gets" his presuppositions: they are "given" or "implanted" directly by God, so that he doesn't have to look first at other worldviews, find them illogical, and then conclude that his view is correct. He starts with God giving him unwavering faith in a particular set of presuppositions, such as "God exists" and "The Bible is God's infallible word."

Just thought I should mention this; it was an important element in my discussion with him. Perhaps he hasn't brought it up because he's talking with scientists rather than another religionist.

Best wishes,
B.

Hi Balder,

Thanks for your comments,

I read the latter part of your exchange with Hilston, it was very interesting (especially your descriptions of budhistic beliefs I was not aware of). Unlike most creationists, Hilston does us the courtesy of seperating how he knows his beliefs are true, and how he proves it. Makes for a better debate. I don't have any illusions I will actually change Hilston's own views, which are not based on this argument. All I can hope for is to make this form of argument go away forever :)

In the end, it doesn't matter who he is debating. If his argument boils down to personal faith, it is unconvincing. In your quote, I outlined what Hilston's argument/proof is. The argument is just a circular toy without faith though...

Happy Holidays,
-mighty_duck

[Metalking]

Heard this story..thought some of you would like it.
The Christmas candycane , is it more then candy, let us take a closer look.
Holding it up you might see a sheppard's staff or holdin it down a Fisherman's hook.
The red and white stripes could have deeper meaning as well, the red could represent the
blood Jesus shed for our sins (which when licked slowly goes away).The white could
represent the purity of our Lord, the taste is also good.
Merry Christmas!

[Balder]

Jim,

In your conversation with me as well as your debate with Stratnerd, you appear to be equating "natural" with "material," concluding from that that anything that is immaterial (such as thought) is unnatural or extranatural. Similarly, you appear to be arguing that anything that transcends matter is extra-natural.

Instead of directly refuting your claims, I will offer my own views -- which I think are more coherent than the model you appear to be presenting. I would suggest that there are multiple levels to reality, and that the higher levels transcend and include the lower levels. You can observe this pattern of transcendence and inclusion in the material world (molecules transcend and include atoms, cells transcend and include molecules, organisms transcend and include cells) and in the psychological realm (with higher stages of cognition transcending and including -- building on -- lower stages). I agree with you that mind transcends and includes matter (allowing for top-down causation as well as bottom-up causation). Mind is thus is transcendent and extra-material, but I disagree that this pattern of transcendence and inclusion is un-natural. The pattern appears to be pervasive and in fact is a defining feature of the world as we know and experience it.

Does this worldview refute strict materialism? Yes. Is it compatible with theism? Yes, but not exclusively. Is it intelligible only in a Biblical paradigm? No.

You also appear to be suggesting that particular features of the world only make sense, and can only exist, if a transcendent entity also possesses them. But you do not appear to be approaching this in a consistent manner. For instance, you insist that the existence of personality and rationality demand the existence of a rational, personal God, whereas you do not likewise insist that the existence of matter demands a material God.

Personhood, in the order of the world we observe around us, transcends and includes lower orders of being (material, instinctual), but there is no reason to insist that ultimate reality must be "personal" and yet "immaterial." I believe it is more logical and consistent to maintain, as certain spiritual traditions do, that there are transpersonal realms of being, just as there are transmaterial ones. If there is an absolutely transcendent reality which is the source and ground of all manifest reality, it would transcend all of the interrelated and interdependent features of the known world.

Best wishes,
Balder

[Balder]

I can't edit, so I'm posting my modified paragraph here:

Does this worldview refute strict materialism? Yes. Is it compatible with theism? Yes, but not exclusively. Is it intelligible only in a Biblical paradigm? No. Is it compatible with an evolutionary perspective? Yes, in modified form (not tied to a materialist paradigm).

[Balder]

I know you've got your hands full, but if you respond to the above post, I would also be interested in a response to my post #347, given your strong assertions that Stratnerd's worldview leaves him stranded without justification for reliable knowledge or use of the tools of science.

I'm including it below for your convenience:

Hi, Jim,



If the whole natural world fell along with man, and if the heart of man is wicked and deceitful (both Biblical claims), then how do you know you can still trust your senses or what you see in the world, both of which are cut from the same “fallen” fabric? The universe is now messed up; its order has been overturned by our rebellion. You have admitted elsewhere that Christians are just as capable of being deceived and of having hallucinations as anyone else. In a fallen, disordered world, in a body that is wedded to sin and corruption, with a mind that is hopelessly wicked and deceitful, you have very shaky ground indeed to stand upon in making pronouncements about what is “real,” in a scientific sense, because your entire context is corrupt. You should, in fact, live in constant doubt about what you see, if in fact the Flesh (incl. your senses) and the Universe are products of the disorder Adam unleashed.

It doesn’t matter if a good and logical God gave you your senses or created the world, because our fallen, deceitful ancestors are the true “creators” of the present order we inhabit.


Aren’t you saying, essentially, that, because the believer has unwavering faith that this book contains absolute truth and is infallible, as an a priori belief, he will do everything he has to to “rationalize” what he finds in it? This recipe – starting out from such an inflexible position – will very likely work with any system of thought you come across. And, in fact, it does: It is called fundamentalism, and it has led to men to commit all sorts of logical contortions, and to carry out all sorts of violence, in order to preserve their “inviolable” position against perceived threat. A threat which, by the way, is established at the outset by taking that very position!

Do your ideas here also preclude you from being able to pass proper judgment on Evolution, as a belief system? After all, you do not believe in it with unwavering faith, and its proponents condemn you for that lack of belief in what is perfectly “evident.”


I agree with you that, in an utterly insentient or mindless universe, it is hard to explain the eventual emergence of subjectivity and sentience, along with the particular expressions of those things that you are discussing here. But I disagree that the only “answer” to the existence of sentience and rationality and meaning is to presuppose your particular worldview.


I ask because experience shows logic and reason to be quite useful, but not infallible, at least when humans employ them. You speak of the universal validity of logic, but since reason and logic are not perfect tools in human hands, I take it that you have not found them to be infallible in your own life. You have drawn wrong conclusions before, I am sure. Do you think it is possible that there might be cognitive functions that are even higher and more exact than the logical rules we follow to make sense of the world? Present research shows that many of our apparently abstract and “universal” categories of thought and “tools” of reasoning are grounded in embodied, sensorimotor experience. If you aren’t familiar with this thesis, check out Philosophy in the Flesh. If there is a supreme intelligence in and behind the universe, that intelligence may go far deeper in its knowing capacity than the connect-the-dots tools that we use.

I haven’t gotten to all of your questions, but this is what I could manage for now!

