Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[mighty_duck]

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.

The difference between an (hard) agnostic and an atheist is mostly to do with how one defines knowledge. Also, a God may be so poorly defined, as to leave Him meaningless, in which case you agnosticism is a justified position (not even knowing what you are asked to disbelieve).
Soft agnostics is a position I have more respect for.

In the case of the Christian God, I consider myself an Atheist. I do not believe such a creature exists.

Are you agnostic about leprechauns? Do you sit and wonder if they in fact exist? How about a million other fantasies I may throw your way?
If you're intellectually honest, you will say you at least lack belief in them.


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?

Are you really comparing oxygen to leprechauns? There is a difference between not seeing something, to having no verifiable proof. I can perform hundreds of test to verify the existence of oxygen. I can build falsifiable hypothesis with regard to the atom, and actually try to falsify it in the real world. I can't do that with either leprechauns or God.

...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.


I agree that evolution is counterintuitive at first. It is likewise counterintuitive seeing a flat earth, but being told it is actualy a sphere.(My daughter keeps disbelieving this, she can't accept that people on the other side don't fall off :) ) Likewise that the seemingly solid chair I'm sitting on is actually mostly empty space. That I am actually hurtling through space at an amazing speed along with the rest of the planet. First impressions and simple logic can be deceiving

And finally, nature didn't "design" us, we evolved along with other creatures on this earth. There is a subtle difference, we weren't nature's ultimate plan.

[mighty_duck]

Hi Sentinel Sith,


It is guaranteed by the competence of a powerful Creator to fashion the psyche so as to represent objective reality accurately and precisely.


You are saying one of two things:
a. It is guaranteed as the only possibility because I presupposed it. In which case: how do you guarauntee your presupposition is correct? If you go this route, you will be begging the question very soon.
b. It is guaranteed as a possibility because of your definition of God. In which case how do you guarauntee it is the only possibilty?


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.


Glad to hear it. Keep your intellectual integrity, it is a very underrated quality.


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.


Why is atheism logically self refuting?
See my post above regarding agnostics.

[sentientsynth]

Hi Sentinel Sith,

Call me Senile Sentinel for a while.

You are saying one of two things:
a. It is guaranteed as the only possibility because I presupposed it. In which case: how do you guarauntee your presupposition is correct? If you go this route, you will be begging the question very soon.
b. It is guaranteed as a possibility because of your definition of God. In which case how do you guarauntee it is the only possibilty?
I'm saying that the existence of a God which fits this definition would guarantee our epistemological competence. This isn't intended to prove the existence of God. It's intended to provide a non-circular basis for establishing the commensurability of the objective with the subjective. It's my thesis that no other basis does this properly.


Glad to hear it. Keep your intellectual integrity, it is a very underrated quality.I gotta fortune cookie one time that said: "Sincerety is your greatest asset." We have to be honest with each other if we plan on getting anywhere, I say.


Why is atheism logically self refuting? It claims to possess infinite absolute knowledge, which no human is capable of having.

I read your definition of atheism, that the "Biblical God" doesn't exist. That's not real atheism. But I can dig what you're saying.


Sincerely,

SS (Silly Satyrist)

[jhodgeiii]

The difference between an (hard) agnostic and an atheist is mostly to do with how one defines knowledge. Also, a God may be so poorly defined, as to leave Him meaningless, in which case you agnosticism is a justified position (not even knowing what you are asked to disbelieve).
Soft agnostics is a position I have more respect for.

In the case of the Christian God, I consider myself an Atheist. I do not believe such a creature exists.Thanks for clarfying this.Are you agnostic about leprechauns? Do you sit and wonder if they in fact exist? How about a million other fantasies I may throw your way?
If you're intellectually honest, you will say you at least lack belief in them.I don't; do you? Out of the literally billions of galaxies out there and the infinite creative ability of Evolution, can you honestly say "leprechauns, dragons, and invisible imps" absolutely do not exist?

[Highline]

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

Your just not reading from the right sources. Evolution anticipates results (fossil finds) that are proven true again and again.

I doubt cats came from dogs, but they had a common ancestor (that was not either of them) millions of years back.

We have plenty of documented cases, tons of fruit flies for example, but also birds that are seperating into different species in California. There are others. And of course domesticated animals speed up evolution and are a good demonstration: think of the variety of dogs, for example.

A lot theories in physics happen slowly, no one says physics is not science.

[One Eyed Jack]

Your just not reading from the right sources. Evolution anticipates results (fossil finds) that are proven true again and again.

The global flood anticipates fossil finds as well.

I doubt cats came from dogs, but they had a common ancestor (that was not either of them) millions of years back.

Here you're speaking (purely speculatively) about macro-evolution. There is no evidence that dogs and cats share a common ancestor -- just a belief that they do.

We have plenty of documented cases, tons of fruit flies for example, but also birds that are seperating into different species in California. There are others. And of course domesticated animals speed up evolution and are a good demonstration: think of the variety of dogs, for example.

Now you're talking about micro-evolution, which doesn't help your case. All your fruit flies are still fruit flies. All your birds are still birds. All your dogs are still dogs. They aren't changing into anything else.

[mighty_duck]

Sentimental Sith,
It's intended to provide a non-circular basis for establishing the commensurability of the objective with the subjective. It's my thesis that no other basis does this properly.

It is non-circular only because you treat your presuppositions as true.

What we are asking, is for you to prove your "thesis". You have to show that no other God type could possibly fill those shoes. And you must use the same methodolgy, IE presuppose another god, treat that presupposition as true, and see if you encounter any problems. Any inconsistencies should easily be removed with ad hoc explanations, but I welcome you to try.


It claims to possess infinite absolute knowledge, which no human is capable of having.

I read your definition of atheism, that the "Biblical God" doesn't exist. That's not real atheism. But I can dig what you're saying.


I'm not sure which atheists you have encountered, but your skewed understanding of what atheism is seems to come from creationist propaganda, rather than actual atheists.
No atheist worth your time will claim to have absolute knowledge. In fact, you will have to show that absolute knowledge for a human is even possible before you can demand it from anyone. If you give some thought to what we consider "knowledge", you will notice it is often wrong, and certainly not absolute. Demanding such a standard will mean we can't know anything (see radical skepticism), which renders the word meaningless.


I don't; do you? Out of the literally billions of galaxies out there and the infinite creative ability of Evolution, can you honestly say "leprechauns, dragons, and invisible imps" absolutely do not exist?

See my comment above about so called absolute knowledge. In the terms that we can know anything, I know that leprechauns and God don't exist: I've seen zero reliable evidence for either. Carl Sagan put it in better terms with "The Dragon in my Garage"
http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

[mighty_duck]

Now you're talking about micro-evolution, which doesn't help your case. All your fruit flies are still fruit flies. All your birds are still birds. All your dogs are still dogs. They aren't changing into anything else.

When does a fruit fly stop being a fruit fly? When there's a physical difference? When there is a genetic difference? When they can no longer reproduce with other fruit flies?

What defines a species?

[One Eyed Jack]

When does a fruit fly stop being a fruit fly? When there's a physical difference? When there is a genetic difference? When they can no longer reproduce with other fruit flies?

What defines a species?

You tell me.

[mighty_duck]

You tell me.

No, you're the one who made the claim that only micro evolution has been observed, so it is up to you to define what you meant by that claim. What would be considered enough evolution to be considered macro-evolution?

[One Eyed Jack]

No, you're the one who made the claim that only micro evolution has been observed,

Are you disputing this?

so it is up to you to define what you meant by that claim.

Everybody here knows exactly what that claim means. If you don't, then maybe you need to catch up before you rejoin this conversation.

What would be considered enough evolution to be considered macro-evolution?

You tell me. I don't believe you can get enough.

[One Eyed Jack]

No, you're the one who made the claim that only micro evolution has been observed, so it is up to you to define what you meant by that claim.

And come to think of it, I don't recall making this claim. So I'm not obligated to define anything for you.

[Agape4Robin]

And come to think of it, I don't recall making this claim. So I'm not obligated to define anything for you.And another right jab...........mighty_dumb looks confused.:box: :confused:

[mighty_duck]

And come to think of it, I don't recall making this claim. So I'm not obligated to define anything for you.

Then what were you doing in post 506?? :confused: Here's your quote:
Now you're talking about micro-evolution, which doesn't help your case. All your fruit flies are still fruit flies. All your birds are still birds. All your dogs are still dogs. They aren't changing into anything else.

Are you disputing this?.
Everybody here knows exactly what that claim means. If you don't, then maybe you need to catch up before you rejoin this conversation.


I need to understand what you are claiming in order to actually dispute this. Every creationist has a different definition for what constitutes micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Science doesn't really recognize the line between them. So please enlighten us on what you think the difference is. If you can't bother to do so, don't bother to make any claims.
If your answer includes the words "species" or "kinds", then please define what the differences between species are. I am not nitpicking here, and I know the dictionary definitons for them. It is just that if I were to make this definition for you, and then disprove it via observed evolution, you would just claim that you had a different definiton in mind.


You tell me. I don't believe you can get enough.

Finally, a grain of truth. No matter how different a species is produced via observed evolution, you will always claim it is micro-evolution. Even If I turn a dog into a cat :)

[One Eyed Jack]

Then what were you doing in post 506??

Looks like I was pointing out that the documented cases of 'evolution' that Highline was referring to were examples of micro-evolution.

I need to understand what you are claiming in order to actually dispute this.

Apparently, you're wanting to dispute a claim that you made, mighty_duck. If that's what you want to do, explain what you meant, and then dispute it.

Every creationist has a different definition for what constitutes micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Whatever gave you that idea?

Science doesn't really recognize the line between them.

Sure it does. Myopic evolutionists haven't got a lock on science.

So please enlighten us on what you think the difference is. If you can't bother to do so, don't bother to make any claims.

Like I said -- if you don't know the difference then you need to do some more research before you rejoin this conversation.

If your answer includes the words "species" or "kinds", then please define what the differences between species are.

Why don't you define the difference between species?

I am not nitpicking here, and I know the dictionary definitons for them.

Then don't bother asking me.

It is just that if I were to make this definition for you, and then disprove it via observed evolution, you would just claim that you had a different definiton in mind.

You're gonna disprove species via observed evolution? I've gotta see this -- go ahead and present your definition.

Finally, a grain of truth. No matter how different a species is produced via observed evolution, you will always claim it is micro-evolution.

I'm not aware of any that turned out to be that different. What are the biggest change you know of? Hair color? Size? Fertility cycle? These aren't exactly major changes.

Even If I turn a dog into a cat :)

You're not going to turn a dog into a cat.

[mighty_duck]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:
Looks like I was pointing out that the documented cases of 'evolution' that Highline was referring to were examples of micro-evolution.

Define what you mean by micro-evolution. If there is only one definiton it should be easy for you, but we both know it isn't so cut and dry. I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what you meant, you will have to do that. It is painstakingly clear that you are avoiding this definition at all costs, even though you brought it up. As it stands, your assertion is meaningless.

[Agape4Robin]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:


Define what you mean by micro-evolution. If there is only one definiton it should be easy for you, but we both know it isn't so cut and dry. I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what you meant, you will have to do that. It is painstakingly clear that you are avoiding this definition at all costs, even though you brought it up. As it stands, your assertion is meaningless.Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Swing and a miss!!!!!!!!!!!!:dizzy:

[Hilston]

I'm not sure where I left off, or where I should pick up. I did a search on my name and hit upon this particular post by might_duck:

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?Why does it matter how I know? Aren't you more concerned about how you can know?

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?My use of logic in answering that or any question is justified by the existence and attributes of God.

We can't accept the validty of the conclusion of TAGer1, without first accepting the validity of logic.Do you question the validity of logic?

This leads to the whole argument becoming circular, and therefore meaningless as proof.It only seems that way to you, m_d, because, as I've pointed out to you previously, you to readily conflate separate arguments and proofs.

Hilston's last repsonse was that he has faith. So much for being rational ...All rationality, all knowledge, all science, all logic is based on faith, m_d. The foundation of faith does not invalidate or make irrational the use of logic that is based upon, provided that faith does not itself undermine logic or the intelligibility of human experience.

I'll try to catch up slowly at first. A lot has gotten away from me.

Cheers,
Jim

[Agape4Robin]

I'm not sure where I left off, or where I should pick up. I did a search on my name and hit upon this particular post by might_duck:

Why does it matter how I know? Aren't you more concerned about how you can know?

My use of logic in answering that or any question is justified by the existence and attributes of God.

Do you question the validity of logic?

It only seems that way to you, m_d, because, as I've pointed out to you previously, you to readily conflate separate arguments and proofs.

All rationality, all knowledge, all science, all logic is based on faith, m_d. The foundation of faith does not invalidate or make irrational the use of logic that is based upon, provided that faith does not itself undermine logic or the intelligibility of human experience.

I'll try to catch up slowly at first. A lot has gotten away from me.

Cheers,
JimHIlson lands one square on mighty_dumb's nose!:box: :eek:

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,

Glad to have you back. When you have time, please reply to post 437, where we last left off.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=973365&postcount=437


Why does it matter how I know? Aren't you more concerned about how you can know?


Of course. I'm asking how you can prove it.


Do you question the validity of logic?


No. I question how you can justify using it. Using logic to prove your presuppositions is circular, since your presuppositions are used to justify your use of loigc.


All rationality, all knowledge, all science, all logic is based on faith, m_d. The foundation of faith does not invalidate or make irrational the use of logic that is based upon, provided that faith does not itself undermine logic or the intelligibility of human experience.


This would all be cleared up if you could make your argument plain, preferably in the form of a syllogism.

How can you say that faith is rational? By definiton, it is belief without proof, so is by nature irrational. This makes your whole argument irrational by your own definition.

Unless I misunderstood you. If faith is a valid foundation, then your presuppositions are in fact axioms. If that is so, then we can finally discuss which axioms are "better", since both our worldviews are logically valid. How is faith in "magic" axioms logically different than your faith in your presuppositions?

[Highline]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:


Define what you mean by micro-evolution. If there is only one definiton it should be easy for you, but we both know it isn't so cut and dry. I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what you meant, you will have to do that. It is painstakingly clear that you are avoiding this definition at all costs, even though you brought it up. As it stands, your assertion is meaningless.

I think it is fair to say that the documented observed cases are micro-evolution. The general idea is micro-evolution + tons of time = macro evolution. The difficulty is that the amount of time is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, but that does not mean it did not happen.

As for your earlier "the flood would anticipate this claim" the fossils have been discovered in different layers and even different types of bedrock (in the case of pre multi cellular life), a flood would not do this. Plus, new inter step or link fossils are constantly found.

Now remember, I don't have to prove evolution to win here (I am not a scientist), I am just saying it is legitimate science. It anticipates things that are found, and it has been observed.

I

[Highline]

On that previous post, I meant to quote One Eyed Jack. He said he did not make the claim that micro-evolution had been observed, but that I did. He is right, but he did concede it, I think. Anyway it does not matter.

[One Eyed Jack]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:


Define what you mean by micro-evolution.

Geez, dude. Look it up in the dictionary. Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=microevolution).

[One Eyed Jack]

I think it is fair to say that the documented observed cases are micro-evolution. The general idea is micro-evolution + tons of time = macro evolution.

There is no justification for making this claim. Sharks have supposedly had tons of time, but they haven't really changed very much in millions of years (if indeed, they've existed that long, which I doubt). Look at megalodon, and then look at its descendants (white sharks) -- as far as we can tell, all it did was shrink.

The difficulty is that the amount of time is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, but that does not mean it did not happen.

It doesn't mean that it did, either.

As for your earlier "the flood would anticipate this claim" the fossils have been discovered in different layers and even different types of bedrock (in the case of pre multi cellular life), a flood would not do this.

Why wouldn't it? How do you think those fossils got stuck in the rock to begin with, if they weren't buried there by flooding? And how do you propose they fossilized in the absence of moving water?

Plus, new inter step or link fossils are constantly found.

Constantly? I don't think so. And whether or not such things are even found at all is debatable.

Now remember, I don't have to prove evolution to win here (I am not a scientist), I am just saying it is legitimate science. It anticipates things that are found,

If evolution is a legitimate science on that basis, then so is creation.

and it has been observed.

Macro-evolution (look it up, mighty_duck) has never been observed.

[One Eyed Jack]

On that previous post, I meant to quote One Eyed Jack. He said he did not make the claim that micro-evolution had been observed, but that I did. He is right, but he did concede it, I think.

Yeah -- I conceded it. Mighty_duck seems to be the one who has a problem with it, although I have to admit, I'm not sure if he's going to try to argue that micro-evolution hasn't been observed, or that macro-evolution has. Either claim sounds equally preposterous to me. Maybe he has something else in mind.

[Metalking]

The fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.
The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC
In 1997 B.C Video released the program Jurassic Art with the Acambaro segment which was originally supposed to have been a part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man." The program features Neil Steede, President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society, attempting to debunk the collection, claiming it is of recent manufacture. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples from the Juisrud type ceramics (one of a human figure and the other a dinosaur figure) to an independent C14 laboratory. Startling results came back. The human figure was dated at 4,000 years BP (Before Present) and the dinosaur figure at 1,500 years BP.

[Metalking]

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Job 40:15-24

[One Eyed Jack]

A tail like a cedar? Sounds like a sauropod dinosaur to me.

[Johnny]

sentientsynth,

Read this several times before responding.Don't insult me. I always do my best to understand what I'm arguing against. The same cannot be said of you. Having had one or two run-ins with you before, it has become entirely obvious that you don't always understand the argument you're presenting. Remember the plasmid (or "plastid", according to you) argument you got into with me? Your sources contradicted themselves and you didn't even pick up on it (here) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=954739&postcount=117). Further, you confused "plastid" with "plasmid" and even linked me to a definition of "plastid" (here) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=954376&postcount=106). Had you read your own link you would have realized that the two are very different things. You clearly have devoted much time to developing the creationist trait of flaunting your words and parading victory, both admirable traits amongst creationist circles. You even flaunted victory in the same sentence that you admitted you didn't understand the argument you just posted (here) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=954510&postcount=113). You've already demonstrated that you pick your conclusion then look for an argument to support it. You're shaping up to be a real good creationist. Hopefully you don't lose that blind support edge you have.

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?)I have been keeping up.

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.)Is what the physicist does called "science"?

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?I said that you had to answer that way to continue presenting your argument. I was assuming competence. I will recap below for you.

Wrongo....you assumed. Pie in the face number two.The debate is titled "EVOLUTION: Science or Science Fiction?". That's what stratnerd is aruging. If Hilston is not arguing this then he has lost the debate with respect to the title. However, it appears Hilston was arguing this. The last sentence of Hilton's opening post was, "Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."

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?Don't call what I said blithering nonsense and then follow up with the most blatant obfuscation and misdirection I've seen in awhile.

You managed to go a whole post without addressing what I was saying. Once again you completely mischaracterize my argument. Again, both admirable traits for a creationist.

Here's what I'm arguing:

Me: "1) Do you agree that the evolutionary biologist and the quantum physicist have the same paradigm?"
You: "YES"
Me: "2) Do you believe that the physicists justifies his basis for the axioms he is applying while the evolutionist does not?"
You: "No!"

So you've admitted that the quantum physicist and evolutionist have the same paradigm. You've also admitted that neither is justified in his application of the axioms. Does the quantum physicist do science?

--If yes, why does the evolutionist NOT do science?
--If no, then you have thrown out all of science.

[Hilston]

Hi mighty_duck,

Of course. I'm asking how you can prove it. Your original question went:You presuppose 1. God of the Bible. 2. Inerrancy of the Bible.
I ask:
MD1: How do you know these presuppositions are true?Based on m_d's preceding clarification, let's change MD1 to:MD1: How can you prove these presuppositions are true?Didn't we cover this, m_d? The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything. The inerrancy of the God's testimony in the Bible is already affirmed in the preceding proof.

I asked m_d if he questions the validity of logic. He replied:No. I question how you can justify using [logic]. Using logic to prove your presuppositions is circular, since your presuppositions are used to justify your use of loigc.All truth claims are ultimately circular, but not necessarily question-begging. I could be mistaken, but I though we went over this.

This would all be cleared up if you could make your argument plain, preferably in the form of a syllogism.The problem with your request for a syllogism is two-fold: (a) In the very request, you affirm what you're asking me to prove, and (b) the existence and atttributes of God are not the conclusion, but a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning.

How can you say that faith is rational? By definiton, it is belief without proof, so is by nature irrational. This makes your whole argument irrational by your own definition.And everyone else's, m_d. Should we then just stop what we're doing, acknowledge that everything is ultimately based on faith and therefore we can't know anything rationally? If you want to equate non-rational with irrational, then you truly have reduced all knowledge and logic to utter absurdity and radical skepticism.

Unless I misunderstood you. If faith is a valid foundation, then your presuppositions are in fact axioms.Axioms are self-evident truths that are generally accepted without proof. I don't believe there is any such thing that meet those criteria. If you think there is, then please name one.

If that is so, then we can finally discuss which axioms are "better", since both our worldviews are logically valid.Your worldview cannot use the phrase "logically valid" without presumptuously hijacking it from God, which means your worldview is not logically valid.

How is faith in "magic" axioms logically different than your faith in your presuppositions?Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions, regardless of how much time, space, randomness and chance you want to invoke. Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical. Logic tells us that the creative work of the personal, volitional supreme Being of God is logical.

Regards,
Jim

[Johnny]

The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.Why are you justified in presupposing logic and proof?

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,

MD1 to:MD1: How can you prove these presuppositions are true?Didn't we cover this, m_d? The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

How would you know that without using logic? You are using using logic that is justified by your presupposition, to prove your presupposition. This can't be valid proof!


All truth claims are ultimately circular, but not necessarily question-begging. I could be mistaken, but I though we went over this.


What's the difference between circular reasoning, and question begging? Both are invalid as a form of proof.


The problem with your request for a syllogism is two-fold: (a) In the very request, you affirm what you're asking me to prove, and (b) the existence and atttributes of God are not the conclusion, but a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning.


All I'm asking for is a simple way to understand your argument. It seems like a circular toy so far. But after 7 lengthy debate posts, and 500 posts in this thread, we are no closer to understanding what you are actually arguing,
To borrow some terms from the IDiots: You are obviously a bright guy, and you have an excellent way with words. The fact that you still haven't been able to convey your argument in a clear way can't be the result of random chance! It is clearly the result of an inteligent designer, writing in such a way as his argument can't be pinned down and disasembled. Your posts are irreducably obscure. :)

Here's an example (my best guess so far)

"God is a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning."
How do you prove that?
"Without God, you can't prove anything"
How do you prove that?
"All other worldviews crumble into irrationality when closely examined."
You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?
God is logical, and He created the world to be logical.
How do you prove God exists?
<circular answer> Because "Without God, you can't prove anything"
<faith based answer> Because I have faith in Him.