Best wishes,

Balder

[aharvey]

aharvey

Hi aharvey,

Thanks for your comments.Here is my chain of reasoning:
God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
Therefore: Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.I realize you may want further detail or clarification. I leave it to you to request exactly what you're interested in. I will be happy to elaborate.
Sigh… I think I was pretty explicit in my ‘exact interests.” So where exactly is the "Evolution is not science" conclusion logically derived here?
aharveyThere was unequivocal affirmation in his statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."
Here and elsewhere you seem to have trouble with the concept of “if.” One can accept the conclusion but reject the premise! Or are you bound to agree with my leguminous definition of supernatural?:

“If one defines supernatural as anything that involves peanut butter, then Reece’s pieces(TM) are supernatural.”
aharveyThat's the one I'm using, aharvey. We have to be careful not to confuse the supernatural (or extra-natural) itself from the application or effects of the extranatural. We all use the extranatural laws of logic and mathematics in our daily experience. But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.
See, here’s where one gets the impression that you’re doing everything you can to obsfuscate the issues. Defining all abstract concepts as being supernatural fits neither the dictionary definition nor the generally understood conception of the term; instead it trivializes the term.
aharveyStated more carefullly, I would say that which is true is the same as that which is rational, and vice versa, by the ordinary understanding of those terms.

Are you referring to an earlier post by mighty_duck? I'll have a look and try to comment later. There's a lot here I haven't read yet.

It's Stratnerd's term, aharvey. I'm using it the way he does. You can check his posts for discussion of it. He gives plenty of examples. I don't think I've violated it in any way.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I confess to being a bit stunned that you are so comfy equating “rational” with “correct.” But rather than dwell on the incorrectness (irrationality?) of that position, let me simply observe that such a view seems to equate “Is evolution science?” with “is evolution correct?,” something you explicitly argued against at the beginning. Can one be internally inconsistent and still be rational?

[aharvey]

You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions do need to be proven. Presuppositions do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]
Note that your definition refers to "one's" beliefs, "one's" thinking.

Presuppositions are completely personal and individual; they do not transcend that individual, no matter how strongly they are held by that individual. They are the ultimate conditional statement. You simply cannot use a presupposition to draw conclusions that are relevant to anyone that does not hold that same presupposition.
My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.
Okay, let’s see if you are willing to provide this chain of logic! But I do need to point out that “God’s existence” is not the presupposition that drives your arguments. You have already, and repeatedly, asserted that presupposing God is not good enough. Normally, though not always, you use the phrase “God of the Bible,” not just “God.” Your presupposition is a literal and inerrant Bible, from which you conclude God exists.
But who am I to say what your presuppositions are? Well, here’s an interesting assignment. Try to make your case starting with the presupposition of “God’s existence,” but without presuppositioning that the Bible is literal and inerrant. Now try to make your case starting with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, but without presupposing that God exists.
[QUOTE=Hilston]The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.
I’m guessing you’re using the word “proof” in your own unique fashion, but just in case, let me repeat my request that you make explicit the chain of logic that must back up a legitimate proof claim. That is, walk us through the steps that lead from “Theist using math” to “God exists. QED”
I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.
I think we’re long overdue for an explicit clarification on what exactly you mean by “justify.” Are you (here at least) trying to equate it with “prove”? It almost seems like it, given you just finished telling us that your presupposition has been proven. Throughout this debate, you keep referring to the need to “justify” our use of logic without invoking logic, but my common sense and my dictionary say that to justify something means to show that it is, um, rational. How rational do you think it is to demand, as you appear to be, that someone show the rational basis for something but explicitly forbid them from using a rational argument?
Logic would not exist.
Prove it. You apparently have the proof.
Sentences would not exist.
Prove it. You apparently have the proof.
Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence.
Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Just remember that your proofs cannot be based on your own personal presuppositions, unless you have previously proven your personal presuppositions (without invoking those self-same presuppositions, of course!).

[Clete]

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Just remember that your proofs cannot be based on your own personal presuppositions, unless you have previously proven your personal presuppositions (without invoking those self-same presuppositions, of course!).
Interesting that you demand that he do the very thing that you cannot. :think:

[mighty_duck]

Interesting that you demand that he do the very thing that you cannot. :think:

Clete,

We're not the ones making outragous claims, like "knowledge is not possible without The God of the Bible". Once a presuppositionist makes that claim, he can't just sit back and continue asserting it. He needs to prove it.

What Jim and other TAGers like to do is set up a critera where NO worldview is "rational", then point their fingers at another worldview and laugh that it isn't "rational". All we ask is that Jim explain how his worldview is "rational" by the same criteria that he rejected our worldview.

It can't be done (unless you yourself are omniscient).

[mighty_duck]

<edit>

Proof would need to include both that his worldview is possible, and that all other worldviews are impossible.

[SUTG]

"knowledge is not possible without The God of the Bible". Once a presuppositionist makes that claim, he can't just sit back and continue asserting it.

mighty_duck and aharvey,

I hate to say I told you so, but I called this back on page 5, I think. Since you heard it here first, you guys owe me a beer or something, at least.

[Clete]

Clete,

We're not the ones making outragous claims, like "knowledge is not possible without The God of the Bible". Once a presuppositionist makes that claim, he can't just sit back and continue asserting it. He needs to prove it.

What Jim and other TAGers like to do is set up a critera where NO worldview is "rational", then point their fingers at another worldview and laugh that it isn't "rational". All we ask is that Jim explain how his worldview is "rational" by the same criteria that he rejected our worldview.

It can't be done (unless you yourself are omniscient).
He has already done so several times. Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[SUTG]

Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

...and your claiming that it has happened doesn't mean that it has.

[Balder]

He has already done so several times. Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
If it has been done, I think it would be good of you or Hilston to point out exactly where this has happened. What posts? What statements? I am interested to see if the "proof" cited is anything more than bald assertions, which I've come to expect in TAG debates.

[SUTG]

I've proven that the Green Bay packers won the last ten Superbowls.

Your inability to see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[Clete]

If it has been done, I think it would be good of you or Hilston to point out exactly where this has happened. What posts? What statements? I am interested to see if the "proof" cited is anything more than bald assertions, which I've come to expect in TAG debates.
Post 363 to start. I haven't read the entire thread and so I can't site any other posts at this time, aside from the posts in the Battle Royale itself, which Jim won in round 2 by the way, or at the very least he had laid the ground work for an inescapable victory. You might start by looking in Jim's second round post for your proof, it's in there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Jukia]

Post 363 to start. I haven't read the entire thread and so I can't site any other posts at this time, aside from the posts in the Battle Royale itself, which Jim won in round 2 by the way, or at the very least he had laid the ground work for an inescapable victory. You might start by looking in Jim's second round post for your proof, it's in there.