Is this close?

And two others:
Can you account for God?
That is a non-sensical question. God always was and therefore needs no account.
Can you account for how God created a logical world?
"by means not revealed" or in other words "I don't know".


And everyone else's, m_d. Should we then just stop what we're doing, acknowledge that everything is ultimately based on faith and therefore we can't know anything rationally? If you want to equate non-rational with irrational, then you truly have reduced all knowledge and logic to utter absurdity and radical skepticism.


Exactly! You happily apply radical skepticism to other worldviews, but applying it to your own is off limits. You are the one who equated non-rational axioms as being irrational.


Axioms are self-evident truths that are generally accepted without proof. I don't believe there is any such thing that meet those criteria. If you think there is, then please name one.


In the context of a logic system, an axiom is a presupposition that is accepted without valid proof. Like your two presuppositions, or any of my presuppositions. They function as the starting point of our logic systems. We both accept them with a certain amount of faith. But you discount my presuppositions for reasons that discount your own presuppositions just as easily.


Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions, regardless of how much time, space, randomness and chance you want to invoke. Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical. Logic tells us that the creative work of the personal, volitional supreme Being of God is logical.


How does logic tell us that? Things change all the time. You posit a false assertion of things becoming their "contradictions". Food that is hot becomes cold. Water that is sweet becomes salty. creatures that are alive become dead.
If you want to talk about unbridgable gaps, then look no further than the spiritual - physical gap in your God fantasy. If you can't tell me how a spiritual creature affects the physical world (not in broad terms, but in mechanics), then you shouldn't dare to ask me about any mechanics of my worldview.
"I don't know" or "Nature did it" has just as much explanatory power as goddidit.

Faith in "magic axioms" is non-rational, just like faith in God. If one is illogical, than so is the other. You can't have it both ways.

Your worldview is guilty of the same "failures" that you accuse mine of. It is based on non-rational faith, and an inability to account for our basic existance.

Should we throw our arms up in the air then? Of course not! Just throw your criteria for evaluating a worldview out the window.

[Johnny]

How would you know that without using logic? You are using using logic that is justified by your presupposition, to prove your presupposition. This can't be valid proof!Bingo. That was the purpose behind my question "Why are you justified in presupposing logic and proof?" Hilston has argued that his belief in God justifies logic and proof. But then he turned around and said "The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything."

presuppose God -> justify proof, logic -> prove presupposition with logic that was justified by your presupposition.

[noguru]

Bingo. That was the purpose behind my question "Why are you justified in presupposing logic and proof?" Hilston has argued that his belief in God justifies logic and proof. But then he turned around and said "The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything."

presuppose God -> justify proof, logic -> prove presupposition with logic that was justified by your presupposition.

Yes, Hilston's argument from Descarte's tongue;

"I believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I can use logic."

OR

"I do not believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I cannot use logic."

Clete has a similar argument.

But at least Hilston is well-read, polite, and has a clear communication style. Which unfortunately works to his disadvantage, because you quickly get a grasp of the bankruptcy of his argument. I prefer Biblical literalists who are vague and cryptic. Because it is much more of a challenge figuring out their argument.

[Jukia]

The fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.
The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC
In 1997 B.C Video released the program Jurassic Art with the Acambaro segment which was originally supposed to have been a part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man." The program features Neil Steede, President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society, attempting to debunk the collection, claiming it is of recent manufacture. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples from the Juisrud type ceramics (one of a human figure and the other a dinosaur figure) to an independent C14 laboratory. Startling results came back. The human figure was dated at 4,000 years BP (Before Present) and the dinosaur figure at 1,500 years BP.

Got a cite for this? I need a comedy for this evening

[Knight]

Now that BR IX is over let us know who you think won the battle by voting here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24821).

[Hilston]

Hi Mighty_Duck,

Hilston wrote: The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

How would you know that without using logic?What does it matter how I know this, m_d? What matters is how you know anything. What I know is irrelevant to what you know, m_d. I can account for the things I know, be they known logically or non-rationally. No other worldview can give such an accounting without self-contradiction, question-begging and/or internal incoherence. That's what the Bible teaches, and I've yet to be presented with anything that shows this claim to be in error.

You are using using logic that is justified by your presupposition, to prove your presupposition. This can't be valid proof!Why not? It is perfectly valid to use one presupposition to prove another. Besides, what else are you going to use, if not logic? I'm interested in what you might suggest as an alternative.

Hilston wrote: All truth claims are ultimately circular, but not necessarily question-begging. I could be mistaken, but I though we went over this.

What's the difference between circular reasoning, and question begging? Both are invalid as a form of proof.The circular reasoning to which I refer is not offered as proof of anything. It is an inherent and inevitable characteristic of all reasoning. Question-begging is a logical fallacy described as assuming that which one is trying to prove as part of one's proof. Such as using one's eyes to prove one's ability to see. Or using induction to prove the inductive principle.

Hilston wrote: The problem with your request for a syllogism is two-fold: (a) In the very request, you affirm what you're asking me to prove, and (b) the existence and atttributes of God are not the conclusion, but a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning.

All I'm asking for is a simple way to understand your argument. It seems like a circular toy so far. But after 7 lengthy debate posts, and 500 posts in this thread, we are no closer to understanding what you are actually arguing, ...No one is forcing you to stick around, m_d. Despite all your protests, you have not been able to show any flaw in my reasoning, which is about as straightforward as it can get. I understand it fine, as do many others. I've found that those who have the most difficulty are those who are hostile to seeing it. You have a vested interest in not understanding my reasoning, and in the absence of any cogent critique of it, all your plaints come off as anecdotal: You just don't like what I'm saying.

Here's an example (my best guess so far)

"God is a necessary major premise of any valid chain of reasoning."
How do you prove that?
"Without God, you can't prove anything"
How do you prove that?It is proven by asking this 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? By your own questions, you should be seeing the necessity of transcendental argumentation. The whole point of transcendental reasoning is to be aware of, and careful about, the fallacy of question-begging. Since no one is able to transcend the use of logic, one must frame the proof in such a way that gets behind the premise. The way to do that is with transcendental reasoning. This form of argument approaches the issue from a meta-level, and asks the question: what are the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience?

"All other worldviews crumble into irrationality when closely examined."
You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?My use of logic is justified by the existence and attributes of God. We've covered this, m_d.

"God is logical, and He created the world to be logical."
How do you prove God exists?We've also covered this, m_d. The proof of the existence of God is that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

<circular answer> Because "Without God, you can't prove anything"It's not circular. These are separate arguments. Why are you not getting this? Justifying logic is not the same as proving the existence of God. Proving the existence of God is a separate argument from justifying logic. Try to get this, m_d. I don't know how much longer I can sustain repeating myself.

And two others:
Can you account for God?
That is a non-sensical question. God always was and therefore needs no account.That's not my answer. Where did you get that?

Can you account for how God created a logical world?
"by means not revealed" or in other words "I don't know".I can account for it; that doesn't mean I have to understand the mechanics of it. Have I ever argued that "not knowing the means" is the same as "not knowing at all"?

Hilston wrote: And everyone else's, m_d. Should we then just stop what we're doing, acknowledge that everything is ultimately based on faith and therefore we can't know anything rationally? If you want to equate non-rational with irrational, then you truly have reduced all knowledge and logic to utter absurdity and radical skepticism.

Exactly! You happily apply radical skepticism to other worldviews, but applying it to your own is off limits.It can't be applied to mine without proving mine to be true. You cannot invoke logic at all without proving the biblical worldview. The second you employ logic, you've proven the existence and attributes of God.

You are the one who equated non-rational axioms as being irrational.I don't believe in axioms, m_d. Are you really that dense, or just pretending to be?

Hilston wrote: Axioms are self-evident truths that are generally accepted without proof. I don't believe there is any such thing that meet those criteria. If you think there is, then please name one.

In the context of a logic system, an axiom is a presupposition that is accepted without valid proof.No it's not. I reject your neologism.

Hilston wrote: Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions, regardless of how much time, space, randomness and chance you want to invoke. Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical. Logic tells us that the creative work of the personal, volitional supreme Being of God is logical.

How does logic tell us that? Things change all the time. You posit a false assertion of things becoming their "contradictions". Food that is hot becomes cold. Water that is sweet becomes salty. creatures that are alive become dead.Good grief. I'm talking about existence itself (life, laws, order, regularity, diversity) and you want to talk about physical properties? Could you have possibly picked anything more off-topic?

If you want to talk about unbridgable gaps, then look no further than the spiritual - physical gap in your God fantasy. If you can't tell me how a spiritual creature affects the physical world (not in broad terms, but in mechanics), then you shouldn't dare to ask me about any mechanics of my worldview.Where did that come from? Perhaps I had a momentary lapse in reason and I've forgotten, but maybe can you remind me: When did I ever ask you to describe the mechanics of your worldview?

Faith in "magic axioms" is non-rational, just like faith in God. If one is illogical, than so is the other. You can't have it both ways.Do you acknowledge the difference between non-rational and irrational?

Your worldview is guilty of the same "failures" that you accuse mine of. It is based on non-rational faith, and an inability to account for our basic existance.On my view, these are not failures, but features. Faith in the Creator makes sense, given our existence as humans and our experience with the world. Faith in magic axioms do NOT makes sense, no matter how you slice it.

Should we throw our arms up in the air then? Of course not! Just throw your criteria for evaluating a worldview out the window.On what grounds? My criteria, Biblical assessment of your espoused claims, eviscerates your worldview, m_d. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of justified knowledge. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." These are not my words. This is what the Bible said thousands of years ago, by allegedly primitive people who didn't know Shinola™ from a Hole-in-the-Ground®; by people who knew nothing of the bacterial flagellum or Cartesian dualism. And I've yet to find a single rational critique, after more than 7 lengthy debate posts and 500+ posts in this thread, that would compel me to disbelieve those ancient claims.

If the biblical view is so implausible, so rationally unacceptable, why haven't you been able to expose the flaw in its logic? Where is your nail-in-the-coffin argument against the biblical worldview?

Dostoevsky picked his nose in the dark.
Jim

[noguru]

The fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.
The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico
Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC
In 1997 B.C Video released the program Jurassic Art with the Acambaro segment which was originally supposed to have been a part of NBC's television special, "The Mysterious Origins of Man." The program features Neil Steede, President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society, attempting to debunk the collection, claiming it is of recent manufacture. Toward the end of the program, it is revealed that he sent two samples from the Juisrud type ceramics (one of a human figure and the other a dinosaur figure) to an independent C14 laboratory. Startling results came back. The human figure was dated at 4,000 years BP (Before Present) and the dinosaur figure at 1,500 years BP.

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate. Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from? It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

[noguru]

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate. Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from? It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

Is your handle me talking or metal king?

[Hilston]

Hi noguru,

You write:Yes, Hilston's argument from Descarte's tongue;

"I believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I can use logic."

OR

"I do not believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I cannot use logic."Perhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall, never have I made any such arguments. I don't agree with them. I've typed a massive number of words over the past 30 days, and nowhere do I recall making the claims you've assigned to me.

I notice you identify yourself as a Christian. Do you agree with the Bible when it says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"?

Sartre was a Cap'n Crunch addict.
Jim

[SUTG]

The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

So is this what you are calling your proof?! This is what you need to prove. This is the part of your argument that everyone takes issue with. This is the crux of you argument that we have been wanting you to show for the rest of the thread. I hope you're not thing that this statement in and of itself counts for some sort of proof! :dizzy:


It is proven by asking this question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible?

Anyone can assert whatever they wish. For a great example, see your quote above. However, things get interesting after the assertion. How well can the assertion be defended? You have shown that you are unable to defend your assertion.

I don't know how much longer I can sustain repeating myself.

You done a great job of it so far. Let's look at another example:

You cannot invoke logic at all without proving the biblical worldview. The second you employ logic, you've proven the existence and attributes of God.

Uh, no. Something else must be true for your quote to be true. You are not arguing transcendentally, but circularly. (and poorly)

I can assert as well. I can say "If you type a response to this post, you will have proved that the TAG is a worthless argument." I can also rephrase and repeat my assertion over for thirty pages and an entire debate. Is that a proof? If you choose to answer, the TAG will be refuted. Does this kind of argumentation impress you?

Of course, I agree that if your assertion "without God, you can't prove anything" is true, then it is also true that if m_d proves anything, it shows that God exists. Not transcendental argumentation, but dull tautology.

Your proof amounts to the following:

If God is necessary for knowledge, and knowledge exists, God exists. :yawn:

Of course, you would like to take away that first "if" by asserting it into oblivion. Sure, if God was necessary for justifying knowledge, induction, etc., you'd have a fine proof indeed. Now, you just have to show that God is necessary for justifying induction, and knowledge. Hint: Typing "God is the necessary precondition for induction" doesn't count.

This is how the TAG falls everytime.

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,
I'll cut to the core problem in your last post(and your whole argument), we'll get back to the rest later. It is completely and unequivocally circular!

Hi Mighty_Duck,
It is perfectly valid to use one presupposition to prove another.

Yes, it is logical to conclude A -> B. (A is your presupposition). If you then claim B -> A, you have a circular argument on your hands, and you can safely throw the whole thing away. This is what we have here. You claim:


It's not circular. These are separate arguments.


These are not seperate arguments, they are two halves of the same circle. Lets replace:
A = God
B = Logic

And we have your argument. Logic is true because of God. God is true because of a logical argument. If you don't believe it, look at your own words:

"Without God, you can't prove anything"
How do you prove that?
It is proven by asking this question: what must ... <logical explanation follows>
You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?
My use of logic is justified by the existence and attributes of God.
How do you prove God exists?
without Him, you can't prove anything.

We have gone full circle. Begged the question. Chased our own tail for too long.

You may claim this is radical skepticism, and you would be right. The way us humans get out of this loop is to declare axioms and end the circularity. I'm curious how you can escape this loop without those evil axioms that you are so set against using.


..you have not been able to show any flaw in my reasoning, which is about as straightforward as it can get..You have a vested interest in not understanding my reasoning, and in the absence of any cogent critique of it, all your plaints come off as anecdotal: You just don't like what I'm saying.


This is a major flaw. It can't be resolved without special pleading, which is tantamount to accepting the use of axioms. The circular nature of your argument has been pointed out to you by at least three other posters here, one of them even a christian. It has nothing to do with what I like, it is not valid logically!
I believe you have a much greater vested interest in rejecting a valid critique for it: It would undermine your entire recent debate, most of your posts on this site and other places on the web, and your whole evangelistic strategy.

[Stratnerd]

SS said

1. I understand that epistemology takes primacy over science.
If you think of epistemology as philosophy and science as based on observation then I have to disagree. Without the proverbial "reality check" we could (and obviously do) create any worldview we wanted.

Because you can create a tidy little world in your head doesn't mean the real word needs to play along.

[Hilston]

Hi SUTG,

Hilston wrote: The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

So is this what you are calling your proof?! This is what you need to prove. This is the part of your argument that everyone takes issue with.Of course they do. And everytime they do, they reaffirm the proof.

This is the crux of you argument that we have been wanting you to show for the rest of the thread. I hope you're not thing that this statement in and of itself counts for some sort of proof!Of course it is proof! It is cogent. It is intelligible. It is proof.

Hilston wrote: It is proven by asking this question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible?

Anyone can assert whatever they wish.No they can't, not without sacrificing rationality and intelligibility. It is often tried by non- and anti-theists of all stripes. Either (a) they end up asserting the existence and attributes of God under a counterfeit name (like the IPU or the FSM or the UG) or (b) they assert a conception that is self-refuting or internally incoherent.

For a great example, see your quote above.The Biblical claim is not merely one of various equally possible assertions, SUTG. It is uniquely cogent and intelligible, to the exclusion of all others.

However, things get interesting after the assertion. How well can the assertion be defended? You have shown that you are unable to defend your assertion.It's been defended, SUTG. Neither you nor anyone has been able to refute it without question-begging or appealing to magic.

Hilston wrote: You cannot invoke logic at all without proving the biblical worldview. The second you employ logic, you've proven the existence and attributes of God.

Uh, no. Something else must be true for your quote to be true. You are not arguing transcendentally, but circularly. (and poorly)What are you talking about? Everyone reasons circularly, SUTG, yourself included. That is why the argument must be made on a meta-level. How do you define a transcendental argument, SUTG? If my argument is a meta-construct, then it's transcendental. It's not exclusive to Christian presuppositionalists. Other philosophers and apologists have studied and formulated this kind of reasoning.

I can assert as well. I can say "If you type a response to this post, you will have proved that the TAG is a worthless argument."It's an empty assertion, SUTG. Transcendental argumentation (do you even know what it is?) still has worth, despite your assertion. Whereas the testimony of the Bible, that your view reduces all reasoning and knowledge to absurdity, is not empty at all, and in fact has been demonstrated.

I can also rephrase and repeat my assertion over for thirty pages and an entire debate. Is that a proof? If you choose to answer, the TAG will be refuted. Does this kind of argumentation impress you?Of course not. It is inane, incoherent, unintelligible. Whereas the Biblical proof is cogent and comprehensible and irrefragable.

Of course, I agree that if your assertion "without God, you can't prove anything" is true, then it is also true that if m_d proves anything, it shows that God exists. Not transcendental argumentation, but dull tautology.You don't seem to understand what a tautology is. Or perhaps you've forgotten.

Your proof amounts to the following:

If God is necessary for knowledge, and knowledge exists, God exists.That's not it, SUTG. God is not the conclusion. God is the major premise. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Not "the existence of knowledge is the proof of God."

Of course, you would like to take away that first "if" by asserting it into oblivion. Sure, if God was necessary for justifying knowledge, induction, etc., you'd have a fine proof indeed. Now, you just have to show that God is necessary for justifying induction, and knowledge. Hint: Typing "God is the necessary precondition for induction" doesn't count.Remove God, and what are you left with? No knowledge. No induction. No intelligibilty. Utter absurdity.

This is how the TAG falls everytime.You seem so convinced, but your arguments are empty.

Hi mighty_duck,

After I read your reply, I was left shaking my head. I really don't want to be rude or disrespectful. Your post seems to have been written by someone else. Or perhaps I'm just starting to detect something that I should've seen earlier.

I'll cut to the core problem in your last post (and your whole argument), we'll get back to the rest later. It is completely and unequivocally circular!With that I have to ask: Do you know what a circular argument is, m_d?

Hilston wrote: It is perfectly valid to use one presupposition to prove another.
Yes, it is logical to conclude A -> B. (A is your presupposition). If you then claim B -> A, you have a circular argument on your hands, ...Look m_d, you really need to consult a textbook or some website that will give you some of the basics of rhetoric, and then come back. The stuff you're saying is embarrassing, and you don't seem to even be aware of it.

Hilston wrote: It's not circular. These are separate arguments.

These are not seperate arguments, they are two halves of the same circle. Lets replace:
A = God
B = Logic

And we have your argument. Logic is true because of God. God is true because of a logical argument.Where did you get that, m_d? That's not my argument. I've made my argument clear. You've even repeated it back to me. But then you invent these rejiggered non sequitur predications that are NOT my arguments.

If you don't believe it, look at your own words:[Hilston wrote] "Without God, you can't prove anything"
[m_d asks] How do you prove that?
[Hilston wrote:] It is proven by asking this question: what must ... <logical explanation follows>Of course, m_d. On this planet, in this universe, logical explanations are required for rational discourse and discursive reasoning. If you want some other kind of explanation other than a logical one, please tell me what kind that would be.

You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?You just changed the subject. Do you realize that?

Hilston wrote: My use of logic is justified by the existence and attributes of God.

How do you prove God exists?You just changed the subject again. Do you realize that?

We have gone full circle. Begged the question. Chased our own tail for too long.m_d, try to get this: You're embarrassing yourself. There is no question-begging going on. Do you even know what it means? You don't even seem to be constructing coherent lines of thought. You're all over the place, conflating "logical explanations" with "presuppositions" and "proofs." When you want to formulate a logical construct, you can't just say "'A' is your presupposition" and expect the chain to flow. It is flawed from the outset. Please try to understand your terms better, because it's getting silly.

You may claim this is radical skepticism, and you would be right. The way us humans get out of this loop is to declare axioms and end the circularity.Axioms do not end circularity. They merely draw a curtain in front of them: "Pay no attention to the circularity behind that curtain." It's myth-making, m_d. Blind faith in the non-existent magic of the Great and Terrible Oz Axiom.

I'm curious how you can escape this loop without those evil axioms that you are so set against using.Name a single thing I've claimed that fits the definition of an axiom: "A self-evident or universally recognized truth ... a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate."

Hilston wrote: ... you have not been able to show any flaw in my reasoning, which is about as straightforward as it can get..You have a vested interest in not understanding my reasoning, and in the absence of any cogent critique of it, all your plaints come off as anecdotal: You just don't like what I'm saying.

This is a major flaw.Do you hear yourself, m_d? Are we even having a conversation at this point? It seems you're off in some other discussion, because this stuff about axioms has no place in this discussion.

It can't be resolved without special pleading, which is tantamount to accepting the use of axioms.What does that even mean?

The circular nature of your argument has been pointed out to you by at least three other posters here, one of them even a christian. It has nothing to do with what I like, it is not valid logically!All you and these others have done is demonstrated to me that you're not even clear on what a circular argument is! SUTG doesn't know what a tautology is. What is it with you people? You bluster about, declaring tautologies and circularities and axioms, and at every turn you show that you don't know what they are. What is most egregious is the fact that you commit the very fallacies you accuse me of.

Realize that this website is not a friendly environment for the likes of me. You may not know this, but I was banned from this site a year ago. Most people on this site are diametrically opposed to my teachings and my methods of argument. I claim my methods are biblical, and I can give extensive defense for that claim that has yet to be refuted. It doesn't bother me at all that non-theists and theists alike are opposed to me. I view that as a feature, not a failure, of the biblical worldview. I find it especially significant that non-theists and theists alike, in their opposition to the biblical worldview, commit the very same fallacies and fall into the very same irrationalities in their efforts to critique the biblical view. For all your claims to refuting the claims of the Bible, you've only demonstrated a weak or non-existent grasp of the basic components of logic. Earlier you asked for a syllogism, but I've yet to see anything from your pen that even remotely resembles one. This is a common pattern that I encounter. My opponents pick up a few terms of rhetoric (tautology; petitio principii; syllogism; etc.), and suddenly they imagine they're equipped to argue like logicians. Sadly, they usually just end up embarrassing themselves. What you've written, to wit, your latest post, has demonstrated this profusely. Or perhaps you're just tired. Get some rest and come back when you're at your best.