Resting in Him,
Clete
I went back and read post 363. What a waste of time. It all boils down to the standard fundamentalist rant---the Bible says so, it must be true, I believe it cause the Bible says so, therefore it is true, only my Biblically based knowledge has any value or any truth, and on and on and on.

What nonsense.

My recollection however is that I do like some of his art. The world would have been better served if he had been doing more art rather than spending time attempting to "debate" with Stratnerd.

[mighty_duck]

Post 363 to start. I haven't read the entire thread and so I can't site any other posts at this time, aside from the posts in the Battle Royale itself, which Jim won in round 2 by the way, or at the very least he had laid the ground work for an inescapable victory. You might start by looking in Jim's second round post for your proof, it's in there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I wasted (more of) my time on 363 as well. Like I said, Jim attacks my worldview because I can't "justify" my use of logic.
While he can justify his use of logic by using the God presupposition, he can't justify the use of the God presupposition. So he has the same problem, just taken one level further.

Clete,
If this argument is so clear to you, why the smokescreen? The only thing we have a clear idea of are the presuppositions (God of the Bible, The Inerrant Bible).

How can you justify your knowledge of the presuppositions? I'm not asking who made God, I'm asking how can you prove that your presuppositions are true?

[SUTG]

What nonsense.

I'll second this. Post 363 just contains assertions of what we want Hilston (or Clete) to prove, or even show a compelling reeason to believe.

Check out this chestnut:

the use and application of the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature are justified because of the existence and attributes of God.

I think this "proof" could stand to be fleshed out a bit more. :yawn:

[SUTG]

While he can justify his use of logic by using the God presupposition...

Even the God Presupposition doesn't give any variety of justification that is worth anything. What good does this type of 'justification' even do? Hume's Problem of Induction remains even after you perform this type of pseudo-justification.

Usually the term justification is used in epistemology to refer to logical justification or rational justification for holding a belief. Why go through the trouble of inventing some sort of transcendental justification when it doesn't gain you anything?

[avatar382]

You know what I would LOVE to see?

A Christian TAGer and a Muslim TAGer debate which worldview is correct. :chuckle:

Now that would be something!

Anyone want to give a crack at what such a debate would look like?

[mighty_duck]

I've just read another thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17275) , where Clete is first introduced to this worthless argument. In the beginning of the thread, Clete asks Hilston all the questions we are asking. Jim gives him the same run around. Somewhere along the way, he must have had a "eureka!" moment, and from there on he leaves all his good skepticism behind: he directs all his skepticism at other worldviews, while being blind to his own worldview's faults. I think Clete is in a unique position to answer his own questions:


This sounds exactly like "The Bible is true because it says it is true." How am I wrong?
...

You've explained nothing! All you've done is declare conclusions without explaining how you came to those conclusions. You now seem to be saying that it is unbiblical to make such explanations but that there is no resistance to explanation.
....
No I haven't been given any [explanation]. All you've said is that the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary which would be an excellent first line of a well thought out argument but on its own it amounts to your word against the skeptic's. What is your opponent supposed to do, take your word for it?
...
I don't understand your resistance to fleshing out the arguments for your own position.
...
What precisely is that argument then? It seems to me that it amounts to "God exists because the Bible says He does."
If so, why is the Bible true? "Because God wrote/inspired it."
How do you know that God inspired it? "Because the Bible says He did."
I'm sorry Jim but if this is about how it would go, you just don't get any more viciously circular than that! This cannot be a valid argument.

How am I wrong?
...

It would seem to me to be only fair that if Jim is saying that your presuppositions are invalid and his are valid that he should at least be willing to explain why this is true. Like I'm always reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so.
...
Very well then, by what means are [the grounds for claiming objectivity] justified?
...

I think that the point everyone is trying to get you to see is that without having done the work to establish this all you are really saying amounts to "I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise." Surely you can see that this just will not do! You've jumped to the conclusion without telling the story. You've told the 'what' without saying anything about the 'why'.
In order for you to establish this it would be necessary to walk through at least part of this one logical step at a time and clearly show how the opposing world-view is logically incoherent. Just declaring that it is incoherent isn't going to convince anyone of anything.



It would be great if Clete could walk us through that "eureka!" moment. Flesh out Jim's arguments like He himself once wanted.

Unless of course he became wise to the fact that this isn't a rational argument at all. It is a parlor trick aimed at putting an unprepared unbeliever in a tight spot, while holding a holier-than-thou attitude. And of course drawing fire away from his own indefensible fairy tale worldview.

[Johnny]

Hilston should have shown why evolution is unscientific even under the accepted and used definition instead of making up his own definition to suit his purposes.

[Hilston]

Hi Johnny,

Hilston should have shown why evolution is unscientific even under the accepted and used definition instead of making up his own definition to suit his purposes.My claim is that evolution as defined by Stratnerd is scientific ("... In a broad sense organic evolution, ... can be thought broadly of as change in populations through generations. ... So changes in mean height that are attributable to changes in genotype (and not changes in diet, etc) can be considered evolution.") I distinguished evolution (lower case "e") from Evolution (upper case "E"), using Stratnerd's other definition: "Another definition, and the one that interests most readers here, is evolution as an explanation for the diversity we see today. So this is the same definition as the broad scale but restricting it to longer time scales thus becoming a historical hypothesis or theory." By this definition, Evolution is not scientific, for two reasons:

(1) Because the Evolutionist paradigm invokes presumptuous claims that extend beyond the purview of the scientific method; and
(2) Because the Evolutionist scientist is unable to justify his most fundamental assumptions regarding the tools he uses to do his science.

Here are some excerpts from the debate that should help:
A. What Evolution Is Vs. The Underpinnings And Implications of Evolution
I understand Stratnerd's concern about my statements concerning Evolution. I recognize that my criticisms extend beyond the definitions he and I agreed upon. That is not a mistake; it is quite deliberate and justified. In my defense, I will say that I have not ignored the definition of Evolution that Stratnerd and I agreed upon, nor was it my intent to give it a meaning that scientists would dispute. Rather, I have sought to evaluate Evolution on the basis of what it, by the agreed-upon definition, claims and the necessary underpinnings and implications of those claims. I have no problem with Stratnerd's definition. What I have a problem with is Stratnerd's refusal to acknowledge the necessary foundation and ramifications of the agreed-upon definition.

B. Science is Science; Evolution is Magic
Stratnerd accuses me of arguing that "science is not science." On the contrary, and by the example with which I opened this post, I have every confidence in the methods of science. What I am skeptical about is the paradigm of its practitioners. Science is science as long as it conforms to the scientific method that Stratnerd correctly defined. When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific. When one proffers a proposition that ventures outside or beyond the reach of the scientific method, then it is no longer science. Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalists and Evolution as a paradigm are guilty on each count, respectively.

...

Despite the devastating quotes from the various architects of Evolutionary dogma, I will continue to restrict my critique to Stratnerd's definition of Evolution. What I will not do, however, is bury my head in the sand next to Stratnerd's in order to pretend that his definition of Evolution does not impose grave, irrational demands upon its proponents, or does not impose significant, far-reaching and incoherent ramifications by its claims.

1. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview demands that its proponents exclude all matters extra-natural from consideration. It is a self-refuting premise. It is an unjustified stipulation. It is, itself, extra-natural in its very essence. Without any means whatever to justify the E/MN hypothesis (see below) without committing the logical fallacy of question-begging, the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist must adopt a belief in magic.

2. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview involves irrational ramifications, not the least of which is the inability to justify the tool and methods, the necessary implications that life spontaneously generated from non-life, that singularity spawned diversity, that universal laws and Newtonian physics plopped out of acausal chance and randomness.[/b]Hope that helps. Gotta run.

Jim

[Jukia]

You know you have reached the end of the line when you don't even bother to read Hilston's "explainations".

[sentientsynth]

Now Jim will imply that I have been borrowing from the creationist toolbox. Have I? Maybe. I just do not care.

Congratulations on your victory, Hilston.

SS

[Johnny]

You already admitted that your criticisms "extend beyond the definitions" stratnerd and you agreed upon. You surely recognize that you've stepped outside of the acceptable definitions in order to make an argument.
I recognize that my criticisms extend beyond the definitions he and I agreed upon.
By this definition, Evolution is not scientific, for two reasons:
(1) Because the Evolutionist paradigm invokes presumptuous claims that extend beyond the purview of the scientific method; andA change in allelic frequency is an observation. That does not qualify as a presumptuous claim that extends beyond the purview of the scientific method. This same definition applied to a broader time scale scale is an explanation for diversity. That does not qualify as a presumptuous claim that extends beyond the purview of the scientific method. This is a scientific explanation which fits the criteria of science.

(2) Because the Evolutionist scientist is unable to justify his most fundamental assumptions regarding the tools he uses to do his science.No definition of science but the one you made up requires justification of fundamental assumptions (i.e. axioms). You will not find a definition of science that says that all axioms must be justified before real science is being done.

Science is science as long as it conforms to the scientific method that Stratnerd correctly defined. When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific.Hilston, the definition of science does not require justifications of its axioms. Stratnerd is entirely correct in accusing you of arguing science is not science. No science--be it quantum physics, organic chemistry, or evolutionary biology--requires the justification of its axioms. This has never been a requirement. The organic chemist no more justifies his axioms than the evolutionary biologist. You're trying to selectively exclude evolutionary science from the "science" catagory while retaining things like chemistry and physics. It can't happen. The only rebuttal you offer is that you disagree with the "paradigm of the practitioners". But the paradigm of the physical chemist is the same paradigm of the evolutionary biologist. Your argument falls flat on its face.

Despite the devastating quotes from the various architects of Evolutionary dogma, I will continue to restrict my critique to Stratnerd's definition of Evolution.Don't be the creationist who argues with quotes.

1. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview demands that its proponents exclude all matters extra-natural from consideration. It is a self-refuting premise. It is an unjustified stipulation. It is, itself, extra-natural in its very essence. Without any means whatever to justify the E/MN hypothesis (see below) without committing the logical fallacy of question-begging, the Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist must adopt a belief in magic.The physicists worldview requires the same thing. So does the chemists. So does the ecologists. So does the cell biologists. So does the biochemists. So does the genetecists. So does the astronomers. So does the astrophysicists. So does the evolutionary biologists.

2. The Evolutionist/Methodological Naturalist worldview involves irrational ramifications, not the least of which is the inability to justify the tool and methods, the necessary implications that life spontaneously generated from non-life, that singularity spawned diversity, that universal laws and Newtonian physics plopped out of acausal chance and randomness.The physicists worldview requires the same thing. So does the chemists. So does the ecologists. So does the cell biologists. So does the biochemists. So does the genetecists. So does the astronomers. So does the astrophysicists. So does the evolutionary biologists.

Hilston, it is science itself that mandates this worldview--not the evolutionists. Evolutionists are just another practitioner of science. By definition science does not require justification of its axioms (they are axioms, afterall). By definition science does not consider the supernatural. ALL SCIENCE REQUIRES THIS WORLDVIEW, NOT JUST EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE. Your continual denial of this is bordering on dishonesty. Just claim that science is unscientific and be done with it. That's what you're arguing.

[mighty_duck]

Summary of All Seven of Stratnerd's Posts

Now Jim will imply that I have been borrowing from the creationist toolbox. Have I? Maybe. I just do not care.




Strangely enough, you have hit the nail on the head, SS.
This is an excellent summary of the debate. Jim's whole argument is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. Even if he is right, Evolution is still science.

Hilston may have won, but only the debate he would have liked to have, not this one. In this debate, where the only question was is Evolution science, he has failed miserably.

I'll reserve final judgment until his last post is up though.

[sentientsynth]

Strangely enough, you have hit the nail on the head, SS.
This is an excellent summary of the debate. Jim's whole argument is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. Even if he is right, Evolution is still science.

Hilston may have won, but only the debate he would have liked to have, not this one. In this debate, where the only question was is Evolution science, he has failed miserably.

I'll reserve final judgment until his last post is up though.

I think that we were all thrown for a loop. A debate on evolution...sans biology...never thought of that!

But I think Hilston has a point, if I understand his argument correctly. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Jim's thesis is relevant. As an aspiring scientist, I think it is completely relevant.

Is Evolution more than science? Is it a philosophy? Ask Nietzsche, or Margaret Sanger, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, Carl Sagan, and on and on....

With a title such as "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction" we aren't gauranteed where the debate will take us. And this is where Hilston took us: the very nature of science/knowledge (scientia = knowledge). I don't think calling shenanigans is warranted.

SS

[Johnny]

With a title such as "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction" we aren't gauranteed where the debate will take us. And this is where Hilston took us: the very nature of science/knowledge (scientia = knowledge). I don't think calling shenanigans is warranted. He's thrown out all of science. As an aspiring scientist, you of all people should be calling shenanigans.