New fresh can,
Jim

[sentientsynth]

If you think of epistemology as philosophy and science as based on observation then I have to disagree. Without the proverbial "reality check" we could (and obviously do) create any worldview we wanted.

Because you can create a tidy little world in your head doesn't mean the real word needs to play along.

Stratnerd, I couldn't agree more.

SS

[DFT_Dave]

C. S. Lewis wrote this in his book, Miracles

The self-contradiction of the Naturalist

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not to apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind I a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.

The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' The trouble about atoms is not that they are material but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.

God is rational
atoms are irrational
man is rational
man comes from God :think:

--Dave

[noguru]

Hi noguru,

You write:Perhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall, never have I made any such arguments. I don't agree with them. I've typed a massive number of words over the past 30 days, and nowhere do I recall making the claims you've assigned to me.

I notice you identify yourself as a Christian. Do you agree with the Bible when it says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"?

Sartre was a Cap'n Crunch addict.
Jim

Hi Jim,

Do you mean these quotes;

Job 28:28
And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, And to depart from evil is understanding.'

The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

Ps 34:11
Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.

Ps 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever.

Pr 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pr 1:29
Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the Lord,

Pr 2:5
Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.

Pr 8:13
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate.

Pr 9:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

or how about these:

Pr 10:27 - [In Context|Read Chapter]
The fear of the Lord prolongs days, But the years of the wicked will be shortened.

Pr 14:26 - [In Context|Read Chapter]
In the fear of the Lord there is strong confidence, And His children will have a place of refuge.

Pr 14:27
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, To turn one away from the snares of death.

Pr 15:16
Better is a little with the fear of the Lord, Than great treasure with trouble.

Pr 15:33
The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, And before honor is humility.

Pr 16:6
In mercy and truth Atonement is provided for iniquity; And by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil.

I think the ovreall thrust of these quotes is to equate "fear of the Lord" with respect for humility and the wisdom that is gained from humility. Notice how knowledge is used. Notice how humility, wisdom and understanding are used. Knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge is not understanding. The knowledge that is gained from the wisdom of humility is understanding.

Have you ever heard the saying "It is better to understand than to be understood."?

God Bless

[noguru]

C. S. Lewis wrote this in his book, Miracles

The self-contradiction of the Naturalist

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not to apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind I a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.

The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' The trouble about atoms is not that they are material but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.

God is rational
atoms are irrational
man is rational
man comes from God :think:

--Dave

This is a metaphysical conclusion that cannot be ascertained from empiricism. Since I do agree with it as metaphysical philosophy, I do not take issue with it on that level. This however, is a conclusion that is superfluous in regard to the material sciences.

[noguru]

C. S. Lewis wrote this in his book, Miracles

The self-contradiction of the Naturalist

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not to apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind I a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.

The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' The trouble about atoms is not that they are material but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.

God is rational
atoms are irrational
man is rational
man comes from God :think:

--Dave

So by your definition anyone who is rational is of God, and anyone who is not rational is not of God?

Do you realize that our neurology both the hardwiring, softwiring and the chemical messangers (neurotransmitters) have great influence on our behavior and whether behavior can be considered rational or not? So far noone has isolated any "supernatural" force that is responsible for human attitudes or behaviors. Did you know that every attitude and behavior that has been researched has been traced back to a physical part (nerve cell, chemical, and/or electrical impulse) of our neurology?

[Mr Jack]

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.

Frankly, Hilston, your choice of 'BS Evolutionist' should be beneath you.

Your first question is missing the point. Of course I think that origin of life occured by naturalistic means sometime around 3.5-4 bya. But it is not something that can be explained by evolutionary theory. The problem here is that you are treating evolution as if it were equivalent to creation as an explanation - it isn't. Evolution strives to explain things which creation doesn't, and doesn't explain things which creation tries to. A complete history of life on earth does, of course, require an explanation of how life came into existence in the first place but this explaination is not, and cannot be, evolution. At the moment, we don't have a coherant, well-understood or empirically justified explanation for the origin of life but this is not a criticism of evolution.

As to your second question, I'm baffled that any evolutionist would not consider the origin of sentience to be part of evolutionary theory. The only similarity here is that, just as with the origin of life, we don't have a clear theory for how or why sentience emerged - hardly surprising given how little idea we have about how sentience actually occurs anyway.

[aharvey]

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
Sorry you've been disappointed by this debate (as have I!), but please don't lose sight of the fact that it was Hilston's resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence that led us in this direction. That is, the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there, not because evolutionary science is short on mechanisms (interesting that you want mechanistic explanations, though; can you tell me the mechanisms by which God created a cat, a dog, an alligator, or a fish?)

[Metalking]

Got a cite for this? I need a comedy for this evening
There are many sites, enjoy : .. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html

[Metalking]

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate. Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from? It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.
I know they were faced with skeptics and took steps to avoid beibg called frauds, they actually caught labs changing results after they learned where the dig was, but I'll let you read
the events. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.. there are more sites.

[aharvey]

I know they were faced with skeptics and took steps to avoid beibg called frauds, they actually caught labs changing results after they learned where the dig was, but I'll let you read
the events. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.. there are more sites.
The best thing about the world wide web is that people can put anything there, limited only by their imagination and resources, for anyone in the world to see.

The worst thing about the world wide web is that people can put anything there, limited only by their imagination and resources, for anyone in the world to see.

On the web, more so than anywhere else, you are bound to find confidently written support for your preconceptions, whatever they may be. To borrow from a recent book title, do not confuse "never in doubt" with "right"!

[Hilston]

Hi noguru,

I asked if you agreed with the Bible when it says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. You replied: Do you mean these quotes; [snipped quotes] ... I think the ovreall thrust of these quotes is to equate "fear of the Lord" with respect for humility and the wisdom that is gained from humility.Are you saying that actual "fear (reverence) for the Lord" is not in view, but rather is a metaphor for respecting a state of mind?

Notice how knowledge is used. Notice how humility, wisdom and understanding are used. Knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge is not understanding. The knowledge that is gained from the wisdom of humility is understanding.No one is conflating knowledge and wisdom. Do you believe that justified knowledge can be gained apart from reverence for Christ?

You wrote earlier: Yes, Hilston's argument from Descarte's tongue;

"I believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I can use logic."

OR

"I do not believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I cannot use logic."
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall, never have I made any such arguments. I don't agree with them. Can you tell me why you wrote this?

Mr Jack

Hi Mr. Jack,

You write:Frankly, Hilston, your choice of 'BS Evolutionist' should be beneath you.You just don't know me well enough yet. Give me time. You'll see low I'm capable of stooping.

Your first question is missing the point.I didn't make it up, Mr. Jack. Someone else made the comparision of confusing the evolution of medicine with Evolutionary biology. All I did was formulate it as a multiple choice question.

Of course I think that origin of life occured by naturalistic means sometime around 3.5-4 bya. But it is not something that can be explained by evolutionary theory.Saga, Dawkins, Huxley and Dobzhansky all disagree with you.

The problem here is that you are treating evolution as if it were equivalent to creation as an explanation - it isn't.On the contrary, I don't think there is anything that can stand up to the Creatonist explanation at all.

Evolution strives to explain things which creation doesn't, and doesn't explain things which creation tries to.There is no "try." Evolution strives to explains things that are not problems. Evolution invented a problem in order to give man an "out" for having to answer to an intrusive Deity.

A complete history of life on earth does, of course, require an explanation of how life came into existence in the first place but this explaination is not, and cannot be, evolution.If you're sticking to the evolution (lower case "e") v. Evolution (upper case "E") distinction, I agree with you. But that's not was Sagan et al were talking about.

At the moment, we don't have a coherant, well-understood or empirically justified explanation for the origin of life but this is not a criticism of evolution.No, but it is a criticism of Evolution (u.c. "E").

Thanks for your post, Mr. Jack. It's good to hear from you.

aharvey

Hi aharvey,

You write: Sorry you've been disappointed by this debate (as have I!), but please don't lose sight of the fact that it was Hilston's resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence that led us in this direction. ...Did you read the debate, aharvey? Do you understand the problem with discussing evidence? If we both looked at evidence, we would agree right up until a conflicting assumption emerged. At precisely that point, we would be back to arguing worldviews. Pick an example; what evidence would you like to have seen discussed?

That is, the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there ...It's not that I won't go there. It's irrelevant. I don't disagree regarding the mechanism of evolution. I disagree about Evolution as an accounting for the diversity of life as we know it. You say you were disappointed in the debate. I'm not convinced you've read it , based on your comments here.

Air-cushion finish,
Jim

[noguru]

I know they were faced with skeptics and took steps to avoid beibg called frauds, they actually caught labs changing results after they learned where the dig was, but I'll let you read
the events. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.. there are more sites.

This sounds like an exageration of documented archeological discoveries from the Yucatan discussed in "They Were Here Before Columbus" by Ivan Van Sertima. In his book he builds a case that people of nubian descent landed in the new world before columbus.

Here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html)

I read his book about 14 years ago, and I don't remember Sertima claiming that any of the figures he found supported the notion from the site you posted. I think you've been had.

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

Did you read the debate, aharvey? Do you understand the problem with discussing evidence? If we both looked at evidence, we would agree right up until a conflicting assumption emerged. At precisely that point, we would be back to arguing worldviews. Pick an example; what evidence would you like to have seen discussed?

It's not that I won't go there. It's irrelevant. I don't disagree regarding the mechanism of evolution. I disagree about Evolution as an accounting for the diversity of life as we know it. You say you were disappointed in the debate. I'm not convinced you've read it , based on your comments here.

Air-cushion finish,
Jim
Did you read the post to which I was responding? Just Tom was complaining about a specific aspect of the debate that was missing. I wanted to make sure he knew why that aspect was missing.

And believe me, I have been following, as best as anyone could, your tens of thousands of style-rich, content-lite words. And I've made my objections quite clear in previous posts here. I'm curious that of my recent posts (e.g.,444 and 445), this is the one to which you choose to respond! I'm rather more interested in your answers to questions I've asked you directly.

Allow me to fix one glitch in post 445:

Originally Posted by Hilston

My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

Me: 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.

[Nineveh]

Awsome debate Hilston! Thank you for your invested time and energy :)

[SUTG]

SUTG wrote: I can say "If you type a response to this post, you will have proved that the TAG is a worthless argument."


It's an empty assertion, SUTG.

So if the italicized quote I wrote above is true, then the TAG is refuted. It can be symbolized as follows:

HR = Hilston Responds
TR = TAG refuted

HR->TR (If Hilston responds, the TAG is refuted)
HR (Hilston responded)
.: TR therefore, TAG is refuted

A great syllogism. You need to accept the major premise, and agree that you did in fact respond, and the conclusion falls out nicely by deduction. Does this refute the TAG? Of course not! At this point the major premise is as you correctly claimed, an empty assertion. The real work would be for me to show that the major premise is true. Once that is accepted, of course the conclusion is true. Everything interesting about the argument is contained in the major premise. As a matter of fact, if I could show the major premise to be true, I wouldn't even have to bother with the rest of the argument.



The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

God is not the conclusion. God is the major premise.

In the first quote, you are speaking of the God of the Bible as being proven. Saying that something is proven is the same as saying that it is the conclusion of a sound argument. That is what it means to be proven. In the second quote you refer to the God of the Bible as the major premise. Do you not think that this is a problem?

I am assuming you meant that the proposition "God exists" is the major premise. Please provide the minor premise and conclusion. If you want to argue that experience is intelligible, and God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion, then go ahead - but focus your efforts on the "God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion" part. Otherwise your proof looks alot like the proof I posted above. Once you assert a wild premise, you can prove anything.

Of course it is true that nothing is intelligible unless Christian Theism is true, provided that the attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility. Just as of course it is true that the TAG is refuted, provided that the fact that you responded to my post entails the TAG's refutation. Now, if you roll up your sleeves and get to work on showing that attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility, your argument will fall into place rather nicely. I'll be busy working on my proof that your responding refutes the TAG.

[Metalking]

This sounds like an exageration of documented archeological discoveries from the Yucatan discussed in "They Were Here Before Columbus" by Ivan Van Sertima. In his book he builds a case that people of nubian descent landed in the new world before columbus.

Here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html)

I read his book about 14 years ago, and I don't remember Sertima claiming that any of the figures he found supported the notion from the site you posted. I think you've been had.
Different events...This is about the discoveries of Waldemar Julsrud and further research on those artifacts.

[Knight]

Give me time. You'll see low I'm capable of stooping.:rotfl:

POTD!!!! :first: (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=981224#post981224)

[Johnny]

Hilston, what do you presuppose, logic or God?

[One Eyed Jack]

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate.

Carbon dating doesn't work like a video game that you flip over at a million points, dude. There's no way you're going to get dates between 1,500 and 5,000 years from carbon-dating an object over 50,000 years old -- there simply won't be enough carbon-14 left in such an object to give results in this range. Young dates indicate a fair measure of carbon-14 left in the object (compared to something older, anyway).

Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from?

These are artifacts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't man-made artifacts always assumed to have come from recently laid strata (in the geological sense)?

It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

What makes you say that?

[Johnny]

Suddenly, the creationists support the validity of carbon dating. I've always loved this paradox.

[One Eyed Jack]

As an aside, I find it curious that you would argue that these artifacts are too old for carbon-dating. Is this what you're intending to argue, or am I reading you wrong? It seems to me you'd rather argue that these artifacts were manufactured sometime in the last 50 years or so (in other words, a hoax).

[One Eyed Jack]

Suddenly, the creationists support the validity of carbon dating. I've always loved this paradox.

Johnny, with all due respect, I don't think you fully understand our arguments and objections concerning radiometric dating methods. Just because I know how carbon-dating is supposed to work doesn't mean I'm supporting its validity.

[Johnny]

As an aside, I find it curious that you would argue that these artifacts are too old for carbon-dating. Is this what you're intending to argue, or am I reading you wrong?I wasn't going to argue that they were too old. I wasn't even going to get involved.

It seems to me you'd rather argue that these artifacts were manufactured sometime in the last 50 years or so (in other words, a hoax).They were probably a hoax.

Just because I know how carbon-dating is supposed to work doesn't mean I'm supporting its validity.I was referring to Metalking. "Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted..." and the evidence was confirmed by "Three radiocarbon tests". Nice.

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,

I will not respond to the unfounded insults you threw my way in the last post. I feel I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone but yourself that the argument is circular. The fact that you don't even acknowledge the problem, and how you solve it, is slightly disappointing.

My main objective here is not to win an argument, but to learn and sharpen my knowledge. I feel like we've hit a dead end in this regard. With that in mind, we can move on.

Rejection of axioms

My background for using logic is in mathematics and computer science. Without axioms, there would be nothing for a logic system as I see it to hang on, which would leave us in infinite regress. Not a very useful model for making decisions.

Is your objection to using the word "axiom",
1. a problem with definitions (like the "self evident" part)? IE you are expecting a low blow like "well, we accepted axioms, and since God is not self evident, I win!". This is not my intention at all.

2. A rejection of foundationalism.

From your heavy use of the word "coherent" all over your posts, I am guessing it is the latter. I have done some reading on Coherentism, and I don't think that a debate on foundationalism VS coherentism will yield any results regarding the EOG. We may have to provide proof using both methods.

Is your proof contingent on rejecting foundationalism? If so, it is really only half a proof, where the other half would be to reject foundationalism. This seems to be somewhat of an open question among philosophers, so it would weaken your overall argument.

[ThePhy]

I think Hilston took the right approach in this debate. I know if I were him, and had a religious belief that I absolutely gave unquestioned allegiance to, I too would be cautious of how I defended it. Particularly if I objected to evolution, I would watch how those who supported it came to their conclusions. I would observe that the overwhelming majority of scientists who seriously looked at the evidence supporting evolution found it to be credible and supported it, and consequently conclude that the best thing I could do would to be to assiduously avoid that trap. I would carefully craft an approach that ridiculed evolution from a philosophical viewpoint, I would do anything but do what had proved so fatal to the acceptance of Biblical literalism by those thousands of scientists, I would avoid the evidence itself. Anything but evidence. Evidence is poison. Argue philosophy, worldviews, logic systems, intellectual integrity, but for gosh sakes, don’t dare present and evaluate a clearly itemized list of the details of the evidence.

[DFT_Dave]

So by your definition anyone who is rational is of God, and anyone who is not rational is not of God?

In the personal sence, yes, to put it in another way, anyone who is irrational is not of God and anyone who contradicts God is not of God.

This is a metaphysical conclusion that cannot be ascertained from empiricism. Since I do agree with it as metaphysical philosophy, I do not take issue with it on that level. This however, is a conclusion that is superfluous in regard to the material sciences.

What do the "material sciences" have to do with determining the existence of a non-material, supernatural God?

I think in general we could say that the "material sciences" are superfluous in regard to the debate about Gods existence just as "metaphysics" would be superfluous in regard to the study of neurology. But they also have a relationship as you point out.

Do you realize that our neurology both the hardwiring, softwiring and the chemical messangers (neurotransmitters) have great influence on our behavior and whether behavior can be considered rational or not?

Would you agree with me that "neurotransmitters" are nonrational chemicals? And that they are incapable of determining and planning what we decide to do with our lives? Or, are you saying that they do? That would be saying the cart pulls the horse instead of the other way around. What is at stake here is human freedom not just human rationality. Are you saying these chemicals, alone with other things, merely "influence" our behavior or do they "cause" our behavior as you seem to be saying in your next statement.

So far no one has isolated any "supernatural" force that is responsible for human attitudes or behaviors. Did you know that every attitude and behavior that has been researched has been traced back to a physical part (nerve cell, chemical, and/or electrical impulse) of our neurology?

All that has been demonstrated is that there is a physical, chemecal, and electrical relationship to attitude and behavior. And why would anybody consider a "supernatural force" as being responsible for human attitudes and behavior--a pantheist and a Calvinist I suppose, but not a freewill theist. And how would you "isolate" a supernatural force--call the Ghost Busters?:rotfl:

The important question here is, "are we personally responsible for our behavior or is our behavior determined soley by chemical reactions?" Can we choose between two or more types of behavior or not? If we can make a choice and we are not bound only to the physical or material, then, there exists something other than matter and that would be where our rationality is located, and the origin of human rationality would have to be an eternal rationality.

--Dave

[Metalking]

I was referring to Metalking. "Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted..." and the evidence was confirmed by "Three radiocarbon tests". Nice.[/QUOTE]
There is more evidence beyond the radio-carbon tests...it is a very interesting subject to do further research on...enjoy. :mario:

[Hilston]

Hi aharvey,

Just Tom was complaining about a specific aspect of the debate that was missing. I wanted to make sure he knew why that aspect was missing.I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

I'm curious that of my recent posts (e.g.,444 and 445), this is the one to which you choose to respond!It's probably one of two reasons: (1) I've not read your posts 444 or 445, or (2) I was so blown away by the force of your arguments and so absolutely stunned by your questions that I avoided answering the posts, hoping you'd forget all about them.

Hilston wrote: My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

Me: 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.This is false. God is not the conclusion, as I stated earlier. He is the major premise. The intelligibility of the Bible depends on God's existence. Understanding and applying the claims of the Bible depend on God's existence.

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.Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

Now try to make your case starting with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, but without presupposing that God exists.This is impossible. If the existence of God is not presupposed, the Bible is incomprehensible.

SUTG

Hi SUTG,

As a matter of fact, if I could show the major premise to be true, I wouldn't even have to bother with the rest of the argument.Of course. Modus ponens is a tautology, right? If you know all men are mortal, then you've already checked Socrates. It's merely a repitition to state that Socrates is mortal.

Quote 1: Hilston wrote: The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything."

Quote 2: Hilston wrote: God is not the conclusion. God is the major premise.

In the first quote, you are speaking of the God of the Bible as being proven. Saying that something is proven is the same as saying that it is the conclusion of a sound argument. That is what it means to be proven.The existence of God is primary. His existence is not subject to syllogistic constructs because those constructs themselves depend on His existence. Everytime you presume to formulate a syllogism, you prove His existence.

In the second quote you refer to the God of the Bible as the major premise. Do you not think that this is a problem?No. THE major premise is exclusive. Unique. Utterly singular as THE premise. Without that premise, God's existence, you can't prove anything.

I am assuming you meant that the proposition "God exists" is the major premise. Please provide the minor premise and conclusion.For what?

If you want to argue that experience is intelligible, and God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion, then go ahead - but focus your efforts on the "God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion" part. Otherwise your proof looks alot like the proof I posted above. Once you assert a wild premise, you can prove anything.The "proof" you offered above it unintelligible and non sequitur. The existence of God as the foundation of all knowledge and reason is intelligible and makes sense. What is your theory, SUTG? Where do the laws of logic come from?

Of course it is true that nothing is intelligible unless Christian Theism is true, provided that the attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility. Just as of course it is true that the TAG is refuted, provided that the fact that you responded to my post entails the TAG's refutation.Strange. Your TAG refutation makes no intelligible sense, yet the existence of God as a necessary precondition for intelligibility makes perfect sense, even if one claims to not believe in God. That is amply demonstrated every time a non-Theist tries to invoke the IPU or the FSM as a competing view.

Now, if you roll up your sleeves and get to work on showing that attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility, your argument will fall into place rather nicely.God is logical. Human beings, God's pinnacle creation, created in His image, are able to comprehend the laws of logic. God is personal. Human beings are personal. God is volitional. Humans beings are volitional. God places value on creation and human beings in particular. Humans have a concept of personal dignity. Human experience is seen to reflect the nature and attributes of God. God uniquely accounts for intelligibility in human experience.

Thanks for your posts.

Transfat: 0 grams,
Jim

[Mr Jack]

Hi Hilston,

Saga, Dawkins, Huxley and Dobzhansky all disagree with you.
I haven't read enough of Sagan, Huxley or Dobzhansky to comment on their positions; I have read quite a bit of Dawkins and he most certainly does not disagree with me. In either case, I care not, debating what somewhat else might or might not think is an exercise in pointlessness.

Evolutionary theory does not, and cannot, account for origin of life because before replication there is no natural selection and without natural selection evolutionary theory cannot be applied.

On the contrary, I don't think there is anything that can stand up to the Creatonist explanation at all.
I'm not speaking about their success as explanations but simply the domains that they seek to explain. The areas explained by evolutionary theory and creationism simply do not line up.