[mighty_duck]

Is Evolution more than science? Is it a philosophy? Ask Nietzsche, or Margaret Sanger, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, Carl Sagan, and on and on....

With a title such as "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction" we aren't gauranteed where the debate will take us. And this is where Hilston took us: the very nature of science/knowledge (scientia = knowledge). I don't think calling shenanigans is warranted.

SS

Hilston made a distinction between evolution which he accepts, and Evolution which he does not.
I think we should have had another category, called Evolution, which includes both evolution and biological Evolution, and add a worldview on top of that. Accepting a worldview is probably not scientific, and is more of a philosophical issue. So Evolution is not science. But has stratnerd ever claimed it is? Hilston has been tearing down a strawman.
Has he managed to establish the claim that Evolution must entail Evolution? not even close, he just asserts it without any backing. Evolution is science. This has not been challanged in the slightest.

[sentientsynth]

He's thrown out all of science. As an aspiring scientist, you of all people should be calling shenanigans.
I'm not calling shenanigans because:
1. I understand that epistemology takes primacy over science.
2. The debaters have the right to take the argument anywhere they want pertaining to the words "evolution" and "science" and even "fiction."
3. I have no vested interest in the outcome of this debate. If I were dissatisfied with any part of it, I'd ask for a single clarification. If I still weren't satisfied, I'd politely dismiss myself.

Johnny, saying something like "he's thrown out all of science" tells me that you don't understand Hilston's thesis at all. He hasn't thrown out "all" of science. That science "works" in spite of one's ontological beliefs was one of his major points.

Maybe you just haven't evolved to the point where you can get it.


SS

[SUTG]

Hilston has performed the philosophical equivalent of sawing off the tree branch upon which he was perched. If we buy into the Hume stuff, all uses of induction are unjustified - including Hilstons ample use of the Inductive principle.

Hilston, Clete, Bahnsen, and the rest of the transcendentalists cannot come up with a justification of their own. They try a God-of-the-Inductive-Gaps, but they can't really do much other than simply repeating themselves. Their justification reduces to repeating from the following pool of statements:

:dead:"Only the Christian God can justify induction"
:dead:"The Christian God justifies induction, by the impossibility of the contrary."
:dead:"Only the creationist has a justification for induction."
:dead:"Atheists must borrow from the Creationist worldview to justify induction"
:dead:"One must pretend to be a creationist to justify induction"

Well...here we are, 32 pages into this thread, and we still haven't seen the justification! Transcendentalists pracically invented the phrase "impossibility of the contrary", but they stopped there. Once they came up with the flashy phrase, I guess they thought their work was done.

If you perform a Goggle query for the phrase "impossibility of the contrary" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22impossibility+of+the+contrary%22) , you'll find a boatload of other transcendentalists repeating the same phrase, ad nauseum. What you won't find is a proof of the claim.

The TAG is over, folks. It is a great introduction to Hume's Skepticism, but it has nothing to offer beyond that.

[sentientsynth]

Accepting a worldview is probably not scientific, and is more of a philosophical issue. Accepting a world-view is inescapable. I do it, you do it, Stratned does it, even if we vociferously deny it. I've heard such claims as "I hold no belief...". With a little poking and prodding, this breaks down completely.


Demanding the word "biological" be added to this debate demonstrates a false assumption. You assumed. Pie in the face.

SS

[sentientsynth]

:dead:"Only the Christian God can justify induction"
:dead:"The Christian God justifies induction, by the impossibility of the contrary."
:dead:"Only the creationist has a justification for induction."
:dead:"Atheists must borrow from the Creationist worldview to justify induction"
:dead:"One must pretend to be a creationist to justify induction"
.

You forgot one:

:dead: "Evolution isn't science due to the rational impossibility of the contrary."


SS

[Johnny]

Johnny, saying something like "he's thrown out all of science" tells me that you don't understand Hilston's thesis at all. He hasn't thrown out "all" of science. That science "works" in spite of one's ontological beliefs was one of his major points.I've seen Hilston claim science still works. I responded way back with "Yet by your own admission (your endorsement of uniformity), the proper application of logic should yield the same result whether done by a methodological naturalist or a Creationist. It is your job to show that the methodological naturalist has not properly applied his axioms." As you claim, valid science can be done with the wrong paradigm. Yet Hilston turns around and claims, "When one presumes to do science without a justified cogent basis for what one is doing, one is being irrational and not scientific." Are you saying science is valid even with the wrong paradigm? Hilston disagrees..

1) Do you agree that the evolutionary biologist and the quantum physicist have the same paradigm?
2) Do you believe that the physicists justifies his basis for the axioms he is applying while the evolutionist does not? WHY?

You must answer no to (1) and yes to (2) and support both of these to continue holding your position. But you can't and you won't.

When Hilston asserts that evolution is unscientific because of the paradigm of the practioners, why does this not apply to the paradigm of the physicists? Why is quantum physics valid science while evolutionary biology is not valid science? Both practitioners have the same paradigm.

Maybe you just haven't evolved to the point where you can get it.How childish.

[sentientsynth]

1) Do you agree that the evolutionary biologist and the quantum physicist have the same paradigm?

YES! (Oh no! There goes Johnny's argument!)Though they operate in disparate fields, they both operate under the same guiding principles. What's at stake, Johnny, is if these very guiding principles are justified.

2) Do you believe that the physicists justifies his basis for the axioms he is applying while the evolutionist does not? WHY?

No! (Wrong again Johnny!) Without proper epistemological foundations, all of thinking [insert whatever science] becomes futile and imploded.

You must answer no to (1) and yes to (2) and support both of these to continue holding your position. But you can't and you won't. You silly boy.



How childish. How unimaginative. If you're going to insult me Johnny, do it proper now. I know, it's tough. Try thinking outside the box. Like this:

Maybe if you'd get bit by a radioactive spider you'd understand the argument.


SS

[Balder]

Hilston, Sentientsynth, and other Christians sympathetic to the presuppositionalist argument:

I've started another thread entitled, An Open Challenge to Presuppositionalists. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24755) I'm putting this post here because Knight suggested I PM Hilston to let him know I started that thread. I am putting this note here instead because while I respect Jim as a debate partner, I am aware he has his hands full and I would like to invite other perspectives, approaches, as well. Sentientsynth, I mentioned you because I know you are familiar with Ravi Zacharias' ministry and apologetic style, and I think that such an approach would be beneficial to this inquiry.

[Johnny]

YES! (Oh no! There goes Johnny's argument!)Though they operate in disparate fields, they both operate under the same guiding principles. What's at stake, Johnny, is if these very guiding principles are justified.In case you were just skimming, my argument wasn't built on you saying no. My argument was that you have to say yes. Thus, the science a quantum physicist does is no more scientific by Hilston's standards then the science an evolutionary biologist does. You are doing Hilston a disservice. Thanks for the admission, though.

"Johnny, saying something like "he's thrown out all of science" tells me that you don't understand Hilston's thesis at all."You just admitted he did.

No! (Wrong again Johnny!) Without proper epistemological foundations, all of thinking [insert whatever science] becomes futile and imploded.The debate is over whether or not evolutionary science is science, not whether scientific thinking is futile and imploded. You just admitted defeat. Science is not science, according to Hilston.

"You must answer no to (1) and yes to (2) and support both of these to continue holding your position. But you can't and you won't." You can't answer no and yes respectively. You didn't. I was right.

[sentientsynth]

Johnny,

Read this several times before responding.

In case you were just skimming, my argument wasn't built on you saying no. My argument was that you have to say yes. Thus, the science a quantum physicist does is no more scientific by Hilston's standards then the science an evolutionary biologist does. You are doing Hilston a disservice. Thanks for the admission, though. Hilston isn't arguing evolutionary biology. Keep up. This was never what this debate was about, though some desperately wanted it thus. I expected it, but didn't get it. (So no shenanigans, right?)

Scientia=Knowledge=Epistemology. A=A=A. If the quantum physicist philosophically undermines his own competence to verify truth, then nothing and absolutely nothing that ever comes out of his mouth can be said to be a justifiable representation of reality within that quantum physicist's schemata of understanding reality. He must borrow from another worldview in order to lay claim to any truth, whether it be evidenced a thousand times over or not. (The Japanese solved x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where x, y, and z are the legs of a right triangle up to the tens of thousands, yet never proved the theorem mathematically. The man who did, Pythagoras, is who we credit with the theorem, and justified the use of this theorem universally within mathematics.)

The Evolutionist does just this sort of "worldview borrowing." Hilston has handed all of you sound reasoning on a palatable platter repeatedly, yet all of you stumble over this very treasure as if it were hidden in the darkness of a cave. Then, once you realize your face is in the floor of the Earth, you rise complaining because you never saw this. Open your eyes and look around. The truth is plain to all, as it has been sufficiently manifested to all by what has been created, the order of the material and the immaterial.

Johnny, you said that I had to say such and such and what not. You were talking out of the wrong side of your mouth. Where's your spidey-senses, Peter Parker? The debate is over whether or not evolutionary science is science,Wrongo....you assumed. Pie in the face number two. not whether scientific thinking is futile and imploded. The term "scientific thinking" is what must be fully defined. It is the definition of this term that is the crux of this debate.Science=Knowledge. Scientific thinking = A method of ratiocination that accurately and precisely represents reality, giving knowledge of facts beyond the mere subjective perception of such. Outside of a Creator that fashioned the subjective psyche to represent objective reality accurately and precisely, there is no rational foundation for presupposing the commensurability of the noumenal and the phenomenal. The man who doesn't presuppose such a pre-fashioning of the psyche to the non-psyche throws the monkey wrench in his ratiocination at step one of the process. Why haven't you yet grasped it, fellow Christian?

Science is not science, according to Hilston. Blithering nonsense. Of course, you're using a rhetorical device to aggravate a dichotomy. I must presuppose this, or else you statement should be viewed as completely non-sensical. Kind of like saying "The color of this ice creams sounds hot on Tuesdays." Science isn't science? Are you presupposing a presupposition on the part of a man you say isn't justified in any presupposition?

Um..sorry...maybe I got carried away... :darwinsm: I presuppose that your similarly human psyche will induce the truth of the objective reality beyond your subjective phenomenological perceptions in space-time which includes the perhaps unverifiable existence of once-removed subjects existing in this same space-time, allowing you to intuit what I just meant. Now that was getting carried away.

Johnny, call it quits. My species has evolved beyond your species so that my species may perceive the existence of such realities. Such justifications are warranted within an Evolutionary worldview. Within a Creationist worldview, they aren't. So go ahead and bum from a Creationist worldview, as Stratnerd has to even carry on the previous "debate", and say that my species has no preceptual advantage beyond your species. Or [do I possess the bravery] go ahead and claim that my species hasn't yet evolved to understand the realities that your species has. Go ahead. Doing so will undermine the very existence of truth, which in itself is the fatal blow to any philosophical house of cards.

I have no expectation of you to actually consider one word of what I just said. That would be an unjustified presupposition. The existence of a transcendent Infinite which possesses the characteristics capable of ontologically grounding the existence of both the material and the immaterial is not, however.

The Evolutionists have lost this debate.

Show's over folks.


SS

[Metalking]

Knowledge in review or Science under review....as in the use of mathematics the pie formula is popping up in the result of a final outcome on several different areas, we don't know why, but it works.The more we learn , we strive to fill in the blank,and as we know the lazer and particle beam weapons of Science fiction have become Scientific facts....Leading to the observation that Evolution must be Science fiction..because it has yet to become a Scientific fact.

[Jukia]

Knowledge in review or Science under review....as in the use of mathematics the pie formula is popping up in the result of a final outcome on several different areas, we don't know why, but it works.The more we learn , we strive to fill in the blank,and as we know the lazer and particle beam weapons of Science fiction have become Scientific facts....Leading to the observation that Evolution must be Science fiction..because it has yet to become a Scientific fact.

Is that a formula for apple or blueberry "pie".
If someone else had written that I might think it was a typo; however...

Oh, and lazer is pretty cool too.

Seriously, I apologize for the one liners but you really have no concept of science.

Shadily (thanks OEJ) yours
Jukia

[SUTG]

Johnny,

Read this several times before responding.

Hilston isn't arguing evolutionary biology. Keep up. This was never what this debate was about, though some desperately wanted it thus. I expected it, but didn't get it. (So no shenanigans, right?)

Scientia=Knowledge=Epistemology. A=A=A. If the quantum physicist philosophically undermines his own competence to verify truth, then nothing and absolutely nothing that ever comes out of his mouth can be said to be a justifiable representation of reality within that quantum physicist's schemata of understanding reality. He must borrow from another worldview in order to lay claim to any truth, whether it be evidenced a thousand times over or not. (The Japanese solved x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where x, y, and z are the legs of a right triangle up to the tens of thousands, yet never proved the theorem mathematically. The man who did, Pythagoras, is who we credit with the theorem, and justified the use of this theorem universally within mathematics.)