There is no "try." Evolution strives to explains things that are not problems. Evolution invented a problem in order to give man an "out" for having to answer to an intrusive Deity.
Oh please. Even a passing survey of the men who developed evolution and it's sister and predecessor ideas would disabuse anyone of that notion. The problems that evolution solves were found in nature. The simple, brute fact is that the earth doesn't line up with the creationist notions.

No, but it is a criticism of Evolution (u.c. "E").
If you must stick with your confusing nomenclature then, yes, I agree with you. The current inability of naturalist explanations of the universe to provide a coherant and convincing explanation of the Origin of Life is a criticism. However, to suggest that this critcism supports creationism is absurd, nothing more than god-of-the-gaps thinking.

[One Eyed Jack]

I wasn't going to argue that they were too old. I wasn't even going to get involved.

I was speaking to noguru in that post.

[Chilli]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading this thread in conjunction with the Battle Royale thread over the last couple of weeks, and it has proven quite instructive, although not for the reasons I initially thought it might.

At first, I was interested because despite what some have claimed, a formal debate where an old-earth evolutionist argues evidence with a young-earth creationist is not all that common, and I thought that this was something that would figure prominently in the discussion. Although I have read books that deal with these issues, they usually are very one-sided, and I usually end up wishing I could get people from opposing camps into the same room together to fight it out.

I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was ironically a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that first caused me to wonder whether I was on the right track in believing in a young earth, a tenet which I had never before questioned. Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt… this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.

I think it was perhaps a mistake to pit a scientist against a non-scientist, because despite Hilston’s assertion that in one sense everybody is a scientist, he clearly is not a scientist in the generally accepted sense of the word. Then again, perhaps this was not a mistake, but an intentional strategy aimed at livening up the debate. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the strategy clearly has not worked.

I say this because although Hilston conveniently claims he is loath to argue particularities when it comes to scientific evidence for evolution because he believes it will end in nothing but parties futilely lobbing facts and figures back and forth, he is apparently quite happy to do the philosophical equivalent, with the result that the debate and accompanying grandstand thread has effectively ground to a halt about half way through.

Hilston’s claim that the two clashing worldviews preclude fruitful discussion about scientific evidence has proven just as damaging to a discussion about philosophical evidence, but I think that the underlying reason for this is not so much because of clashing worldviews, but because of Hilston’s unwillingness to consider evidence that calls his own worldview into question. It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.

Hilston, I find it interesting that throughout so many posts, you have pretty much kept your cool, but you seemed to lose it at the very point where you were finally pinned down by Mighty_Duck and SUTG in posts 541 and 542. This is the crux of the issue, and the weakest link in your argument, and you had no recourse but to say things like “what are you talking about?” and resort to belittling M_D and SUTG. I was so relieved when it got to the point where you could no longer possibly pretend to not understand what M_D and others were getting at, and so disappointed by your response, as up until this very post I had held onto the hope that you really were honestly confused.

This has shown me the weakness of your argument, and led me to believe that your puzzlement at your opposition’s claims has been perhaps feigned, and your misunderstandings have possibly been purposeful. Up until this point, you have been doing nothing but running around in circles with your reasoning and muddying the waters with obfuscation, and when you were cornered, you crumpled.

Hoping I am wrong,

Chilli

[SUTG]

Originally Posted by Hilston
Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

Except that you haven't made the case. This is the part that is still missing. The case is what we want. If the existence of God is necessary for knowledge, or induction, or whatever, then his existence is shown by the existence of knowledge, or induction, or whatever. However, note that this is a conditional statement and a tautology. Making a claim is not the same as making a case. You've made a claim. The proponenets of the FSM have made a claim. How do we decide between them? Substitute any other noun in place of "God" in the above claim, accept the claim as true, and the existence of a proof entails the existence of that which is signified by the noun. Voila! But why accept the claim as true?



Originally Posted by Hilston
The existence of God is primary. His existence is not subject to syllogistic constructs because those constructs themselves depend on His existence.

The existence of God is primary and not subject to syllogistic constructs. What does this mean? Just that you accept his existence with no reason for doing so? If you claim that you accept his existence because syllogistic constructs depend on his existence, then you have accepted the truth of the proposition "syllogistic constructs depend on god" with no reason for doing so. You certainly haven't shown any reasons for anyone else to do so.




Originally Posted by Hilston
Without that premise, God's existence, you can't prove anything.

Again, this is the lynchpin. Why would anyone believe this?


Originally Posted by Hilston
The existence of God as the foundation of all knowledge and reason is intelligible and makes sense. What is your theory, SUTG? Where do the laws of logic come from?

What is my theory for what? Where knowledge "comes from"? I don't know. It is hard enough to even figure out what the question means. But what does this matter? I know I can just decide that it must have come from God, or the IPU, or the FSM. Do I just have to choose one and then I am finished? Why is the Christian God the only choice? Why is the contrary impossible?

Also, the phrase "laws of logic" is a bit odd. I can't even be sure of what you mean by saying the laws of logic. Modus tollens, first order logic, propositional calculus , modal logic...this is like asking where Godel's Theorem came from. I'd have to answer Kurt Godel.

-------------------------------------------------------

Here is my generic TAG argument:

It is a given that the universe is intelligible, induction works, knowledge is possible, syllogistic constructs are acceptable, etc.
Only X can provide the necessary preconditions for this.
Therefore X.

If anyone can find X where "Only X can provide the necessary preconditions" is true, they win.

[Hilston]

Hi mighty_duck

I will not respond to the unfounded insults you threw my way in the last post.I regret that you were insulted. It was not my intent. You were saying embarrassing things. I was hoping to urge you to be more careful.

I feel I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone but yourself that the argument is circular. The fact that you don't even acknowledge the problem, and how you solve it, is slightly disappointing.Why have you flat-out ignored what I've said? This is what makes me think that you're more concerned with "winning" than understanding. Haven't I repeatedly stated that all reasoning is ultimately circular? Haven't I repeatedly explained that there is a difference between circular reasoning, which we all do, and question-begging, which is a logical fallacy? How many times will I have to do this again? Please, please, please consult some literature that will help you with this.

My main objective here is not to win an argument, but to learn and sharpen my knowledge. I feel like we've hit a dead end in this regard.You've hit a dead end if you refuse to acknowledge the problems inherent in your approach to this discussion. You keep saying "circular, circular," which no one denies. When asked to show how I've committed a question-begging fallacy, you can't do it. If there's a dead-end, m_d, it's not coming from my end.

Rejection of axioms

My background for using logic is in mathematics and computer science. Without axioms, there would be nothing for a logic system as I see it to hang on, which would leave us in infinite regress. Not a very useful model for making decisions.Interestingly, you've identified the problem with the non-/anti-theist worldview with those last two sentences. Infinite regress is only a problem for the non-/anti-theist, which is why they're left with believing in magic. Even in a discussion about mathematical applications and software design, ultimately you have no foundation for your models.

Is your objection to using the word "axiom",
1. a problem with definitions (like the "self evident" part)?Yes, exactly.

IE you are expecting a low blow like "well, we accepted axioms, and since God is not self evident, I win!". This is not my intention at all.No, I didn't think you would go for the low blow. Despite my insults, I (rightly, I think) expected better of you. My rejection of the definition is based on having no correspondence with the real world. Nothing in creation is self-evident, except, perhaps one's own existence (the Cartesian cogito).

2. A rejection of foundationalism.

From your heavy use of the word "coherent" all over your posts, I am guessing it is the latter. I have done some reading on Coherentism, and I don't think that a debate on foundationalism VS coherentism will yield any results regarding the EOG.Actually, upon close inspection, I think the philosophically astute would probably say that much of this debate has been about this very thing. But I do think it yields results; results that most people are not comfortable with, but true nonetheless. I could tell from our earlier discussions that you leaned toward (or at least were employing) coherence theory in your reasoning. And from my reactions to those claims, you probably have guessed that I reject coherence theory as a adequate approach to truth. Also, you're right that I reject foundationalism, but that wouldn't necessarily be indicated by my frequent use of "coherence," any more than my frequent use of "foundation" would indicate my rejection of coherentism.

We may have to provide proof using both methods.This is what most Evolutionists resort to: a hybrid approach to "truth" using both methods. Of course, Evolutionists who reject the significance of justifying their tools will not see (nor care) that foundationalism and coherentism are at odds philosophically.

Is your proof contingent on rejecting foundationalism? If so, it is really only half a proof, where the other half would be to reject foundationalism.I'm surprised you want to talk about this (and encouraged -- I like this post of yours much better than your last). It is important to keep in mind something that I included in my opening post of the BRIX debate: We must not confuse *proof* with *persuasion.* I think you're getting the two confused and it is causing frustration on your end. The proof of God's existence is not contingent on the rejection of foundationalism (or coherentism), whereas, one's being persuaded by the argument for the proof of God's existence can be contigent upon seeing the failure of foundationalism (or coherentism) as an approach to truth. Of course, we know that rejection of one or the other is no sure guarantee of someone accepting the theistic argument. However, one who sees the failures of foundationalism and coherentism may more readily agree to the coherence of the theistic argument, yet still reject it for other irrational objections.

This seems to be somewhat of an open question among philosophers, so it would weaken your overall argument.Nah. There are plenty of "open questions among philosophers" that are solidly, coherently, irrefragably settled (i.e. not open at all) among Christian sanitation workers, Christian farmers, Christian beauticians, Christian TV repairmen (retired), and (take a breath, are you sitting down?) Christian journalists.

ThePhy

Hi ThePhy,

I would observe that the overwhelming majority of scientists who seriously looked at the evidence supporting evolution found it to be credible and supported it, and consequently conclude that the best thing I could do would to be to assiduously avoid that trap.It's not that sophisticated, really. I look at the claims of the Bible. I see that the claims of Evolutionists contradict it. I reject the claims of Evolutionists. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:
All claims contradicting God's Word can be shown to be false.
All claims aligning with God's Word can be shown to be true.
There is no evidence in support of claims contrary to God's Word.
All evidence that allegedly supports anti-Biblical claims have been misinterpreted or distorted by the anti-Biblical paradigm.

These are basic inferences that I draw from the teachings of the Bible. You can object all you want, and that's fine. But in so doing, you prove the Biblical worldview every time you craft a coherent sentence and attempt to bring down conclusions. You engage in the Christian mode of thinking to even make a logical connection, such as you just did when you read this sentence, just now. Right there. You did it again. You're pretending (unwittingly, most likely) to be a Christian every time you think.

I would carefully craft an approach that ridiculed evolution from a philosophical viewpoint, I would do anything but do what had proved so fatal to the acceptance of Biblical literalism by those thousands of scientists, I would avoid the evidence itself. Anything but evidence. Evidence is poison.You've missed the point, ThePhy. There are scores and scores of Young Earth Creationist scientists who are showing every day that the Old Earth Evolutionist paradigm is flawed. There are plenty of other people, experts in their respective narrow domains of natural science, that grapple daily with the evidence. Their work can be read and critiqued. Papers and books have been published. Go read them. I'm not one of those people. So isn't it somewhat odd to expect a battle of scientific evidence from someone like me?

By they way, some of the aforementioned scientists have committed career suicide by publishing; and some are still "in the closet." And no wonder. Look at what they're up against: a pervasive collective popular opinion that says scientists (read: Evolutionists) are objective, that they only report the facts, that they can be trusted and that their pursuit of truth is pure and untainted. So when someone who is bold enough to be open about his religious beliefs, how they affect his approach to science and how his research has yielded findings contrary to the popular view of the same evidence, it can be expected that he will be rejected by the "scientific" (Read: Evolutionist) community. When science is defined by who gets published and who wins the grants, we have the inevitable corrupting influence of politics and conflict of interest.

Argue philosophy, worldviews, logic systems, intellectual integrity, but for gosh sakes, don’t dare present and evaluate a clearly itemized list of the details of the evidence.If you're really interested in those details, there is, of course, the Source of Infinite Knowledge (i.e. Google). There are mountains of discussion to be found. Why should I re-invent the wheel, ThePhy?

Mr Jack

Hi Mr Jack,

[Hilston wrote:]On the contrary, I don't think there is anything that can stand up to the Creatonist explanation at all.

I'm not speaking about their success as explanations but simply the domains that they seek to explain. The areas explained by evolutionary theory and creationism simply do not line up.Please give some examples. I may be missing your point. (It does happen, despite my efforts to make myself look really really smart).

[Hilston wrote:]There is no "try." Evolution strives to explains things that are not problems. Evolution invented a problem in order to give man an "out" for having to answer to an intrusive Deity.

Oh please. Even a passing survey of the men who developed evolution and it's sister and predecessor ideas would disabuse anyone of that notion. The problems that evolution solves were found in nature.This is naive, Mr Jack. Darwin and his contemporaries knew their society had to be wooed. And of course they're all going to claim to be Christians in the most socially acceptable manner. Atheists and deists understand the danger of broadcasting that label in the public arena, even today.

The simple, brute fact is that the earth doesn't line up with the creationist notions.It's exactly the opposite, Mr Jack. The earth ONLY lines up with creationist notions. Exclusively.

[Hilston wrote]:No, but it is a criticism of Evolution (u.c. "E").

If you must stick with your confusing nomenclature then, yes, I agree with you.What is confusing about it? The nomenclature is an attempt to clarify, not confuse.

The current inability of naturalist explanations of the universe to provide a coherant and convincing explanation of the Origin of Life is a criticism. However, to suggest that this critcism supports creationism is absurd, nothing more than god-of-the-gaps thinking.I reject god-of-the-gaps thinking, whether it comes from theists or non-theists. The non-/anti-theist comes up with a naturalistic explanation. The theist fills the gap with "Goddiddit". I would join you in refuting the god-of-the-gaps (ir)rationale, but we'd be refuting your own god-of-the-gaps in the process. For you, the god isn't Jehovah, but the magic of nature; it isn't "Goddiddit," but "Magicdiddit." The Bible's claim is that both you AND the god-of-the-gaps theist have NO solid ground to stand upon, NO foundation upon which to build coherent knowledge, if you do not begin with the God of the Bible. To treat God as one of several possible explanations, or a even a plausible conclusion, is contrary to the teaching of the Bible and is an irrational formulation of how we know what we know, of how we learn and of how we reason. I know that last sentence doesn't apply to you, Mr Jack, but my point is to show how uncritical theists are in the same sinking epistemological boat as non-theists.

Thank you all for your posts.

Find us in the Asian Aisle,
Jim

[Knight]

Jim, I look forward to these responses everyday.

Excellent stuff! :up:

[Jukia]

. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:[list]
There is no evidence in support of claims contrary to God's Word.


God's Word claims young earth, correct, even young universe, correct?

Science claims otherwise, correct?

With NO evidence?

If I read Hilston right, I can stop right there. He loses. If I am reading his statement quoted above wrong then someone please enlighten me. Thanks

[Hilston]

God's Word claims young earth, correct, even young universe, correct?

Science claims otherwise, correct?No. Not "Science" -- Scientists (read: Evolutionists) claim "otherwise." Science is not a person, or anything nearing a unified collective of persons.

With NO evidence?You're missing the point. Of course there is evidence. You shouldn't have stopped "right there." The same evidence that indicts a man for murder later exonerates him when reexamined properly.

If I read Hilston right, I can stop right there. He loses. If I am reading his statement quoted above wrong then someone please enlighten me. ThanksHere is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Jukia looked at the evidence (Hilston's words), and came to a conclusion based on that evidence. There are others looking at the same evidence who would not have interpreted it in the same way as Jukia. Why is that? Was there missing information? Is English not Jukia's primary language? Or does Jukia have a worldview that is so hostile to coherent thought that he/she immediately leaped to "stop-right-there-Hilston-loses" kneejerk conclusion? For convenience to the reader, I offer a re-post of what Jukia was apparently responding to:

It's not that sophisticated, really. I look at the claims of the Bible. I see that the claims of Evolutionists contradict it. I reject the claims of Evolutionists. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:
All claims contradicting God's Word can be shown to be false.
All claims aligning with God's Word can be shown to be true.
There is no evidence in support of claims contrary to God's Word.
All evidence that allegedly supports anti-Biblical claims have been misinterpreted or distorted by the anti-Biblical paradigm.Minty Fresh Striped,
Jim

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.
Gee, I didn't give any reason at all to Just Tom for your refusal to discuss scientific evidence. So you've ridiculed the explanation I gave JT based on a reason I did not give? Putative logician that you are, would you call your claim here a red herring?
It's probably one of two reasons: (1) I've not read your posts 444 or 445, or (2) I was so blown away by the force of your arguments and so absolutely stunned by your questions that I avoided answering the posts, hoping you'd forget all about them.
Yeah, tough call, especially as you carefully pick and choose what you answer from within individual posts. But I doubt the latter, as you've already made it clear that, at least with respect to the topic at hand, your views aren't subject to revision and you're right even when you lose an argument.
This is false. God is not the conclusion, as I stated earlier. He is the major premise.
You may have stated so, but said statements are incorrect. You explicitly reject all notions of God except "God of the Bible." So God certainly doesn't qualify as a major premise in your line of argumentation (which doesn't of course mean that He's not of major importance to you!).
The intelligibility of the Bible depends on God's existence. Understanding and applying the claims of the Bible depend on God's existence.
This is completely at odds with your previously stated definition of presupposition. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then you need no other presupposition to defend its intelligibility. And you automatically and inevitably end up with, guess who? God of the Bible. So you get the God required to understand and apply Biblical claims without having to presuppose Him. Get it? Presupposing the Bible to be true and inerrant leads you to exactly the God you believe in, but the converse is not true. That is, presupposing God doesn't automatically lead one to the conclusion that the Bible is literal and inerrant. There have been literally billions of people who presuppose God and don't end up with a literal Bible. You can say, as you have, something like "well, they're all wrong!" but, sadly, that's another claim that you need to demonstrate.
Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.
No, you've made the statement, you haven't made the case. This is a non-argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what is involved in "proving" something. To prove the above statement actually requires you to do something other than state it. You know how I keep asking you for a chain of logic? Step by step, how do we inevitably end up at point B from point A. It doesn't require tens of thousands of words, just a few words, the relevant words, in the proper order.

And, furthermore, as I've remarked repeatedly, you explicitly exclude all non-Biblical versions of God, so you're being rather disingenuous here pretending that you made your (nonexistent) case "without reference to the Bible."
This is impossible. If the existence of God is not presupposed, the Bible is incomprehensible.
This is absurd. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then its comprehensibility is assured (or at least set by your comprehension skills!). And you've got your God as an automatic result. Unless you're changing your concept of presupposition, of course.

You know, I'd really be interested in your responses to the other questions in my posts 444 and 445. It's hardly surprising that you can appear to make a cogent response to every other statement I make in my own chain of argumentation.

Oh, and another question I'll repeat (it may have been in one of my earlier "overlooked" posts): can you tell me what you think the precise difference is between begging the question and circular reasoning? Your argumentation rather critically hinges on begging the question being a fatal logical error and circular reasoning being acceptable, indeed, unavoidable. Which leads me to suspect that, tossed Latin terms aside, you don't quite "get" the relationship between them.

[SUTG]

So, does anyone else here play the saxophone?

[ThePhy]

From Hilston:I look at the claims of the Bible. I see that the claims of Evolutionists contradict it. I reject the claims of Evolutionists. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following: All claims contradicting God's Word can be shown to be false.I assumed before this debate started that this would be the core of the debate. The order in which forms of life appeared as listed in the Bible, the reality of Noah’s flood and how it comports with the evidence, and so on.All claims aligning with God's Word can be shown to be true.But you chose to throw a wall up against the evidence for or against such claims, and instead argued the philosophy. These are basic inferences that I draw from the teachings of the Bible. You can object all you want, and that's fine. But in so doing, you prove the Biblical worldview every time you craft a coherent sentence and attempt to bring down conclusions. You engage in the Christian mode of thinking to even make a logical connection, such as you just did when you read this sentence, just now. Right there. You did it again. You're pretending (unwittingly, most likely) to be a Christian every time you think.No, I won’t get into a silly debate over the circularity of your arguments – that has been done again and again in this thread. Inasmuch as I do not subscribe to your theological views at all, your claims that I am hijacking its tools is as convincing to me as saying that logic and reason and order all arise from the little invisible green goblin under your bed.

If your Christian god is the source of logic and truth, in the 1700 years following Christ’s life He was spectacularly impotent at improving the world. In the couple of hundred years that science has existed as a formal discipline – operating under a naturalistic paradigm – it has made immense technological progress. Progress that is directly traceable to logic and uniformity and so on, with no need to insert God anywhere from the founding concepts to the advances it has given us. You may, and probably will, claim that to do it the gifts of logic from your narrow version of God are to be credited. Yet I still see significant measurable scientific results that that have grown exponentially since God (the supernatural) was invited to wait outside the door. In fact it is becoming more and more obvious that it is you who is trying to usurp the success of science to paint a shallow veneer of credibility on your so-called “God”.

You've missed the point, ThePhy. There are scores and scores of Young Earth Creationist scientists who are showing every day that the Old Earth Evolutionist paradigm is flawed.Yes, I saw the list of publications and authors that you gave in the debate. Most of the authors are people who have long been active in trying to make science fit YEC ideas. Some of those authors actually have respectable profession credentials, but unfortunately, not in the YEC ideas they argue.

In science, correct ideas, even if initially unpopular, eventually win out. New advances in science are built on the framework of previous ideas, and nature is not going to remake itself to support a new idea that is built on a false premise. Bad science eventually gets exposed as such. In that light, I would invite you to identify a few ideas that arose from the authors you listed, ideas that were supportive of YEC views and in conflict with mainstream science. Which of these revolutionary ideas have ultimately proven themselves as being the correct ones? A number of your authors have been active for decades. Should have some success stories by now.There are plenty of other people, experts in their respective narrow domains of natural science, that grapple daily with the evidence. Their work can be read and critiqued. Papers and books have been published. Go read them.I do. Sometimes I think too much. Well, I don’t maintain subscriptions to AIG or ICR publications, after all, even I have some self-respect. I guess I would like you to point out a couple of the ideas you are indicating to me, ideas that have passed the acid test that qualifies them for inclusion with “real” science. I will read the articles, you just tell me where they are.I'm not one of those people. So isn't it somewhat odd to expect a battle of scientific evidence from someone like me?Too late, that has become obvious. I could go to a hundred college campuses and tell the faculty and staff at each one that there is to be a debate titled “Evolution – Science of Science Fiction”, and almost every one of them would expect that to be a debate over the evidence. Except for the Philosophy Faculty, they might prefer to do as you chose to do, argue anything but the evidence. But hey, they all flunked out of science classes anyway, that’s why they ended up in the Philosophy department (or Religion department).By they way, some of the aforementioned scientists have committed career suicide by publishing; and some are still "in the closet." And no wonder. Look at what they're up against: a pervasive collective popular opinion that says scientists (read: Evolutionists) are objective, that they only report the facts, that they can be trusted and that their pursuit of truth is pure and untainted. So when someone who is bold enough to be open about his religious beliefs, how they affect his approach to science and how his research has yielded findings contrary to the popular view of the same evidence, it can be expected that he will be rejected by the "scientific" (Read: Evolutionist) community. When science is defined by who gets published and who wins the grants, we have the inevitable corrupting influence of politics and conflict of interest. .Ah yes, the ever-popular conspiracy theory. A wonderful tool for every malcontent who finds his ideas don’t make it far in the light of real science. Reminds me of the minor clerk in 1905 who dared to rip the heart out of Newtonian Physics, yet because he clearly published his reasoning and supporting data, somehow his ideas caught the eyes of the physics luminaries of his day, and now form some of the most advanced physics anywhere.