The Evolutionist does just this sort of "worldview borrowing." Hilston has handed all of you sound reasoning on a palatable platter repeatedly, yet all of you stumble over this very treasure as if it were hidden in the darkness of a cave. Then, once you realize your face is in the floor of the Earth, you rise complaining because you never saw this. Open your eyes and look around. The truth is plain to all, as it has been sufficiently manifested to all by what has been created, the order of the material and the immaterial.

Johnny, you said that I had to say such and such and what not. You were talking out of the wrong side of your mouth. Where's your spidey-senses, Peter Parker? Wrongo....you assumed. Pie in the face number two. The term "scientific thinking" is what must be fully defined. It is the definition of this term that is the crux of this debate.Science=Knowledge. Scientific thinking = A method of ratiocination that accurately and precisely represents reality, giving knowledge of facts beyond the mere subjective perception of such. Outside of a Creator that fashioned the subjective psyche to represent objective reality accurately and precisely, there is no rational foundation for presupposing the commensurability of the noumenal and the phenomenal. The man who doesn't presuppose such a pre-fashioning of the psyche to the non-psyche throws the monkey wrench in his ratiocination at step one of the process. Why haven't you yet grasped it, fellow Christian?

Blithering nonsense. Of course, you're using a rhetorical device to aggravate a dichotomy. I must presuppose this, or else you statement should be viewed as completely non-sensical. Kind of like saying "The color of this ice creams sounds hot on Tuesdays." Science isn't science? Are you presupposing a presupposition on the part of a man you say isn't justified in any presupposition?

Um..sorry...maybe I got carried away... :darwinsm: I presuppose that your similarly human psyche will induce the truth of the objective reality beyond your subjective phenomenological perceptions in space-time which includes the perhaps unverifiable existence of once-removed subjects existing in this same space-time, allowing you to intuit what I just meant. Now that was getting carried away.

Johnny, call it quits. My species has evolved beyond your species so that my species may perceive the existence of such realities. Such justifications are warranted within an Evolutionary worldview. Within a Creationist worldview, they aren't. So go ahead and bum from a Creationist worldview, as Stratnerd has to even carry on the previous "debate", and say that my species has no preceptual advantage beyond your species. Or [do I possess the bravery] go ahead and claim that my species hasn't yet evolved to understand the realities that your species has. Go ahead. Doing so will undermine the very existence of truth, which in itself is the fatal blow to any philosophical house of cards.

I have no expectation of you to actually consider one word of what I just said. That would be an unjustified presupposition. The existence of a transcendent Infinite which possesses the characteristics capable of ontologically grounding the existence of both the material and the immaterial is not, however.

The Evolutionists have lost this debate.

Show's over folks.


SS


SentinelSynth,

Sorry, I missed the spot in your post where you justified induction. Can you please point it out to me?

thanks,
SUTG :yawn:

[sentientsynth]

SentinelSynth,

Hm..Sentinel synth

Etymology: Middle French sentinelle, from Old Italian sentinella, from sentina vigilance, from sentire to perceive, from Latin.

1. To watch over as a guard.
2. To provide with a guard.
3. To post as a guard.


I could dig that. Don't see how it could go with synthesizer though. Maybe I should change my handle to sentientsentinel. That's pretty cool. Probably too big though.

Sorry, I missed the spot in your post where you justified induction. Can you please point it out to me?

thanks,
SUTG :yawn: It's about mid-way down. I'll give you the one calorie version.

1. Induction is justified only within a universe that is uniform in its phenomenology and identity
2. Induction is justified only within the framework of a psyche that accurately and precisely portrays this phenomenology.
3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)
4. Presupposing the existence of God, therefore, justifies the use of induction.

Even reading this sentence makes you a Creationist. Congratulations on your conversion. :D Just kidding.

I'm not sure if that's TAG, or just what it is. Hilston's probably got a ball-ping hammer ready for my head. He's done such a better job than I could do probably even after I studied TAG'ers.

I'm sure you have some questions. Of course, that would mean that you reject what I said earlier, so allow me to pre-empt you and provide a fitting non-inductive reply:

:Hits Infinite Improbability Drive:

q$po 3&r a1zy6v*st m2arl on9me m`an ex? eq~@.

NORMALITY RESTORED

whew, glad that's over.


SS

[mighty_duck]

3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)


SenileSynth, (jk :p )

Please justify this line. It doesn't follow from the first two.
It also seems to be contradictary. The absolute confidence you seem to have when you claim "only" your solution is possible, and then claim that humans are incapable of such absolutes.

[SUTG]

I'll give you the one calorie version.

1. Induction is justified only within a universe that is uniform in its phenomenology and identity
2. Induction is justified only within the framework of a psyche that accurately and precisely portrays this phenomenology.
3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)
4. Presupposing the existence of God, therefore, justifies the use of induction.

Even reading this sentence makes you a Creationist. Congratulations on your conversion. :D Just kidding.

I'm not sure if that's TAG, or just what it is. Hilston's probably got a ball-ping hammer ready for my head. He's done such a better job than I could do probably even after I studied TAG'ers.


That definitely qualifies as low calorie! You've just moved your assertion into statement (3) and put the word 'guarantee' in boldface as if that somehow does the guaranteeing! What does this type of justification-by-assertion accomplish? How is this any different than not justifying it at all? What problem has been solved? Certainly not the problems made famous by Hume.

I'm sure you have some questions. Of course, that would mean that you reject what I said earlier, so allow me to pre-empt you and provide a fitting non-inductive reply:

:Hits Infinite Improbability Drive:

q$po 3&r a1zy6v*st m2arl on9me m`an ex? eq~@.

NORMALITY RESTORED

Save your typing. We get it. We know all about Hume's Thesis of Inductive Skepticism. You and Hilston present it in about every post you make. I get it. I know how it works. I understand the problem as stated. I've read Hume. I know that all humans must use induction. You've made your point over and over and over and over. Other presuppositionalists have made this point over and over and over. Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Greg Bahnsen, and Nelson Goodman have made this point over and over and over again. It is a safe bet that you don't have to give any more examples of this after the previous 30 plus pages. We can move on now...

Your thoughts on the issue are in disagreement with all of the thinkers I have mentioned above, with the exception of Hilston and Bahnsen. How did you refute them so easily? Is sentence number 3 above the magic bullet? It contains nothing except a promise of a guarantee.

We want to see how this is guaranteed.

[mighty_duck]

SS or Clete,

Let me make it easy for you. I have made this challange to Hilston, but he has stopped answering this thread.