From ThePhy (previously):Argue philosophy, worldviews, logic systems, intellectual integrity, but for gosh sakes, don’t dare present and evaluate a clearly itemized list of the details of the evidence. Hilston says:If you're really interested in those details, there is, of course, the Source of Infinite Knowledge (i.e. Google). There are mountains of discussion to be found. Why should I re-invent the wheel, ThePhy?I googled, except not for evolutionary evidence, but for types of philosophical argumentation. You certainly did not reinvent the wheel on evolutionary evidence, but you showed no reluctance reinventing the wheel, bearings, axles, and brakes on arguments about philosophy and the sources of knowledge and such. And these lines of philosophical argumentation can be traced to periods even before the Christian era. And you guys still haven’t figured it out.

Pardon me while I go into the lab, purge my mind of philosophical clutter, and start doing something productive. By myself, no fictional dieties need apply.

[Chilli]

This is how Wikipedia defines "Begging the Question"... Hilston, you are embarrassing yourself.

An example

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one Syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:

* Suppose Paul does not lie when he speaks.
* Paul speaks.
* Therefore, Paul is speaking truth.

These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."

It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a Material fallacy rather than a Logical fallacy by Aristotle.

Formally speaking, the fallacy of Petitio Principii has the following structure. For some proposition p

* p implies q
* suppose p
* therefore, q.

The syntactic presentation of the fallacy is rarely this transparent, as is shown, for example, in the above argument purportedly proving Paul is telling the truth.
[edit]

Variations

In a related sense, the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question". Those who use this variation are explaining that the argument lacks a premise, and they have missed the self-circularity of the argument because of it.

Fowler's Modern English Usage classifies begging the question in a somewhat different fashion (for example, in contrast to the meanings from Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary). Fowler states that it is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself." This is more commonly known as the Fallacy of many questions.
[edit]

Related Fallacies

Begging the question is related to the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning. The distinction between the two concepts is as follows: Circular Reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (or possibly with more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments and conclusions (a proof or series of proofs), one of the conclusions is presumed by an earlier conclusion. Begging the question can occur within one argument and consequent conclusion. In the strictest sense, Begging the question occurs if and only if the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise. It is usually accepted, though, to use the term begging the question in place of circular argument.

Begging the question is also related to the Fallacy of many questions—a fallacy of technique that results from presenting evidence in support of a conclusion that is less likely to be accepted than merely asserting the conclusion.

A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:

* Every intentional act of killing a human being is morally wrong.
* The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
* Therefore the death penalty is wrong.

If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a cogent argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is stronger than the conclusion.

Many people consider the Bible's claim of being the word of God to be an example of circular logic:

* The Bible is the Word of God.
* The Word of God is true.
* Therefore what is said by the Bible is true.
* The Bible says it is the Word of God.
* Therefore the Bible is the Word of God.

Classic.

[Hilston]

Chilli

Hi Chilli

First let me say that I haven't read your second post, so if you cover anything in that post that I address or ask about here, please be patient whilst I try to catch up.

You write: I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was ironically a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that first caused me to wonder whether I was on the right track in believing in a young earth, a tenet which I had never before questioned.If a magazine is all it took to shake your conception of a young earth, then it could not have been based on anything solid to begin with.

Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt… this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.Chilli, let's assume for the moment that your experience with that magazine were the exact opposite. The young earth proponents had bulletproof science on their side. They were not arrogant or desperate, but absolutely humble, nice, and pleasantly confident in their claims, leaving themselves and their findings wide-open to critical assessment and peer review. Let's further suppose you then showed up here and said: "I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that has convinced me that I'm on the right track in believing in a young earth. ... Many of the arguments in the magazine were wonderfully scientific and showed not hint of desperation in their conclusions. Furthermore, many of the contributors seemed to openly welcome opposing views without a bit of arrogance. The combination of these things solidifies my confidence in young-earth creationism.

If you based your belief in the young-earth model on the above, I would tell you that your view is just as irrational and unjustified as Stratnerd's, aharvey's, SUTG's, mighty_duck's and all the rest. Such a belief, and such a foundation for that belief is tenuous and it's no wonder that you were swayed away from it. You should have been, given those criteria.

I think it was perhaps a mistake to pit a scientist against a non-scientist, because despite Hilston’s assertion that in one sense everybody is a scientist, he clearly is not a scientist in the generally accepted sense of the word. Then again, perhaps this was not a mistake, but an intentional strategy aimed at livening up the debate. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the strategy clearly has not worked.You're absolutely right. It's probably because I admitted to a lack of scientific credentials in my very first post, which would explain the lack of interest and utter boredom expressed by so many in this discussion. It should come as no surprise that this particular thread has only a scant handful of posts.

I say this because although Hilston conveniently claims he is loath to argue particularities when it comes to scientific evidence for evolution because he believes it will end in nothing but parties futilely lobbing facts and figures back and forth, he is apparently quite happy to do the philosophical equivalent, with the result that the debate and accompanying grandstand thread has effectively ground to a halt about half way through.I wish I could offer something more entertaining, Chilli. If I were to gauge the success of my discussion and debate by this thread alone, I would probably become depressed and wonder what I've done wrong. But by attempting to stick to a strictly biblical approach in my argumentation (I've blundered quite a bit here and there, but my goal was nonetheless to stay bibilical), I've had the pleasure of receiving an unusual number of private messages and e-mails from TOL regulars, from TOL newbies, from TOL lurkers and from people out of the blue who have expressed gratitude and appreciation for what I've attempted to do. Most gratifying has been the winning of converts to a strictly biblical approach to argumentation. So regardless of what you think, Chilli, the intolerable boredom of this thread has been of at least some benefit to others.

It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.By the way, it has been said more than once recently that I've "already decided right." I'd like to request a show of hands: Is anyone involved in this debate arguing from the standpoint: "I haven't decided whether or not I'm right"? Furthermore, I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.

Hilston, I find it interesting that throughout so many posts, you have pretty much kept your cool, but you seemed to lose it at the very point where you were finally pinned down by Mighty_Duck and SUTG in posts 541 and 542.Actually, your psychic skills are slightly off. I've lost my cool in my every post on this thread. Here's what I do: First, I read the posts directed at me (as time allows), then I allow myself to get highly pissed. I then violently get up from my comfy office chair and start breaking things. Once there is no smidge of coolness left in mind or body, I sit down, in a white-hot rage, and answer these posts. For the past month, I've busted nearly everything in my house, I've thrown things, I've kicked my dog, I gave my 7-year-old the finger, I called up and cussed out my Republican congresswoman just for the hallibut, and head-butted the elderly lady next-door. She's so old that she burst into a cloud of dust like an Egyptian mummy. I looked like Tom Cruise in "War Of The Worlds" after his first encounter with the alien incineration ray. Yet, you only single out two posts as "losing my cool"? Please.

Where's my webcam? :madmad:

This is the crux of the issue, and the weakest link in your argument, and you had no recourse but to say things like “what are you talking about?” and resort to belittling M_D and SUTG. I was so relieved when it got to the point where you could no longer possibly pretend to not understand what M_D and others were getting at, and so disappointed by your response, as up until this very post I had held onto the hope that you really were honestly confused.I, too, am relieved, because from the above paragraph, it sounds as if you understand m_d's and SUTG's arguments. Please explain them to me, because they're doing an awful job.

SUTG

Hi SUTG,

Except that you haven't made the case. This is the part that is still missing. The case is what we want.You just made a sentence. You made my case for me. If God didn't exist, you couldn't do that. I'm not sure why you're not seeing this (well -- I do have an inkling, but I'd only be speculating).

If the existence of God is necessary for knowledge, or induction, or whatever, then his existence is shown by the existence of knowledge, or induction, or whatever. However, note that this is a conditional statement and a tautology.Of course it is. You should have known this going in, SUTG. Anything as primary and foundational and transcendent and self-authenticating and ultimate as the existence of God cannot depend on anything else for its existence, attributes, nature or justification lest it become a self-refuting concept. God's existence is not the conclusion; it is the starting point of all predication. Imagine for second, the existence of something that is truly, actually, in the true nature of the case, ultimate. Doesn't logic tell you that this ultimate thing cannot be justified by anything outside of itself lest it no longer be ultimate? God is that ultimacy, and as such, nothing can explain or justify His existence, lest He be no longer ultimate. There is nothing and no one co-ultimate with God.

Making a claim is not the same as making a case. You've made a claim. The proponenets of the FSM have made a claim. How do we decide between them? Substitute any other noun in place of "God" in the above claim, accept the claim as true, and the existence of a proof entails the existence of that which is signified by the noun. Voila! But why accept the claim as true?I will accept the FSM as true as long as it doesn't contradict itself in any way, including its existence, nature, attributes and self-justification. When you've shown that to be the case, I will then inform you that you're merely espousing the "Unknown God" of Acts 17:22-31, who happens to be the very same one I'm espousing to you. It might go a little bit like this (updated and paraphrased to make it immediately relevant):

22. So Jim stood in the midst of a bunch of non-theist Evolutionists espousing the Flying Spaghetti Monster and said, "Men of non-Theistic Evolutionism, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship (Evolutionism, empiricism, rationalism), I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.' Therefore what you ignorantly worship, this I proclaim to you. 24. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in field laboratories made with hands; 25. nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything like external justification for His own existence, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26. and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27. that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28. for in Him we live and move and have our existence, as even some of your own scientists have said, [i]'If the principle is unsound, we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow, to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone, or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall.' [Bertrand Russell, On Induction] 29. Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like Evolutionism or empiricism or rationalism, an explanation formed by the imagination, conjecture and thought of man. 30. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31. because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." [With apologies to Paul of Tarsus and Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles].

Thank you both for your posts.

My behind-ness on these posts is growing (not my behind ~ or is it?).

See reverse for details!
Jim

[Hilston]

aharvey,

I didn't have time to read your whole post. I read only the first sentence (after my quote).

I had written: I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

You replied: Gee, I didn't give any reason at all to Just Tom for your refusal to discuss scientific evidence. So you've ridiculed the explanation I gave JT based on a reason I did not give?This confused me, and actually made me wonder if I'm losing my mind (wouldn't be the first time; will it be the last? Not bloody likely). So I went back and found this:

[T]he questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there, not because evolutionary science is short on mechanisms.(~ aharvey, Yesterday, 09:47 AM) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=980922&postcount=551)In my native country, in my native language, when someone says, "the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because ...," what usually follows the word "because" is what we here in the United States call "a reason." I'm not sure where you're from, or the language that is spoken there, but in American parlance, by the standards of language typically understood here, your words indicate a proffered reason for Hilston's "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence."

I know, I know. You were only joking. Because surely, no self-respecting rational person would make such an egregiously self-immolating blunder unless he were just trying to be funny. So kudos to you, aharvey! :rotfl: That was quite a knee slapper. :LoJo: My friends will get a huge kick out of that one -- they prolly already have, although not for the same reasons I did. My friends have probably made the mistake of thinking you were serious. They'll be disappointed (or delighted, depending) when I tell them you were just trying to be funny.

Putative logician that you are, would you call your claim here a red herring?My claim? :ha: A red what? :think: Oh man. You're killing me. Your skill at irony is remarkable! Well done! :thumb:

Sodium free,
Jim

[Hilston]

ACK! I just realized that I missed the whole bottom part of SUTG's previous post. Please forgive that oversight (as it gets later and later).The existence of God is primary and not subject to syllogistic constructs. What does this mean?It means God is ultimate. You can't subject that which is ultimate to syllogistic treatment without begging the question.

Just that you accept his existence with no reason for doing so?No, I have no reason not to. The existence and use of reason makes no sense otherwise.

If you claim that you accept his existence because syllogistic constructs depend on his existence, then you have accepted the truth of the proposition "syllogistic constructs depend on god" with no reason for doing so. You certainly haven't shown any reasons for anyone else to do so.There are no reasons not to. The very word "reason" and its attending meaning make no sense otherwise. If you do not acknowledge God as the foundation of syllogistic constructs, then all predication and knowledge is reduced to absurdity. Posit any number of alternative rationalizations you want, and none will do the job.

Hilston wrote: Without that premise, God's existence, you can't prove anything.

Again, this is the lynchpin. Why would anyone believe this?Wrong question, SUTG. How can anyone not believe it? Answer: Because they'd rather believe in magic than in a God that holds them accountable for how they think.

Where knowledge "comes from"? I don't know. It is hard enough to even figure out what the question means.Wow. Thus we see an actual clinical case of what I warned about above. All predication and knowledge is reduced to absurdity.

But what does this matter? I know I can just decide that it must have come from God, or the IPU, or the FSM. Do I just have to choose one and then I am finished?Yes.

Why is the Christian God the only choice? Why is the contrary impossible?Because all other conceptions are either fraught with senseless ambiguity or are indefensibly incoherent.

Also, the phrase "laws of logic" is a bit odd. I can't even be sure of what you mean by saying the laws of logic.It's all seems so absurd, doesn't it?

Here is my generic TAG argument:

It is a given that the universe is intelligible, induction works, knowledge is possible, syllogistic constructs are acceptable, etc.
Only X can provide the necessary preconditions for this.
Therefore X.

If anyone can find X where "Only X can provide the necessary preconditions" is true, they win.Barring the fact that I reject the foundationalistic "Myth Of The Given", if we grant your major premise for the sake of discussion, you're still stuck with the inescapable Unknown God (Whom you've named "X") scenario I described in my earlier post (re: Acts 17:22ff).

That'll do it for tonight. I'm getting delirious.

Great golfing getaways!
Jim

[mighty_duck]

In my native country, in my native language, when someone says, "the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because ...," what usually follows the word "because" is what we here in the United States call "a reason." I'm not sure where you're from, or the language that is spoken there, but in American parlance, by the standards of language typically understood here, your words indicate a proffered reason for Hilston's "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence."


Dude, I think the constant barage of anti-Hilston posts has actually caused you to lose your mind.


Gee, I didn't give any reason at all to Just Tom for your refusal to discuss scientific evidence. So you've ridiculed the explanation I gave JT based on a reason I did not give?


[T]he questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there,

If you notice after the word "because" it says "Hilston won't go there" . In the Unites States (and various territories), that is slang for "Hilston refuses to discuss it". There is no reason given.

So the "because" is reffering to the reason the topic wasn't discussed in the debate, not why Hilston didn't discuss it.

[Hilston]

I am truly blessed. Not only because I am friggin nocturnal, but because I have the pleasure of interacting with some of most hilarious people on planet earth. Only here would I have not one, but two, people with such a keen and sophisticated level of humor that I have to do double-takes to make sure I'm not missing something.

Mighty_duck points out, as if to catch me on some hapless faux pas, that there is a difference between "the reason [why] the topic wasn't discussed in the debate [by Hilston]" and "[the reason] why Hilston didn't discuss [the topic in the debate]"

At first, I was really baffled by this. After all, it's only 3:50 a.m. EST. Is there a more apropos time to be baffled? I think not.

But suddenly I realized: Mighty_Duck is a talented humorist as well! Boo yeah!

Now I want to try: The reason why mighty_duck misunderstood the difference between "my not discussing something" and "something I did not discuss" is different from the reason for mighty_duck misunderstanding the difference.

Obviously, this is that sort of fish aharvey was talking about. And it's starting to stink. If it's gotten too big, we might have to bust it up so it will flush properly (apologies to Zorak, in reference to the flushing of Mr. Tickles, Thundercleese's goldfish, whom Brak killed while fish-sitting, while Thundercleese was out exploding the hordes of Gar, by overfeeding it with the delicious deliciosity of a three-ham omelette. "It's to die for!" Mr. Tickles indelicately said from the grave -- as a kind of "ghost" fish who visited Brak in the middle of the night).
Tomorrow is the day of the Carnival of Feet!
There'll be feet there and feet, and don't forget the feet!
I'll be there if I'm not somewhere else
At the one and only Carnival of Feet! Yeah!
~Brak's "Carnival of Feet" jingle; same episode as referenced above.

Jim

[Mr Jack]

Hi Hilston,

Please give some examples. I may be missing your point. (It does happen, despite my efforts to make myself look really really smart).
The Creation account provides explanations for the creation of the earth itself, the creation of the stars, the seperation of day and night, the existence of rainbows as well as making various moral points. Evolutionary theory does not cover these issues.

This is naive, Mr Jack. Darwin and his contemporaries knew their society had to be wooed. And of course they're all going to claim to be Christians in the most socially acceptable manner. Atheists and deists understand the danger of broadcasting that label in the public arena, even today.
I find such conspiracy allegations absurd. More strikingly, why is it that empiricists the world over can broadly agree on these issues but no-one but Abrahamic religionists come up with six days?

It's exactly the opposite, Mr Jack. The earth ONLY lines up with creationist notions. Exclusively.
That's simply not so. But since you've already stated you won't debate on evidence, I see little point on writing further on this point.

What is confusing about it? The nomenclature is an attempt to clarify, not confuse.
It's confusing because it changes evolution from being a specific theory to a big collection of different theories, most of which have no relation to Darwin's original works or Natural Selection.

I reject god-of-the-gaps thinking, whether it comes from theists or non-theists.
Then you accept that the lack of decent explanation for the Origin of Life is not a valid criticism of big-E Evolution?

For you, the god isn't Jehovah, but the magic of nature; it isn't "Goddiddit," but "Magicdiddit."
I make no magical claims at all. Naturalism is the exact opposite of magical thinking. I accept, of course, that my conclusion of Ontological Naturalism is a philosophical one and not the only rational conclusion (although I do consider YEC and Biblical Literalism to both be irrational; in that they are directly contradicted by the evidence).

The Bible's claim is that both you AND the god-of-the-gaps theist have NO solid ground to stand upon, NO foundation upon which to build coherent knowledge, if you do not begin with the God of the Bible. To treat God as one of several possible explanations, or a even a plausible conclusion, is contrary to the teaching of the Bible and is an irrational formulation of how we know what we know, of how we learn and of how we reason. I know that last sentence doesn't apply to you, Mr Jack, but my point is to show how uncritical theists are in the same sinking epistemological boat as non-theists.
Yes. Certainity is a logical impossibility (q.v. Kant), but this applies as much to me as to you. There is no solid ground on which to build certain knowledge; but coherance and certainity are entirely seperate concepts and it is entirely possible to have one but not the other. I find your arguments unconvincing not least because I have no interest in claiming certainity; I don't consider logic to be anything more than a human construct that has been pragmatically shown to work, and even then empiricism is a better method of obtaining knowledge (contrast Aristotle and Newton to see my point).

More critically, I see your position as self-contradictory. You argue that your god provides a sure foundation for logic, reason and observation while proving creation along the way but logic, reason and observation combine to demonstrate the utter failure of creation. Investigation using logic, reason and observation has not shown us a world created in six days but one that is 4.5 billion years old and had emerged slowly through the processes we see continuing around us today. Again, of course, since you decline to argue evidence this avenue is closed to us. One avenue that does remain open however is the Kantian self-contradiction. Since Kant uses logic to demonstrate the logical impossibility of certainity, but you argue for certainity in the value of logic through the use of logic you've inevitably contradicted yourself.

[aharvey]

aharvey,

I didn't have time to read your whole post. I read only the first sentence (after my quote).

I had written: I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

You replied: This confused me, and actually made me wonder if I'm losing my mind (wouldn't be the first time; will it be the last? Not bloody likely). So I went back and found this:

In my native country, in my native language, when someone says, "the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because ...," what usually follows the word "because" is what we here in the United States call "a reason." I'm not sure where you're from, or the language that is spoken there, but in American parlance, by the standards of language typically understood here, your words indicate a proffered reason for Hilston's "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence."

I know, I know. You were only joking. Because surely, no self-respecting rational person would make such an egregiously self-immolating blunder unless he were just trying to be funny. So kudos to you, aharvey! :rotfl: That was quite a knee slapper. :LoJo: My friends will get a huge kick out of that one -- they prolly already have, although not for the same reasons I did. My friends have probably made the mistake of thinking you were serious. They'll be disappointed (or delighted, depending) when I tell them you were just trying to be funny.

My claim? :ha: A red what? :think: Oh man. You're killing me. Your skill at irony is remarkable! Well done! :thumb:

Sodium free,
Jim
Okay, Jim, here’s the problem with being absolutely, unwaveringly, unshakably certain of your views. It makes you careless. Lacing that carelessness with sarcasm can only backfire on you.

See, you’re erroneously equating observation with explanation of observation (yet another pair of basic concepts you’ve botched). “[T]he questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there” is an observation.Your "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence" refers to the exact same observation! “Won’t go there” means the same thing as“refuse to discuss it,” wouldn’t you say? Does the following sentence really make any sense to you? “Jim refuses to discuss it because he won’t go there.” Hmm, upon reflect this is rather similar to some of your own claims! Hopefully everyone else realizes the problem, at least!

You refuse to discuss questions that involve actual evidence.Questions that involve actual evidence are not discussed because you won’t go there. Those are the exact same observation. Elsewhere you yourself provided the “explanation,” such as it is, for this observed decision of yours; not me, not in any of the posts you’re rather foolishly poking fun at.

So is this attempt of yours to cloud the issue what you would call a red herring?

[Highline]

I've had enough of this for sometime. I think it is more interesting to talk about the evidence, but I can see how others might be interested in this. I wanted to thank the debaters for their time and effort. I look forward to futre Battle Royales.

[Hilston]

Hi aharvey,

You should have stuck with the humor interpretation I offered. Because now this all just starting to look (and smell) ridiculous.