You presuppose 1. God of the Bible. 2. Inerrancy of the Bible.
I ask:
MD1: How do you know these presuppositions are true?
TAGer1: <Insert any logical statement> (some are: The impposibility of the contrary, Without God knowledge is impossible, etc.>
MD2: How do you justify using logic to answer the last question? We can't accept the validty of the conclusion of TAGer1, without first accepting the validity of logic.

This leads to the whole argument becoming circular, and therefore meaningless as proof.

Hilston's last repsonse was that he has faith. So much for being rational...

I hope some TAGer out there has a better response for MD2.

[Agape4Robin]

It takes just as much faith to believe that God doesn't exist as it does to belive that He does.

[SUTG]

It takes just as much faith to believe that God doesn't exist as it does to belive that He does.


No.

[mighty_duck]

It takes just as much faith to believe that God doesn't exist as it does to belive that He does.

To elaborate a bit on what SUTG correctly pointed out..Not quite. For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion, rather than an a-priori faith based belief. If we were to see evidence of God today, then our worldview would be able to encompass and accept Him, without changing any of our presuppositions.

Please compare your non-belief in leprecauns, dragons, and an invisible imp on your shoulder, to your belief in God. It isn't quite the same is it? I feel the same way about that invisible imp as I do about the Christian God.

[Agape4Robin]

To elaborate a bit on what SUTG correctly pointed out..Not quite. For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion, rather than an a-priori faith based belief. If we were to see evidence of God today, then our worldview would be able to encompass and accept Him, without changing any of our presuppositions.

Please compare your non-belief in leprecauns, dragons, and an invisible imp on your shoulder, to your belief in God. It isn't quite the same is it? I feel the same way about that invisible imp as I do about the Christian God. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God? Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?

[mighty_duck]

Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God? Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?

Please ask yourself the exact same questions regarding leprechauns. I think our answers will line up perfectly.

[Agape4Robin]

Please ask yourself the exact same questions regarding leprechauns. I think our answers will line up perfectly.:loser:

[Just Tom]

This debate has been the worst one yet..

Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo...

How or by what mechanism that has been demonstrated, does evolution produce a cat from a dog or a alligator from a fish.

Evolution can't give an example, all it can to is conjecture about how but no science. no documented cases thus it don't pass the muster. And if they say that it accures to slowly to see then it fails on the non-falseafiable clause of the definition of what science is.

So it is not science but fantasy.. a nice one though

[Agape4Robin]

This debate has been the worst one yet..

Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo...

How or by what mechanism that has been demonstrated, does evolution produce a cat from a dog or a alligator from a fish.

Evolution can't give an example, all it can to is conjecture about how but no science. no documented cases thus it don't pass the muster. And if they say that it accures to slowly to see then it fails on the non-falseafiable clause of the definition of what science is.

So it is not science but fantasy.. a nice one though
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Just Tom again.:bang:

[mighty_duck]

:loser:

How can I compete with such a witty retort. But it is expected of an aleprechaunist. :wave:

[Agape4Robin]

How can I compete with such a witty retort. But it is expected of an aleprechaunist. :wave:A what?:confused:

[Metalking]

Is that a formula for apple or blueberry "pie".
If someone else had written that I might think it was a typo; however...

Oh, and lazer is pretty cool too.

Seriously, I apologize for the one liners but you really have no concept of science.

Shadily (thanks OEJ) yours
Jukia
I will never recieive any awards for my lazy spelling. Pi or Laser....etc...
You don't like my views on science , I just hope you
understand..neener neener neener..: )

[Agape4Robin]

I will never recieive any awards for my lazy spelling. Pi or Laser....etc...
You don't like my views on science , I just hope you
understand..neener neener neener..: )This works well too.................:nananana:

[Metalking]

This works well too.................:nananana:
Thanks..I needed that..: ) :second:

[jhodgeiii]

To elaborate a bit on what SUTG correctly pointed out..Not quite. For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion.The reason why you don't believe in God is because He does not behave in a way you think He should. Period. Being an agnostic would be more intellectually honest.

Please compare your non-belief in leprecauns, dragons, and an invisible imp on your shoulder, to your belief in God. It isn't quite the same is it? I feel the same way about that invisible imp as I do about the Christian God.You should also feel the same about the oxygen you breathe. Have you, personally, ever seen an oxygen atom? How do you know that oxygen atoms are truly filling your lungs in the very breaths you're taking right now? How would you convince the layman standing next to you as you breathe that oxygen atoms exist? He could easily blow off all your assertions saying that this substance that you call "oxygen" is a figment of your imagination unless you can show him the atoms. But seeing isn't always believing, is it?

Blessed are those who believe in Christ, yet never saw Him. God knew there would be people like you who lead people to doubt His existence. The ones who love Him will seek and find Him...

...some others would go against their own logic believing that blind forces of nature could even design an animal with complete systems allowing it to safely and efficiently vault to the moon and back to take advantage of a resource there that became sparce here on earth.

Sadly, I wouldn't put it past you that you actually believe that this can happen given eons of time. I'll go with believing in my invisible Creator God way before this kind of lunacy.

Some of you guys have been watching too much Star Trek.

[sentientsynth]

Howdy folks,

In this reply I'll be addressing both mighty_duck and SUTG.

You had both asked about...

3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)



___________________________________________



m_d --

It doesn't follow from the first two.
This line is intended to stand alone from (1) and (2).

It also seems to be contradictary. The absolute confidence you seem to have when you claim "only" your solution is possible, and then claim that humans are incapable of such absolutes. Saying that humans do not possess infinite knowledge is qualitatively different than saying we don't possess the ability to know a particular datum absolutely. I maintain that humans may possess absolute knowledge, yet may not possess infinite absolute knowledge. So my statement isn't contradictory.



________________________________________




SUTG --

We want to see how this is guaranteed. It is guaranteed by the competence of a powerful Creator to fashion the psyche so as to represent objective reality accurately and precisely.



___________________________________________



m_d --


You had made this open post --

You presuppose 1. God of the Bible. 2. Inerrancy of the Bible.

Sorry m_d. I think this qualifier disqualifies me. I do not presuppose these. I'm new to presuppositionalism. My apologetic includes evidentiary/deductive argumentation. I can't speak for TAG'ers. That's why I had said earlier that Hilston probably has a ball-ping hammer ready to take to my forehead. I don't want to speak for presup'ists when I'm not one. At least I don't think I am.

_______________________


Also posted by m_d --

For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion, rather than an a-priori faith based belief.

You must have a different definition of atheism than I do. In its purest form, atheism is logically self-refuting. Most atheists are really soft-agnostics who don't like calling themselves ignoramuses. Such is more rational and intellectually honest, to my mind.



Barrels of Monkeys,

the Senile One