Response to aharvey's post #444

Originally Posted by Hilston:

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.

aharvey replies:So where exactly is the "Evolution is not science" conclusion logically derived here?In the above, on one of two levels: All who presume to do science in opposition to the Creationist view, which proponents of Evolution do, do so without warrant, without a foundation, without justifcation, and thereby reduce all reasoning, science and knowledge to absurdity. On the other level, which is not directly addressed by the 'chain' above, Evolution, as a philosophical vision, unscientifically extends its claims beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Hilston: 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.I'm not making this stuff up, aharvey. I'm applying Creationist thought to this discussion and I'm telling you what the Creationist view teaches and implies. It is not obfuscation. It is clarification. Let me know what is unclear to you (and seemingly obfuscatory) and I will try to clear it up for you.

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, ...It is incorrect and irrational to equate rational with correct? Awesome! It's like a gift from the gods!

... 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.I don't recall arguing against this. Perhaps you can remind me.

Can one be internally inconsistent and still be rational?No. Nor can they be correct. I've done irrational things today (and it's still early). I've thought internally inconsistent things today. How is it that I'm able to know when I've been irrational?

Response to aharvey's post #445

Originally Posted by Hilston: 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.It's a two-phase Biblical approach. First I use other people's presuppositions to show internal incoherency, i.e., expose the fact that they're not consistent with their own espoused presuppositions. And then demonstrate how the Biblical worldview not only answers the insurmountable problems posed by the opposing view, but answers how knowledge and reasoning is possible at all. This strategy is explicity taught in the Bible, and examples are given to reinforce that strategy (Proverbs 26:4,5 Luke 16:19-31).

Originally Posted by Hilston: 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.You're wrong here. There is only one God, the God of the Bible. So whenever I say, "The God of the Bible," it is a point of specific description, not an appeal to the Bible as a presupposition. My presupposition of God's existence regards the only God that truly exists. He also happens to have given us His documented words in a book we call the Bible. One cannot presuppose the Bible (or the ability to read for that matter) without the existence of God. God is primary. God is the source and foundation of all predication.

Originally Posted by 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”As I've explained previously, there can be no "chain of logic" that will conclude God's existence. All chains of logic necessarily begin with God's existence. The very moment you begin to reason, you affirm His existence. It would like requiring someone to prove the existence of air without breathing. If the air didn't exist, he would not be able to breathe. In the very act of breathing, he proves its existence. But it is precisely here that the non-theist says, "But I AM breathing, so that proves I CAN breathe without the existence of air. So THERE!"

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?This is exactly the point! Not only can the non-theist justify his tools of science, he cannot even justify his use of logic in the very attempt to do so. The non-theist is fraught with wall-to-wall contradictions. It's not that I forbid them from using a rational argument; I'd just like to see them account for their tools. Cornelius Van Til once said (paraphrasing): "We don't deny that atheists can count. They just can't account for their counting."

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Logic would not exist.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.Acausal chance cannot become causal laws. Unless you believe in magic.

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Sentences would not exist.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.Sentences require uniformity and regularity, in syntax and semantic. In a universe that is merely matter in motion, mindless, purposeless, impersonal and "governed" by time, chance and necessity, there can be no uniformity, unless you believe in magic.

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof. See above re: sentences. Same reasoning obtains.

Kierkegaard was a vowel monger,
Jim

[SUTG]

I'd only be speculating

That's never stopped you before. :chuckle:

Anything as primary and foundational and transcendent and self-authenticating and ultimate as the existence of God cannot depend on anything else for its existence, attributes, nature or justification lest it become a self-refuting concept.

Why would it matter if he were self refuting? The concept of being self refuting is a logical construct. If it matters, then he is dependant on the condition of being non-self-refuting. :dizzy:

It is too bad that you can't just assert him into existence! If existence were this type of cheap predicate, we could define all sorts of necessary beings into existence. :dizzy::dizzy:

I will accept the FSM as true as long as it doesn't contradict itself in any way, including its existence, nature, attributes and self-justification.

If the FSM is ultimate, he does not need to meet any of these requirements. :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

This is why the Argument from Assertion of a Self Authenticating Entity is broken. If all we had to do for something to exist was to assert it as existing, or necessary, we could define an existent square circle.

And since you mentioned Hume again, by way of Russell, I'll ask again how your absolute knowledge does anything at all with respect to induction. In what meaningful sense of the word justified is your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow any more justified than mine?

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

You should have stuck with the humor interpretation I offered. Because now this all just starting to look (and smell) ridiculous.

Response to aharvey's post #444

Originally Posted by Hilston:

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.

aharvey replies:In the above, on one of two levels: All who presume to do science in opposition to the Creationist view, which proponents of Evolution do, do so without warrant, without a foundation, without justifcation, and thereby reduce all reasoning, science and knowledge to absurdity.
No leaps of logic are allowed in a chain of logic. Nowhere in your “chain of reasoning” do you identify the “Creationist view;” if you in fact consider the whole thing the “Creationist view,” then you need to demonstrate your latest assertions, because there is no necessary logical connection currently present. That is, if “humans can rely upon the tools of science to give them generally reliable data…” (notice the rest of your sentence is either completely irrelevant, or completely unjustified), then either proponents of Evolution can rely upon the tools of science to give them generally reliable data or else you’re indicating that proponents of Evolution aren’t human! Nowhere in your chain of reasoning do you demonstrate that the two conclusions only apply when said humans explicitly accept the premises! I’m amused that you’re still clinging to the above as your relevant “chain of reasoning.” There are a bunch of critical unspoken assumptions remaining to be exposed. Actually, you did mention one yourself during the debate: “I would proceed on the assumption that science could not possibly work at all without the power and volition of the Creator sustaining the uniformity of nature and backing the inductive principle.” So in fact it seems that you assume your conclusions!
On the other level, which is not directly addressed by the 'chain' above, Evolution, as a philosophical vision, unscientifically extends its claims beyond the reach of the scientific method.
Yes, but that was a nasty sleight-of-hand you pulled late in the debate (who knew that despite your pejorative comments about relying on “magic” you’d actually be a proponent?): I doubt even the most hardened “evolutionist” would contest the point that a “philosophical vision” does not constitute science! So which logical fallacy are you engaging in here?
Originally Posted by Hilston: 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.

I'm not making this stuff up, aharvey. I'm applying Creationist thought to this discussion and I'm telling you what the Creationist view teaches and implies. It is not obfuscation. It is clarification. Let me know what is unclear to you (and seemingly obfuscatory) and I will try to clear it up for you.
God is supernatural. 2+2=4 is equally supernatural. What can you gain, besides obfuscation, by including both under the same definition?
It is incorrect and irrational to equate rational with correct? Awesome! It's like a gift from the gods!
Well, besides the misrepresentation of “incorrectness (irrationality?)” as “incorrect and irrational,” I will note that no dictionary or thesaurus that I know of equates the two. I’ll also note that you yourself use the words together (e.g.,“correct and rational”), almost as if you yourself don’t consider them to be the same.
I don't recall arguing against this. Perhaps you can remind me.
Curious. I can’t find an explicit statement by you in the debates themselves. It was a topic of discussion in the grandstands, but perhaps you didn’t chime in there either. Perhaps I was mistaken. In which case, your argument contains several extraneous elements. If you presuppose an inerrant and literal Bible, then evolutionary theory is wrong. Period. Any mention of logic, science, or any of the other stuff contributes nothing to this chain of reasoning. Your presupposition guarantees that particular conclusion. To you, and those who share the presupposition, at least.
No. Nor can they be correct. I've done irrational things today (and it's still early). I've thought internally inconsistent things today. How is it that I'm able to know when I've been irrational?
I'm unconvinced you are!
Response to aharvey's post #445

Originally Posted by Hilston: 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]

It's a two-phase Biblical approach. First I use other people's presuppositions to show internal incoherency, i.e., expose the fact that they're not consistent with their own espoused presuppositions.
Pity you haven’t done anything of the sort. You can’t even accurately describe anyone else’s presuppositions, (here’s a useful tip in this context: “Not presupposing God” is different from “Presupposing no God”), so how could you show them to be internally inconsistent?
And then demonstrate how the Biblical worldview not only answers the insurmountable problems posed by the opposing view, but answers how knowledge and reasoning is possible at all. This strategy is explicity taught in the Bible, and examples are given to reinforce that strategy (Proverbs 26:4,5 Luke 16:19-31).
You should learn the difference between "demonstrate" and "assert." Somehow I think the whole begging-the-question vs. circular-reasoning thing is relevant here as well, but you haven't clarified that one yet so I can't be sure.
Originally Posted by Hilston: My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

You're wrong here. There is only one God, the God of the Bible. So whenever I say, "The God of the Bible," it is a point of specific description, not an appeal to the Bible as a presupposition. My presupposition of God's existence regards the only God that truly exists.
You're not thinking this through. We've already established that you have a single specific version of God that you personally are presupposing (the version you got from the Bible), that you presuppose that the Bible documents the one true God. Thus, your presupposition automatically excludes all other versions of God that do not hew exactly to the Biblical interpretation. Your inability to start with a God presupposition without simultaneously presupposing an inerrant Bible is the problem. I'm afraid it's just a matter of logic. If you presuppose the Bible, you therefore automatically conclude God. You cannot conclude anything about the Bible by presupposing God unless your very definition of God is derived from the Bible, in which case you've done nothing more than define your conclusions.
He also happens to have given us His documented words in a book we call the Bible. One cannot presuppose the Bible (or the ability to read for that matter) without the existence of God.
Sure you can. You can presuppose anything you want. And it doesn't take long before your inerrant Bible leads you straight to your version of God.
God is primary. God is the source and foundation of all predication.
I understand this religious belief. I understand your passion for it. The fact that you're passionate about it does not mean that it has been proven.
Originally Posted by 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.

As I've explained previously, there can be no "chain of logic" that will conclude God's existence.
So when you say “Every time the non-Theist use[sic] arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God,” you are referring to some other kind of “proof” that does not require any sort of chain of logic? How much stock are we to put in illogical proofs?
All chains of logic necessarily begin with God's existence. The very moment you begin to reason, you affirm His existence.
I see. The “proof” of God's existence that you mention above requires you to first presuppose His existence!
It would like requiring someone to prove the existence of air without breathing.
Well, see, there’s the thing. Only a very young child, or a special kind of fool, would demand that someone prove the existence of air without breathing.
If the air didn't exist, he would not be able to breathe. In the very act of breathing, he proves its existence.
Sorry, the act of breathing doesn’t “prove the existence of air.” There are lots of ways to prove the existence of air. This ain’t one of them.
But it is precisely here that the non-theist says, "But I AM breathing, so that proves I CAN breathe without the existence of air. So THERE!"
Well, ignoring what a wretched analogy this is, and conceding that I can’t speak for non-theists as a group, but I can speak for professional scientists. We do not make any claim to have proved the non-existence of the supernatural (and I mean that in the non-trivial sense of the word!). You are the only one making proof claims.
This is exactly the point!
Just yesterday my four-year-old daughter came up with a very similar game. The object was to see who could roll their marble farther. The only rule was that I couldn’t roll my marble. She won. At the end of the game, she did say, “Daddy, I’m sorry you lost!” It was very funny, and just what I’d expect from a four-year-old. But I’m surprised that you would consider it a rational way to determine who is the better marble roller!
Not only can the non-theist justify his tools of science, he cannot even justify his use of logic in the very attempt to do so. The non-theist is fraught with wall-to-wall contradictions.
Another word you toss around with abandon: contradiction. You haven’t exactly buried us with actual examples of these contradictions, you know?
It's not that I forbid them from using a rational argument; I'd just like to see them account for their tools.
Operationally, if you reject out of hand any rational argument to the contrary, that is in fact identical with “forbidding” their use of rational arguments. It's like my daughter saying that she didn't forbid me from rolling my marble, it just wouldn't count!
Cornelius Van Til once said (paraphrasing): "We don't deny that atheists can count. They just can't account for their counting."
I’m still waiting for you to explain precisely what you mean by “justify.” Or in this post, “account for.” Because it does seem to me that your “justification” itself may need some justification.
Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Logic would not exist.

Acausal chance cannot become causal laws. Unless you believe in magic.
No, I said prove it. This is nothing more than a bald assertion that furthermore has no particular link to the existence of logic. Besides, isn’t logic supernatural anyways? Why would it be subject to processes that govern natural laws?
Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Sentences would not exist.

Sentences require uniformity and regularity, in syntax and semantic. In a universe that is merely matter in motion, mindless, purposeless, impersonal and "governed" by time, chance and necessity, there can be no uniformity, unless you believe in magic.
No, I said prove it. This is nothing more than a bald assertion. I'd also say it's also internally contradictory, as your definition of "magic" precludes someone "believing" in it.

At some point I'm sure I'll have to remind you that "prove me wrong!" does not qualify as a proof (that is, the burden of proof is on the one making the proof claim).
Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence.
[QUOTE=Hilston]See above re: sentences. Same reasoning obtains.
See above re: sentences. Same lack of proof obtains.

At some point, you will probably have to address the fact that although you use the same words as scientists and logicians (proof, evidence, assumption, logic, etc.), your meanings are quite different.

[Balder]

It is too bad that you can't just assert him into existence! If existence were this type of cheap predicate, we could define all sorts of necessary beings into existence.
It's interesting that we also used to consider it necessary to assert a homonculus in order to explain cognition. A "necessity" demanded by the limitations of our own (then-current) understanding and presuppositions.

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,
In this post I may be going back to things said in earlier posts that I didn't follow up on.
I'm sorry to say that the level of your posts has deteriorated lately, and I'm begining to feel like I'm in Monty Python's argument sketch. Here's hoping you'll get back to yourself. Soon. :)


Haven't I repeatedly stated that all reasoning is ultimately circular? Haven't I repeatedly explained that there is a difference between circular reasoning, which we all do, and question-begging, which is a logical fallacy?

You keep saying "circular, circular," which no one denies. When asked to show how I've committed a question-begging fallacy, you can't do it.

(From nikzor)
Fallacy: Begging the Question
Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

What aharvey said. Please explain what you think is the difference between question begging and circular reasoning.

I am glad you reject coherentism. I personally don't agree with it either (not saying it is invalid), and this gives us one less idea to have to deal with.

After rereading your opening post in BRIX, it baffles me that you deny being a foundationalist, at least in the broad term.


Finally, regarding faith, while it is often said that faith is believing something despite a lack of evidence, and that faith picks up where reason lets off, in fact it is upon faith that evidence and reason are based. It is my view that faith in the God of the Bible is the necessary foundation of science, logic/reason and mathematics by which evidence can be evaluated.

Lets define "basic beliefs" as a principle that is accepted as true without need for proof.

You base your worldview on "basic beliefs", which need not be proven but are accepted by faith. These "basic beliefs" are non-rational by your own definition.

Basic beliefs are a great way of escaping from circular reasoning. Without them, we would be reduced to radical skepticism, and would cower in the corner and starve to death.

It is worth noting that without these basic beliefs, nothing can be proven.

So far so good?

This sounds exactly like your worldview. Your basic beliefs are "God of the Bible" and "Inerrancy of the Bible". For you, nothing can be proven without God. This is based on your faith in God.

Then you claim that yours are the only possible basic beliefs. If this were true, then you would have won. Let's examine the so called proof for this, that all other worldviews are wrong:

previously written by mighty_duck
[We should] throw your criteria for evaluating a worldview out the window.


On what grounds? My criteria, Biblical assessment of your espoused claims, eviscerates your worldview, m_d.


Of course it does. But it slices both ways: a metaphysical naturalist assesment of your espoused claims, eviscerates your worldview! There are no supernatural beings, and therefore anyone who believes in a supernatural being is an incoherent fool. This is a worthless way of assesing if a worldview is coherent. Only an internal critique can be called rational.


Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical...
Faith in magic axioms do NOT makes sense, no matter how you slice it.


Faith is not logical, sensible, rational etc. This is not a failing of a basic belief system.
Faith in God is equally illogical.


[Your worldview can't account for logic]


Asking to prove a basic belief is not a rational request. Ridiculing another's basic belief as "magic" is equally futile. The reason you can hold on to your basic beliefs is faith, which makes all basic beliefs "magic"




Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions


This is actually the right track to disprove a worldview. See if any validly deduced internal conclusion contradicts another conclusion. But the actual objection here is unfounded. You made a lot of assertions to this end, but have not backed anything up.

Without proving that all other sets of basic beliefs are impossible, you can't use your favorite "without God, nothing can be proven".

You were asked several times to provide a chain of logic or syllogism to show how you have made your case. Your objection was that in even asking for that, it is already proven. This demonstrates that you have just assumed your conclusion, rather than actually proving it.


It is important to keep in mind something that I included in my opening post of the BRIX debate: We must not confuse *proof* with *persuasion.* I think you're getting the two confused and it is causing frustration on your end.

When two sides can't even agree on basic issues regarding epistemology or how truth can be determined, what does proof even mean? You can only prove something within a given framework, when certain ground rules are agreed upon. If we mutually accept the basic rules of mathematics, you can prove that (A+B) * (A -B) = A^2 - B^2. I may not be persuaded, but having agreed to the ground rules, I would be irrational.
With no ground rules, all you can do is go for persuasion, or try to establish some mutually accepted ground rules. For instance, we agreed that Coherentism is not a valid way to establish knowledge.
From your posts, it seems that the only ground rules you would accept are those of your own worldview. It then makes perfect sense to you that you have "proven" your case.


Nah. There are plenty of "open questions among philosophers" that are solidly, coherently, irrefragably settled (i.e. not open at all) among Christian sanitation workers, Christian farmers, Christian beauticians, Christian TV repairmen (retired), and (take a breath, are you sitting down?) Christian journalists.

There are plenty of open philosophical questions that are likewise settled by Muslim factory workers, Hindu Ice cream tasters, and Jewish rodeo clowns. Should we take their word for it?

[aharvey]

This is a particularly exquisite exchange (I've left out secondary points and added emphases for maximum clarity).

Anything as primary and foundational and transcendent and self-authenticating and ultimate as the existence of God cannot depend on anything else for its existence, attributes, nature or justification lest it become a self-refuting concept.
Why would it matter if he were self refuting? The concept of being self refuting is a logical construct. If it matters, then he is dependant on the condition of being non-self-refuting. :dizzy:
I will accept the FSM as true as long as it doesn't contradict itself in any way, including its existence, nature, attributes and self-justification.
If the FSM is ultimate, he does not need to meet any of these requirements. :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

This is why the Argument from Assertion of a Self Authenticating Entity is broken. If all we had to do for something to exist was to assert it as existing, or necessary, we could define an existent square circle.

[Hilston]

Continuing my reply to aharvey's previous post:

You explicitly reject all notions of God except "God of the Bible." So God certainly doesn't qualify as a major premise in your line of argumentation (which doesn't of course mean that He's not of major importance to you!).You're mistaken. The whole time I could have used the "God of Creation" or the "God of Israel" or the "God of Abraham," none which require that I assume as prior the existence of Creation or of Israel or of Abraham. These are merely descriptions; qualifiers. I want to be clear that I'm not repudiating the Bible in any way by making this point. I'm rather emphasizing the primacy of God. The fact that this is affirmed in His Word does not affect His singular primacy. Just as the fact that this form of argumentation presented in His Word does not affect His primacy.

Originally Posted by Hilston: The intelligibility of the Bible depends on God's existence. Understanding and applying the claims of the Bible depend on God's existence.

This is completely at odds with your previously stated definition of presupposition. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then you need no other presupposition to defend its intelligibility.I'm not defending its intelligibility. I'm explaining its qualities in the only terms that make sense, which should come as no surprise to you. The biblical view is that the ability to think depends on God's existence. Surely one would infer that understanding the Bible (which requires the ability to think) also depends on God's existence.

And you automatically and inevitably end up with, guess who? God of the Bible.Of course, aharvey. That's because the God of the Bible is the same as, and the only, God that truly exists. The fact that presupposing the true God aligns with the God of the Bible is to be expected. All other conceptions of god do not comport with the actual nature of the case of reality. Reject this God and all reasoning and knowledge become absurd. It is extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim.

So you get the God required to understand and apply Biblical claims without having to presuppose Him. Get it?You've missed something crucial, aharvey. There is no "getting" anything unless God first exists. There is no "getting" the "God of the Bible"; there is no "bible", there is no "you," if God is not primary.

Presupposing the Bible to be true and inerrant leads you to exactly the God you believe in, but the converse is not true. That is, presupposing God doesn't automatically lead one to the conclusion that the Bible is literal and inerrant.That is absolutely false. There is only one God, aharvey. There is only one canon of Scripture that He has authored. Acknowledging the true God leads you to the Bible. Believing ina false (i.e. ambiguous, contradictory, incoherent) god leads either to other anti- and extra-biblical writings, or to a distorted interpretation of the Bible (which is quite common).

There have been literally billions of people who presuppose God and don't end up with a literal Bible.Of course. Those people have created gods in their own image and have either followed false writings, false people or have distorted the Bible to suit their false god paradigms.

You can say, as you have, something like "well, they're all wrong!" but, sadly, that's another claim that you need to demonstrate.They'll have to either get in line (I might even let them cut in ), or you'll have to take up the mantle to champion their religion.

Originally Posted by Hilston: Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

No, you've made the statement, you haven't made the case. This is a non-argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what is involved in "proving" something. To prove the above statement actually requires you to do something other than state it.That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

You know how I keep asking you for a chain of logic? Step by step, how do we inevitably end up at point B from point A. It doesn't require tens of thousands of words, just a few words, the relevant words, in the proper order.You can't disprove the existence of air while you're breathing it, aharvey. For me to use logic to prove God's existence is to invoke God's existence before I even get started. God transcends logic, and in fact, gives it meaning and intelligibility. Your very question itself proves God's existence. The fact that I understand it proves God's existence. There is no "chain of logic" when we're talking about the very atmosphere of logic (i.e. God). As you read this sentence, God's existence is being screamed at you.

And, furthermore, as I've remarked repeatedly, you explicitly exclude all non-Biblical versions of God, so you're being rather disingenuous here pretending that you made your (nonexistent) case "without reference to the Bible."All non-Biblical versions of god are incoherent, ambiguous and undermine human experience and reasoning. And those gods do not exist. I exclude them because they do not and cannot exist. The God who does exist happens to have authored a document called The Bible. I don't need to appeal to that Book to demonstrate the primacy of God. But the Book affirms it as well, and it is fitting to show that God's word is consistent with Who He is.

Originally Posted by Hilston: This is impossible. If the existence of God is not presupposed, the Bible is incomprehensible.

This is absurd. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then its comprehensibility is assured (or at least set by your comprehension skills!). And you've got your God as an automatic result.Your use of the word absurd is absurd. Why are you not getting this? I could not presuppose the Bible if God didn't exist. I could not know of my own existence if God didn't exist. I would not exist if God didn't exist. Neither would you.

... can you tell me what you think the precise difference is between begging the question and circular reasoning?Yes. Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism (see Chilli's Wikipedia research provided in an earlier post). Circular reasoning describes all forms of argumentation in that all arguments are ultimately tautological. Moden ponens, syllogisms, etc. are ultimately circular statements, but that does not make them fallacious, as in question-begging.

ThePhy

I assumed before this debate started that this would be the core of the debate. The order in which forms of life appeared as listed in the Bible, the reality of Noah's flood and how it comports with the evidence, and so on. ... But you chose to throw a wall up against the evidence for or against such claims, and instead argued the philosophy.I didn't throw a wall up. I explained the problems of evidentiary arguments between worldviews. I deal with whatever evidence is thrown at me with perfectly valid preliminary questions regarding the foundational questions of science. I do not assume that a person coming at me with evidence shares my worldview, so I ask questions that will indicate to me whether or not they share my worldview. If I find that they do, we can discuss evidence. If I find that they do not, we then have to discuss the more primary and foundational concern, to wit, our conflicting worldviews.

... your claims that I am hijacking its tools is as convincing to me as saying that logic and reason and order all arise from the little invisible green goblin under your bed.First of all, it's not my goal to convince you of anything. My aim is to answer your objections rationally and biblically. Second, it is fascinating to me how often non-/anti-theists resort to this sort of blow-off response and never offer their own accounting for logic and reason. Their protests typically amount to: "You might as well believe in the IPU or the FSM or IGG (in this case) to justify your use of logic." Of course, when pressed to explain how the IPU or the FSM or the IGG can account for one's use of logic and reason, they're at a loss, because once they actualy think deeply upon the matter and proffer a response, they start describing an IPU or a FSM that is curiously similar to the God of the Bible.

If your Christian god is the source of logic and truth, in the 1700 years following Christ's life He was spectacularly impotent at improving the world.It is not God's intent to "improve the world." God repeatedly condemns this world. The Bible describes this world as cursed and subject to the consequences imposed on it by the fall of Adam in the Garden. God's intent is to improve the spiritual lives of His people. Everything that happens around those people are in accordance with His secret decrees, but are inscrutible with regard to His purposes and intentions (Deut 29:29).

In the couple of hundred years that science has existed as a formal discipline - operating under a naturalistic paradigm - it has made immense technological progress. Progress that is directly traceable to logic and uniformity and so on, ...All of which, without the existence of God and His sustaining power over nature, would be utterly impossible.

... with no need to insert God anywhere from the founding concepts to the advances it has given us.Statements like this demonstrate how badly you're missing my point. God is not something to be inserted or removed. You forget that you're not debating a God-of-the-Gaps proponent. It's not that God has not been inserted; rather, it is that God cannot be removed. He is there, whether you like it or not. He is holding your brain together, ThePhy.

You may, and probably will, claim that to do it the gifts of logic from your narrow version of God are to be credited. Yet I still see significant measurable scientific results that that have grown exponentially since God (the supernatural) was invited to wait outside the door. God cannot be asked to wait outside the door. He holds the door together, ThePhy. He holds the outside together and the inside together.

In fact it is becoming more and more obvious that it is you who is trying to usurp the success of science to paint a shallow veneer of credibility on your so-called "God".On the contrary, the successes of science are in spite of the Godless men who use God's tools without warrant. The success of science is not due to man's cleverness or genius, but rather to the greatness and sufficiency of God's design of man, and the tools God gave him to be used properly to glorify Him. Man is designed in God's image -- even fallen, God-hating men. And the tools of reason and of science and the uniformity of nature reflect the immutable character and essence of God. These together account for the success of science.

... New advances in science are built on the framework of previous ideas, and nature is not going to remake itself to support a new idea that is built on a false premise.Many so-called "advances" in science are built on the flawed framework of previous erroneous ideas. These may eventually fall off, but not without a tenacious fight from those who are religiously committed to the flawed framework, not until some other God-less explanation is posited. Only then the devotees of that flawed framework will budge.

In that light, I would invite you to identify a few ideas that arose from the authors you listed, ideas that were supportive of YEC views and in conflict with mainstream science. Which of these revolutionary ideas have ultimately proven themselves as being the correct ones? A number of your authors have been active for decades. Should have some success stories by now.It's irrelevant. There doesn't have to be a single creationist scientist on the planet for your worldview to still be inane and irrational, or for the Creationist view to be true. To answer your invitation and curiosity, I offer the irrelevant example of John Baumgardner. His research in plate tectonics has been sought out by NASA, and he believes in a young earth (<10K) and a global flood. Here's a biographical excerpt:
"Last year, U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory."

Here is link to his vitae and list of publications:
http://globalflood.org/biography.html

Here are links to details concerning his work:
http://webserv.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESS/insights/vol14/story1.htm
http://webserv.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESS/insights/vol10/drill.htm

Here is a link to those hostile to Baumgardner who would like to see him disappear:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/4787_miracles_in_creationism_out__12_30_1899.asp

I could go to a hundred college campuses and tell the faculty and staff at each one that there is to be a debate titled "Evolution - Science of Science Fiction", and almost every one of them would expect that to be a debate over the evidence.Of course. They have no concept of conflicting worldviews. They pretend to the autonomy of human reason, as if, in the very formulation of such an assessment of what such a debate should entail, they're not using the reasoning tools given by God and stealing from a worldview that they oppose. It's a collective delusion that the Bible affirms throughout its pages. Amazing that the Bible has such pervasive correspondence to the real world.

Hilston wrote: If you're really interested in those details, there is, of course, the Source of Infinite Knowledge (i.e. Google). There are mountains of discussion to be found. Why should I re-invent the wheel, ThePhy?

I googled, except not for evolutionary evidence, but for types of philosophical argumentation. You certainly did not reinvent the wheel on evolutionary evidence, but you showed no reluctance reinventing the wheel, bearings, axles, and brakes on arguments about philosophy and the sources of knowledge and such.To my knowledge, Biblical argumentation, what I've attempted here, is rare in most debates, let alone formal ones. What I typically see are the standard theistic classical proofs that have been offered for centuries. I see very infrequent use or application of debate strategy taught in the Bible or the transcendental methodology it employs. That's all I've been trying to offer here.

Pardon me while I go into the lab, purge my mind of philosophical clutter, and start doing something productive. By myself, no fictional dieties need apply.The self-indicting nature of this proud boast should be exposed. First ThePhy pretends to use his mind and reasoning faculties autonomously, as if God isn't holding his brain together or hasn't given him the ability to reason in the first place. Then, he arrogantly places himself and his work, as an ostensibly objective scientist, above the unproductive clutter of philosophy. What he fails to acknowledge is that his ability to do anything scientific at all comes from the One whom aharvey would like to see disappear. The sentence, "No fictional deities need apply", in its very formulation, affirms the True Deity that aharvey readily lumps amongst the fictional ones. Aharvey wants to go back to the lab and shut the door to the God who holds the door together. He wants to do science using the tools of reason and science that God has established and given to man. He takes for granted the workings of his mind, his ability to make judgments, to assess evidence and to formulate hypotheses, not wanting to have his mind cluttered with the philosophy of why these things are possible if we are nothing but the product of chance, time and matter in motion. I find it fascinating that, of all the professions in the world that come mind, there are two that view themselves as being above bias and truly objective in their pursuit of the 'facts' for the sake of "improving the world": Scientists and journalists.

Scientists and journalists claim they can pursue the facts without the intrusion a Deity. The Bible says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored in Christ (Col 2:1-3). No one here, not aharvey, not ThePhy, not anyone involved in this discussion, have offered any cogent reasoning -- indeed, they cannot without fallacious question-begging -- why we should believe them and not the Bible.

Freddy get ready; rock steady ...
Jim

[aharvey]

Well, there's loads of fun material here, but nothing really new. Although I will say I enjoyed Jim's distinction of begging the question (a fallacy) and circular reasoning (not), especially as it was preceded by perhaps the ultimate example of begging the question:

For me to use logic to prove God's existence is to invoke God's existence before I even get started.

You've barely started your syllogism before reaching full circularity!

Anyways, I just want to note here that it is impossible to presuppose a false God, by Jim's very definition of presupposition. I could presuppose a god that would be false according to someone else's presuppositions, of course. But to say that you don't just presuppose God, you presuppose the one true God, is setting up a truly false dichotomy. The problem is that you want to take advantage of the formal logic shelter provided by referring to your core beliefs as presuppositions without having to deal with the self-limiting nature of presuppositions. Unfortunately, although several folks have tried pointing this out to you from quite an impressive variety of angles, I haven't yet seen you try to honestly even consider this perspective. I'm sure you'll get extra points for your utter certainty, but it does render discussions pointless after a while!

[Hilston]

I just realized that I got confused at the end of my last post who I was responding to -- you all begin to blur together after a while -- and I mistakenly referred to ThePhy as aharvey. I guess that's bound to happen when I don't reply to these all in one sitting. Please forgive this faux pas (although I think my comments to aharvey probably apply to ThePhy and vice versa).

Carry on,
Jim

[Clete]

Jim,

Post 599 is my pick for POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=984456#post984456)!

:first: :thumb:

[mighty_duck]

Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism (see Chilli's Wikipedia research provided in an earlier post). Circular reasoning describes all forms of argumentation in that all arguments are ultimately tautological. Moden ponens, syllogisms, etc. are ultimately circular statements, but that does not make them fallacious, as in question-begging.


Talk about a clarification that doesn't clarify anything.

On your view, when is circular reasononing fallacious, and when is it not? When the circle is long enough? When the words "God" or "Bible" happen to be part of the circle?

[Mustard Seed]

ThePhy
First of all, it's not my goal to convince you of anything. My aim is to answer your objections rationally and biblically. Second, it is fascinating to me how often non-/anti-theists resort to this sort of blow-off response and never offer their own accounting for logic and reason. Their protests typically amount to: "You might as well believe in the IPU or the FSM or IGG (in this case) to justify your use of logic." Of course, when pressed to explain how the IPU or the FSM or the IGG can account for one's use of logic and reason, they're at a loss, because once they actualy think deeply upon the matter and proffer a response, they start describing an IPU or a FSM that is curiously similar to the God of the Bible.

FYI to Hilston I've challenged key assertions from the above in a different thread.

It is not God's intent to "improve the world." God repeatedly condemns this world.

I take issue with this. The world is to be ultimately improved by God. God only condemns those aspects of this world that work against themselves, ala mene, mene, tekel, upharsin--the writting on the wall. God's intention is to have this world significantly improved that it will not be utterly destroyed at his next coming.

The Bible describes this world as cursed and subject to the consequences imposed on it by the fall of Adam in the Garden. God's intent is to improve the spiritual lives of His people.

He is also intent that those people inheret this planet in a glorified state.

Everything that happens around those people are in accordance with His secret decrees, but are inscrutible with regard to His purposes and intentions (Deut 29:29). I do not share the absolutist take on the unreachableness of the secrets of God's intentions. It will take time but all will be known. Knowledge will sweep the world like a flood.

All of which, without the existence of God and His sustaining power over nature, would be utterly impossible.

I'll agree with you on that. But of course existence itself sans God is imposible.

Statements like this demonstrate how badly you're missing my point. God is not something to be inserted or removed. You forget that you're not debating a God-of-the-Gaps proponent. It's not that God has not been inserted; rather, it is that God cannot be removed. He is there, whether you like it or not. He is holding your brain together, ThePhy.

That statement on holding the brain together sounds to be aproaching pantheism. God allows his brain to opperate as it has been, true. And as all power eminates from God it being brought into existance and remaining in it's present state are all permited by God and revokable at any moment God sees fit. But God is not literally standing by keeping his nueral connections from flying apart.

On the contrary, the successes of science are in spite of the Godless men who use God's tools without warrant.

If they obtain it without his warent then they would not really obtain it at all. They have his warrant, they simply are accountable for the repercusions of how they use what they discover and the means they take to get there. If God allows them to discover it, allows them to remain in that course, then he warrents it, for whatever reason that we cannot at present comprehend.

Many so-called "advances" in science are built on the flawed framework of previous erroneous ideas.

And traditional Christian thought as viewed today is devoid of such crimes?


These may eventually fall off, but not without a tenacious fight from those who are religiously committed to the flawed framework, not until some other God-less explanation is posited. Only then the devotees of that flawed framework will budge.

If the next explanation is utterly god-less/truthless then it will not be accepted. I concure that current science has a few flawed pretenses. I'm sure ThePhy will readily admit they haven't got it down pat, that's the whole beauty of the system, the purest view of science acknowledges that they will never figure it all out, they will be forever searching, forever attempting to learn. While I find it sad when I see one that only sees science as the means of finding truth It's saddening for me but I admire the determination to keep going in spite of the seeming imposibility of the task. Such determination to find truth would be wisely adopted by all true Christians so long as they kept in mind that science is merely one form of finding truth.


To my knowledge, Biblical argumentation, what I've attempted here, is rare in most debates, let alone formal ones. What I typically see are the standard theistic classical proofs that have been offered for centuries. I see very infrequent use or application of debate strategy taught in the Bible or the transcendental methodology it employs. That's all I've been trying to offer here.

As an aspiring theologian I question your claim that your method of debate proceeds soley from the Bible. Can you demonstrate such? Perhapse create a new thread with this post I'm responding to and point out how you derived what you've stated from the Bible and your justification for such interpretations.

The self-indicting nature of this proud boast should be exposed. First ThePhy pretends to use his mind and reasoning faculties autonomously, as if God isn't holding his brain together or hasn't given him the ability to reason in the first place.

I agree that those are assumptions that ThePhy appears to have made. But in the thread I already referenced I therein point out the problems with your relationship between reason/logic and God. An arrogance of your very own.


Then, he arrogantly places himself and his work, as an ostensibly objective scientist, above the unproductive clutter of philosophy. What he fails to acknowledge is that his ability to do anything scientific at all comes from the One whom aharvey would like to see disappear. The sentence, "No fictional deities need apply", in its very formulation, affirms the True Deity that aharvey readily lumps amongst the fictional ones. Aharvey wants to go back to the lab and shut the door to the God who holds the door together. He wants to do science using the tools of reason and science that God has established and given to man. He takes for granted the workings of his mind, his ability to make judgments, to assess evidence and to formulate hypotheses, not wanting to have his mind cluttered with the philosophy of why these things are possible if we are nothing but the product of chance, time and matter in motion. I find it fascinating that, of all the professions in the world that come mind, there are two that view themselves as being above bias and truly objective in their pursuit of the 'facts' for the sake of "improving the world": Scientists and journalists.

Many religionists and theologians see themselves above such also. And I don't accept that that is the take of all Scientists and Journatlists. You are setting up a false dichotomy in trying to place science as an inherent anti-pathetic relationship with relgion. Consider the rise of the western tradition and the rise of rational thought in connection to the rise of the Christian tradition. They go almost side by side despite some of the disputes between various factions of the two.

Scientists and journalists claim they can pursue the facts without the intrusion a Deity.

A few may. But I don't think your statement is terribly accurate. I think the likes of ThePhy would openly admit to being incapable of finding an omnipotent omniscient being if such a being did not want ThePhy to find him via the methods his taken. ThePhy may be arrogant and firm in his fluid dogmas affiliated with his profesion and world views but that doesn't mean he pretends he's above bias. Likewise for the majority of those in the profesions you generaly slimed.


The Bible says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored in Christ (Col 2:1-3).

He's omniscient and the source of all intellegence that doesn't mean we just pray and ask for him to give us the theory of Relativity. By the sweat of our brow...

No one here, not aharvey, not ThePhy, not anyone involved in this discussion, have offered any cogent reasoning -- indeed, they cannot without fallacious question-begging -- why we should believe them and not the Bible.

Freddy get ready; rock steady ...
Jim


Your not one to talk about begging the question or no one offering cogent reasoning, you -yourself- are the one with the dirtiest hands in this regard.

Tell me which Bible would you have ThePhy and aharvey believe? The one offered by Luther (sans a few books you likely have in your Bible)? How about the Catholic Church's? Where does God specify which of all these Bibles is the best? How does God ordain for us to determine what they say? If these are easily answerable questions why has the Christian tradition been so obviously prone to entropy and fractionalization when it's said that it needs to one Lord one faith one baptism?

Apologies to ThePhy and aharvey, I could have resisted but I chose not to. I hope I've not put anyone overly out wack by interjecting midstream.

[mighty_duck]

No, you've made the statement, you haven't made the case. This is a non-argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what is involved in "proving" something. To prove the above statement actually requires you to do something other than state it.

That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

Well in that case, here are some more proofs:

1. God does not exist.

2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc.

This is fun! What should I prove next?

I welcome you to try to disprove those two, but keep in mind that if you happen to use logic or words, then you have already accepted the truth of these proofs.:hammer::hammer:

Out of curiousity, has this form of argument EVER convinced anyone of the EOG?

[Hilston]

Originally Posted by Hilston: That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

Well in that case, here are some more proofs:

1. God does not exist.

2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc.

This is fun! What should I prove next?I know you're just joking, m_d. But there are actually some people reading this who might think that you actually made a meaningful point. For anyone who doesn't realize the intended humor in what you wrote, I offer the following clarification: My statement was that most proofs are statements. Not the other way around. Anyone who has taken a class in logic or geometry knows that proofs are presented as statements. And anyone who has watched Judge Judy knows that not all statements are true, let alone proven.

I welcome you to try to disprove those two, but keep in mind that if you happen to use logic or words, then you have already accepted the truth of these proofs.

Out of curiousity, has this form of argument EVER convinced anyone of the EOG?You just. Don't. Get it. No one is ever "convinced of God's existence." Everyone already knows He exists, but they suppress that truth in their rebellion against God's demands and standards. What needs to happen is a change of heart, a change of mind, a reversal of denial, a change of worldview to that which embraces what is already known by all men.

How many times do I have to repeat this: I am not here to convince anyone of anything. I am here to defend the Biblical worldview (Creationism) and to expose the fallacies of unbiblical worldviews (Evolutionism). Proof is not persuasion. Proof is not conviction. Proof need not be accepted to be nonetheless cogent.

Talk about a clarification that doesn't clarify anything.I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

On your view, when is circular reasononing fallacious, and when is it not?According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument. Have a look at all these examples of question-begging offered by various websites:

Example one:
* The Bible is the Word of God.
* The Word of God is true.
* Therefore what is said by the Bible is true.
* The Bible says it is the Word of God.
* Therefore the Bible is the Word of God. [From Wikipedia]

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Example 2:
God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible was written by God. (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/begging_question.htm)

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Example 3:
Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm)

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Example 4:
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument. Each of these arguments is fraught with question begging fallacies. I would join any anti- or non-theist in blasting holes in these types of arguments. So my question is, are you even capable of seeing the difference between biblical argumentation and the fallacies culled above? If you do not see the difference between Examples 1-4 and the Biblical arguments that have been presented, then this is futile and you've merely shown that your minds are sufficiently dulled to the point of irrational ambiguity of thought.

Send lawyers, guns and money,
Jim

[Chilli]

Hi, just a quickie...

Hilston, could you please outline your argument in a similar form to the four you have outlined in your last post?

This will definitely help to clarify things... sorry if this is a repeat request, I've kind of gotten bogged down with all these posts.

Thanks

[Hilston]

Hi Chilli,

You ask: Hilston, could you please outline your argument in a similar form to the four you have outlined in your last post?Your request vexes me. Did I not make it clear that each of those 4 examples (which I culled from anti-theist websites) were fallacious? Did I not, in each case, explicitly state: "I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument"?

Or would you making a joke similar to aharvey and mighty_duck?

Heidegger was always late,
Jim

[Johnny]

I think Chilli was just asking for you to outline your argument like you did those arguments. He's not saying those were your arguments.

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by Hilston: That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

I know you're just joking, m_d. But there are actually some people reading this who might think that you actually made a meaningful point. For anyone who doesn't realize the intended humor in what you wrote, I offer the following clarification: My statement was that most proofs are statements. Not the other way around. Anyone who has taken a class in logic or geometry knows that proofs are presented as statements. And anyone who has watched Judge Judy knows that not all statements are true, let alone proven.


It does seem like one big joke is being played on us. Please tell me you have been pranking us!

When did I ever say all statements were proofs? That would be silly.
The statements I have made are proofs though. The fact that you use words in your response further proves it. You know that God doesn't exist as well, you are just suppressing it.

This is how all your so called proof has looked so far.

I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument. Have a look at all these examples of question-begging offered by various websites:

I read Chilli's research, and it is very clear to me what question begging and circular reasoning are, and why they are fallacious.
You claim that all reasoning is circular, but not all reasoning is fallacious. How would we know if the circular reasoning we are using is fallacious or not? Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.


Example 3:
Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm)

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Really? Isn't this your argument in a nutshell?

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because of this logical proof. <logical proof follows>
How do you know logic is correct?
Because it was inspired by God.

[mighty_duck]

Anyone who has taken a class in logic or geometry knows that proofs are presented as statements.
This is a puzzling statement as well. Can you give a couple of examples from geometry where a proof is actually nothing more than a statement?

As far as I know, geometry rests on a small number of axioms (I know, I know, they don't exist :rolleyes: ), and everything else is derived from them IE can be proven rather than just stated.

[Hilston]

I think Chilli was just asking for you to outline your argument like you did those arguments. He's not saying those were your arguments.There is no outline for a meta-argument. A meta-argument, of necessity, must stand above such formulations. The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. The statement is not subject to such formulations as above.

The statements I have made are proofs though.One of m_d's "proofs" was "1. God does not exist. If this is true, then the predication itself should be unintelligible. But it's not the case. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

Mighty_duck's second statement was: 2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc. For this to be true, magic would have to be real. No rational person believes that magic is real, and nothing in human experience warrants the belief in real magic. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

The fact that you use words in your response further proves it.This would only be true if magic were real and human experience were, at base, utterly absurd.

You know that God doesn't exist as well, you are just suppressing it.If that were true, then I would be secretly believing magic were real, alongside mighty_duck, and undermining all the workings of logic and science and rendering human experience unintelligible.

This is how all your so called proof has looked so far. Only in the minds of those who refuse to see what the Bible is saying to them.

Originally Posted by Hilston:
I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument. Have a look at all these examples of question-begging offered by various websites:...

I read Chilli's research, and it is very clear to me what question begging and circular reasoning are, and why they are fallacious.
You claim that all reasoning is circular, but not all reasoning is fallacious. How would we know if the circular reasoning we are using is fallacious or not?You can know if you're able to detect a circular argument within one syllogism (according to Chilli's excerpted definition). Try to answer this question without question begging: "How do you know logic is trustworthy?" Feel free to re-phrase the question more precisely if you wish.

Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not. All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Originally Posted by Hilston: Example 3 (from Positive Theism website):
Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?
Because it was inspired by God. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm)

I have not, nor would I ever make such an argument.

Really? Isn't this your argument in a nutshell?

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do you know?
Because of this logical proof. <logical proof follows>
How do you know logic is correct?
Because it was inspired by God.I'm this close to ignoring your future posts, m_d. I realize this is difficult, because most people are not accustomed to being confronted with biblical argumentation, but you at least have to try. You will not find in my posts anything even remotely close to the above "argument in a nutshell." If this comes as a surprise to you, then I suggest you do more reading and less chatting. The fact that you think this is my argument is both frustrating and disappointing to me. When have I EVER in this discussion given a logical proof for how I know there is a God? When have I EVER stated that "logic is correct" because it was "inspired by God"? Where are you getting this stuff, m_d? Because it certainly has not EVER come from my pen. If you are honestly this clueless, I don't know how to help you. Are you just being lazy? Have you forgotten everything that we've discussed thus far? Perhaps, instead of making these embarrassing pronouncements, you should simply ask some honest questions and at least demonstrate that you're putting some effort toward understanding.

I've got a strong urge to fly; but I've got nowhere to fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to, fly to ...
Jim

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,
The last couple of exchanges have been below our usual level. I'll admit it was a knee-jerk reaction to your (outrageous) claim that most proofs are just statements.

When you have time, please return to the last non knee-jerk post:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=983575&postcount=597

Also, I'd like a further clarification on your view of circularity below.
One of m_d's "proofs" was "1. God does not exist. If this is true, then the predication itself should be unintelligible. But it's not the case. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

Mighty_duck's second statement was: 2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc. For this to be true, magic would have to be real. No rational person believes that magic is real, and nothing in human experience warrants the belief in real magic. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

This would only be true if magic were real and human experience were, at base, utterly absurd.

If that were true, then I would be secretly believing magic were real, alongside mighty_duck, and undermining all the workings of logic and science and rendering human experience unintelligible.

All your objections are easily defeated, but I feel it is too much of a derailment to continue doing so in this thread. If you would like, I'll start another thread. By using your own arguments, it is defensible.

You can know if you're able to detect a circular argument within one syllogism (according to Chilli's excerpted definition). Try to answer this question without question begging: "How do you know logic is trustworthy?" Feel free to re-phrase the question more precisely if you wish.

I have asked about circular reasoning in general, and not the one syllogism version. If you have circular reasoning using two syllogisms it is just as invalid. Same for three. etc.

Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.


All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Why, on your view, is this circular? Why, if it is in fact circular, it is not fallacious?
Please give specifics on the chains of this circle, not just "all reason is ultimately circular".

You will not find in my posts anything even remotely close to the above "argument in a nutshell." If this comes as a surprise to you, then I suggest you do more reading and less chatting. The fact that you think this is my argument is both frustrating and disappointing to me. When have I EVER in this discussion given a logical proof for how I know there is a God? When have I EVER stated that "logic is correct" because it was "inspired by God"?
I'll admit, this was a bit sloppy. I should have resisted the urge to bring back the arguments from posts 532, 542, with inacuracies added. I'll try extra hard to leave that end dead in the future.

[Chilli]

Hilston, so then your entire argument is:

1. The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.

You said: "The statement is not subject to such formulations as above," but can't you see that your statement is commensurate to the first step in each of those arguments, only it lacks any qualifying reasoning, argumentation or evidence, let alone proof to support it.

What is to prevent Mighty_Duck from formulating an argument in a similar fashion:

1. The existence of logic is proven, in that without it, you can't prove anything.

It seems that the only reason is because it is your view that is being posited.

I guess if we could have gotten Van Til on this forum, and he'd stuck around for long enough, this is what his "argument" would have been reduced to.

[jhodgeiii]

Originally Posted by Hilston:
All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.
Why, on your view, is this circular?Maybe Hilston says this statement is circular because the statement "All men are mortal," itself, is assumed and is used to prove Socrates' mortality (?).
Why, if it is in fact circular, it is not fallacious?It's important to note fallacious arguments are not necessarily false, just not particularly convincing.

[jhodgeiii]

Hilston, so then your entire argument is:

1. The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.From what I see it's more like, "Without Him, you cannot prove anything."

[jhodgeiii]

Just to clarify, I purposely omitted the first part of your sentence there.

[SUTG]

As I've explained previously, there can be no "chain of logic" that will conclude God's existence. All chains of logic necessarily begin with God's existence. The very moment you begin to reason, you affirm His existence. It would like requiring someone to prove the existence of air without breathing. If the air didn't exist, he would not be able to breathe. In the very act of breathing, he proves its existence. But it is precisely here that the non-theist says, "But I AM breathing, so that proves I CAN breathe without the existence of air. So THERE!"

All of this is true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is ture:

"God is necessary for logic."

...and the other conclusions you have drawn depend on the tuths of statements such as "God is necessary for induction", etc.

If I remember correctly, the aether was the medium through light propogated. If the light and heat from the sun didn't reach the earth, we would all find ourselves in an icy tomb. So, in the very act of living, we affirm the existence of the aether. We can argue against it, but we are depending on it to deliver the heat from the sun that keeps us alive while we are arguing. Our very arguing proves the existence of the aether.

Of course, the verity of the declarations above depends on whether or not there is an aether needed to carry the heat from the sun. So, all we are really concerned with, or what we really want to determine is whether this is the case. Of course, if this is true than the paragraph above follows. But the paragraph above is not an argument for the existence of the aether any more than Hilston's argument is an argument for the existence of the Christian God. Anyone can claim that the aether exists and we depend on it, such that it is proven every time we try to argue against them. But their claim is only worth considering if they can show that we do in fact depend on the aether!

Also not that the 'aether of the gaps' argument need not apply. If no-one else at the time could shoe how the light from the sun reached the earth, it would not follow that the only crackpot idea around at the time was true.

[SUTG]

All of this is true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is ture:

Whoops! I meant to say:

All of this is could be true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is true:

[Metalking]

The design of God is always being discovered...astronomers will be able to answer an important question about the large-scale structure of the universe: at how big a scale do you have to look before the universe starts to look uniform?

Astronomers were not very surprised to find that our own galaxy, The Milky Way, was a member of a group of some twenty galaxies. They were also not surprised to find that that our local group was a member of a cluster of some two thousand galaxies. But when looking on larger scales, they expected to find well-ordered and sensible phenomena. They did not expect to find the perfectly ordered universe the ancient Greeks envisioned, but they believed that once they looked out beyond their local neighborhood, within a few hundred million light-years, the average properties of the universe would become predictable. ..the more we appreciate God's designs.

[Mr Jack]

I'm sorry, MeTalking, but I'm not seeing your point? Are you claiming that large scale structure proves god, or that large scale uniformity proves god? In either case, why would that follow?

[Metalking]

I'm sorry, MeTalking, but I'm not seeing your point? Are you claiming that large scale structure proves god, or that large scale uniformity proves god? In either case, why would that follow?
The vast discoveries in our micro-verse and the endless vastness of space all point to the clues of perfect design which would leap to the thought of a perfect designer.The point being it could also be the perfect conclusion. :)

[Jukia]

The vast discoveries in our micro-verse and the endless vastness of space all point to the clues of perfect design which would leap to the thought of a perfect designer.The point being it could also be the perfect conclusion. :)
"Perfect Design"? Ask New Orleans.

[Hilston]

Hi Jukia,

I stumbled upon your comments in another thread wherein you wrote:

I read bits and pieces of [Battle Royale IX] as it was going along. Printed it out, reread Hilston's 2nd post and threw it all away. His debating style is more in the nature of a 10 year olds "Its my football and I am going home".I'm curious to know what gave you that impression. I was perfectly willing to let Stratnerd play with the football, but I made it clear that in everything he presumed to do, whether to invoke reason or science or any tool of learning, he was robbing from the Biblical/Creationist worldview in order to do it. Funny thing is, if the Biblical worldview is true, this is exactly what we would logically surmise to be the case. It's not MY method of argument that you don't like, but the Biblical method of argument. And if the Bible is true when it says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," then of course you should expect a Bible believer to take the approach that I did. It's an awful shame that most Christian/Creationist apologists do not employ Biblical argumentation.

[Hilston's] basic premise was not science but theology.Is your basic premise science? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that your basic premise is as much a faith commitment as mine. Show me that I'm wrong about that.

Jim

[Hilston]

Hi SUTG,

All of this could be true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is true:

"God is necessary for logic."

... and the other conclusions you have drawn depend on the truths of statements such as "God is necessary for induction", etc.SUTG, it appears to me that you currently believing, by blind irrational faith, that some explanation for the source and origin of logic and induction will eventually emerge so that you can continue to religiously reject your Creator.

If I remember correctly, the aether was the medium through light propogated. If the light and heat from the sun didn't reach the earth, we would all find ourselves in an icy tomb. So, in the very act of living, we affirm the existence of the aether. We can argue against it, but we are depending on it to deliver the heat from the sun that keeps us alive while we are arguing. Our very arguing proves the existence of the aether.Interesting analogy, albeit flawed. You could make such an argument for the aether. You could make such an argument for invisible light-propagating pixies. All of them fall short because it is not the vehicle of light or heat that corresponds to God's existence, but rather the very source of light and heat. So call the sun "Sol" or "God" or "Betty" or "That Big Bright Ball of Burning Pixies," and you're still faced with the affirmation of the sun's existence by the very act of living. This now corresponds nicely with the air-breathing analogy and the existence of God. And you (all) do something quite similiar to calling the sun "Betty" when you call your Unknown God the FSM or the IPU, etc.

Of course, the verity of the declarations above depends on whether or not there is an aether needed to carry the heat from the sun.But you're not denying the existence of the sun itself, are you?

But the paragraph above is not an argument for the existence of the aether any more than Hilston's argument is an argument for the existence of the Christian God.Incorrect. See above.

Also not that the 'aether of the gaps' argument need not apply.All variants of the "need-not-apply" cliche need not apply.

"He bit the usherette's leg in the dark; Excitable boy, they all said ..."
Jim

[Jukia]

Hi Jukia,

I stumbled upon your comments in another thread wherein you wrote:

I'm curious to know what gave you that impression. I was perfectly willing to let Stratnerd play with the football, but I made it clear that in everything he presumed to do, whether to invoke reason or science or any tool of learning, he was robbing from the Biblical/Creationist worldview in order to do it. Funny thing is, if the Biblical worldview is true, this is exactly what we would logically surmise to be the case. It's not MY method of argument that you don't like, but the Biblical method of argument. And if the Bible is true when it says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," then of course you should expect a Bible believer to take the approach that I did. It's an awful shame that most Christian/Creationist apologists do not employ Biblical argumentation.

Is your basic premise science? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that your basic premise is as much a faith commitment as mine. Show me that I'm wrong about that.

Jim
Sorry, I just can't really be bothered writing a response of any substance because I beleive your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical. If I made an argument like you have in court the judge would likely say, "Thank you counselor, I have heard enough." and then rule in my opponent's favor.

[One Eyed Jack]

Sorry, I just can't really be bothered writing a response of any substance

You're not telling us anything we don't already know.

because I beleive your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical.

Then why do you keep posting in all the creation/evolution threads?

[Jukia]

You're not telling us anything we don't already know.



Then why do you keep posting in all the creation/evolution threads?

Ah, OEJ, the king of the short answers.

I keep posting in creation/evolution threads because I like to see some actual science rather than the pseudo science creationists are so fond of.
And it is fun.

[One Eyed Jack]

Ah, OEJ, the king of the short answers.

I don't like to waste a lot of time talking. I'd rather get to the point.

I keep posting in creation/evolution threads because I like to see some actual science rather than the pseudo science creationists are so fond of.

Couldn't you do that without posting?

And it is fun.

I see.

[Jukia]

Couldn't you do that without posting?



.
No, isn't that the point of posting? Suggesting that real science be looked at and not nonsense science.

[One Eyed Jack]

No, isn't that the point of posting? Suggesting that real science be looked at and not nonsense science.

I would suggest the same thing. Looking at the real science convinced me to reject evolution.

[Jukia]

I would suggest the same thing. Looking at the real science convinced me to reject evolution.
Then, in my opinion, you either did not look hard enough or understand what you were looking at.

[One Eyed Jack]

Then, in my opinion, you either did not look hard enough or understand what you were looking at.

I could say the same thing about you.

[Jukia]

I could say the same thing about you.

Well, yeah you probably could. I have a big problem however in that despite what you seem to think, the story of evolution, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, etc. all seems to hang together pretty well. To believe in young earth special creation (if I am wrong about your belief please correct me) simply does not fit with 99% of the evidence.

[One Eyed Jack]

Well, yeah you probably could. I have a big problem however in that despite what you seem to think, the story of evolution, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, etc. all seems to hang together pretty well.

To you, maybe.

To believe in young earth special creation (if I am wrong about your belief please correct me) simply does not fit with 99% of the evidence.

Not only does a young Earth special creation fit the evidence, it also explains many things that evolution can't. That was one of the clinchers for me.

[aharvey]

There is no outline for a meta-argument. A meta-argument, of necessity, must stand above such formulations.
Since all logical arguments are, of necessity, reducible to such formulations, your “meta-argument” is, of necessity, illogical. As I’ve asked before, what are we to make of such illogical proofs? Since when is “begging the question” (i.e., using logic to provide the logical basis for using logic) worse than “oxymoronic” (i.e., illogical logic)?
The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. The statement is not subject to such formulations as above.
That’s an arbitrary but fortunate claim, because the statement itself is completely illogical! Again, you need to read up on what “proof” means, especially if you’re tossing around other terms borrowed from formal logic.
One of m_d's "proofs" was "1. God does not exist. If this is true, then the predication itself should be unintelligible.
Why is that?

This takes us back to your earlier assertion that “all proofs are statements.” First, that’s incorrect. Few if any non-trivial proofs are statements. They are sequential series of statements that proceed in an explicitly logical order. That’s why I keep asking for your chain of reasoning. Interesting that after much dancing around you are now taking the position that you don’t need to provide the logical basis for your proof claims.

Second, although you did observe that your statement did not mean that all statements are proofs, you never bothered to explain what it was that makes a given statement a proof, much less why your individual statements qualify as proofs.
Mighty_duck's second statement was: 2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc. For this to be true, magic would have to be real. No rational person believes that magic is real, and nothing in human experience warrants the belief in real magic. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.
Too bad you’ve tripped yourself up in your use of the term magic. To my surprise, you explicitly chose the “intentional attempt to produce illusions” concept of magic (call it MagicFake) rather than the “mysterious, seemingly inexplicable, supernatural power” concept of magic (call it MagicMaybe). [The fundamental difference between the two is that MagicFake is known to be false, it is impossible for something known to be false to be true, or for to know as true something one knows to be false; MagicMaybe, in contrast, is explicitly ambiguous regarding its true nature: it may be supernatural, it may not be, but in either case there is no intent to deceive implied.] However, your arguments effortlessly but unacceptably flipflop between the two: “For this to be true, magic would have to be real [False for MagicFake, true for MagicMaybe ]. No rational person believes that magic is real [True for MagicFake, false for MagicMaybe ]” Your proof falls apart because each step uses a different magic concept, but what applies to MagicFake does not logically apply to MagicMaybe in your arguments.

If that were true, then I would be secretly believing magic were real, alongside mighty_duck, and undermining all the workings of logic and science and rendering human experience unintelligible.
Yeah, but then you’d be just like everyone else. How’s that different from what you’re claiming, other than the details of those secret beliefs?

Originally Posted by Hilston: [indent]
I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument.
But now we know that the reason for that is because, of necessity, there is no logical argument in the first place, don’t we? Logical fallacies can only exist in logical arguments, right? But I wonder if we could still find a bit of question-begging here. Your first argument A above: My claim C (actually, insert whichever one you want) is, of necessity, exempt from requiring logical justification. Justification for A (not for C!): …
You can know if you're able to detect a circular argument within one syllogism (according to Chilli's excerpted definition).
Hey, Jim, do you even know what a syllogism is? It’s a specifically structured logical argument, with a major premise, a minor premise, and a logical conclusion drawn from them. Here’s an example of a single syllogism (you’re gonna love this!):

All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Let me break it down for you:

Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates was a man
Logical conclusion: Socrates was mortal.

Relevance will become apparent in just a minute...

Try to answer this question without question begging: "How do you know logic is trustworthy?" Feel free to re-phrase the question more precisely if you wish.
"There is no outline for a meta-argument. A meta-argument, of necessity, must stand above such formulations. The trustworthiness of logic is proven in that, without logic, you cannot prove anything. The statement is not subject to such formulations as above." (Perhaps we should remind our viewing audience that a "meta-argument" is merely an argument about argumentation itself)

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.

[Hilston's example:] All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.
Um, Jim, this is not circular reasoning (There is no way to logically conclude that all men are mortal from the other two statements, nor that Socrates was a man from the other two statements). And if it were, then by your own comments above you’ve just given us an example of question-begging!

By the way, you may be puzzled by the statements in parentheses above; that's where I explain the logical basis for my claim that your example is not one of circular reasoning. That's because I recognize that my claim, though logical, does not represent the chain of logic itself behind the claim. And even the parenthetical statement is not the complete chain; each statement could be expanded (e.g., all men might be mortal, and Socrates might be mortal, but if other organisms are also mortal, then without additional information Socrates could easily be one of those other organisms (http://www.wolfpark.org/Wolfpaper/640/Socrates-Tree_Eater.html), thus disproving that logical arrangement). I hope this will help you see the difference between a statement of a proof claim and the actual demonstration of said claim, more so you can understand our frustration at your posts than out of an expectation that you will start to demonstrate your claims. As you've made clear, you believe your meta-arguments are exempt from the messy requirements you impose on everyone else's meta-arguments. I do wonder if you could justify that without begging the question?...

[Jukia]

To you, maybe.



Not only does a young Earth special creation fit the evidence, it also explains many things that evolution can't. That was one of the clinchers for me.

OK, I have no response other than the George Smiley quote.

[Hilston]

Hi Jukia,

You write:Sorry, I just can't really be bothered writing a response of any substance because I beleive your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical. If I made an argument like you have in court the judge would likely say, "Thank you counselor, I have heard enough." and then rule in my opponent's favor.It is ironic that you choose to answer in this way, making reference to the court and its judge. Paul, in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, writes: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly perceived, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became empty in their reasonings, and their foolish mind was denigrated.

The phrase "without excuse" is the English rendering of the Greek word anapologetous, which means "without a reasoned defense," and connotes the setting of a court of law. Ironically, this is speaking about you, Jukia, who just made reference to a court of law. By suppressing the truth of God, despite His manifestation of Himself within and around you, you still choose not to acknowledge Him and to glorify Him, and thereby become empty in your reasoning and are left without a defense that would stand up in God's court.

... your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical.If you're going to make a charge like this and refuse to back it up with arguments to support, then stop pretending to care about rational discourse, stop pretending to have any kind of foundation or justification for your claims, stop pretending to know Thing One about what is or isn't cogent "in court." In the very real court of the universe, governed by the Judge of All, you have presumed to climb up on the Judge's lap, to use the reasoning skills and perceptual faculties that He has given you, and to spit in His face. All I've done is given you is the Biblical argument. Your complaint is not with me, but with God, and as such, if you choose to continue to reject the Biblical Worldview and the Creator who is back of it, this very issue will eventually be seen as much, much more than a mere academic matter for you. You will be reminded of every case in which you were confronted with the reality that science makes no sense apart from your Creator; you will be shown that you are guilty of the same sin as Adam, namely, the desire for autonomy, to be your own god.

... isn't that the point of posting? Suggesting that real science be looked at and not nonsense science.What, in your view, is "real science"? Can you justify your definition of science? The tools you use to evaluate the "real" science from the "nonsense" science? If you have no sensible basis for your science and the tools by which you presume to assess "real" vs. "nonsense", isn't it you who are then guilty positing a "nonsense" science?

"And the worms ate into his brain."
Jim

[SUTG]

But you're not denying the existence of the sun itself, are you?

You're not affirming the existence of the aether itself, are you?

It doesn't matter - sun, aether, or microbrew. How is arguing against the aether while depending on it any different than arguing against the air while depending on it, arguing against the christian god while depending on him, or arguing against a homunculus while being controlled by him?

If you can show me that I depend on the aether, it will be true that I am proving the existence of the aether while arguing against it. If you can show me I depend on the existence of air for survival, it will be true that I am proving the existence of air while arguing against it. If you can show me that I am being controlled by a homunculus, it will be true that I am proving the existence of the homunculus even while I argue against it.

And, finally, if you can show that induction depends on the existence of the christian god, it will be true that I am proving his existence while arguing against him.

Formally,

If induction works, god exists
Induction works
therefore, God exists

If we're alive, the aether sustains us
We're alive
therefore, the aether sustains us

If Hilston continues to induct, it shows he is controlled by a homunculus
Hilston continues to induct
therefore, Hilston is controlled by a homunculus

How is the first argument different from the other two? Only in that you consider the major premise to be true?

If you want to say that God is ultimate, and presupposed, then good for you. Just note that the christian god is not unique in this regard, despite your declarations to the contrary. There are no requirements for being presupposed as ultimate. Anything will do. Once it is presupposed as ultimate, it is off limits to attacks from the rational flank.



SUTG, it appears to me that you currently believing, by blind irrational faith, that some explanation for the source and origin of logic and induction will eventually emerge so that you can continue to religiously reject your Creator.

Once again, I am only rejecting my creator if in fact I do have a creator and he is the justification for my use of induction.

True, I dont have a solution to the problem of induction. Serveal philosophers have attempted solutions, with varying degrees of success. I'm sure you are familiar with some of this work. If not, I refer you to David Stove, Karl Popper, J.S. Mill, etc. None of these 'solutions' has bee particularly convincing, but the least convincing of all is that of the christian presuppositionalists such as Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius van Til. Their solution to the problem is simply stating "God solves the problem of induction" and leaving it at that. How is the problem of induction even affected by such a statement? We're still not justified in using induction! Tomorrow, it is logically possible for the sun to cross the sky from west to east, even though in the past it has always moved from east to west. How does the christian god's justification have any bearing on this?

It is as if the presuppositionalists think that Hume knew of the problem of induction, and he also knew that "only the christian god can justify induction" but he couldn't put the two together so he sat around scratching his head all day. I think it is a safe bet to suspect that Hume would not agree with the proposition "only the christian god can justify induction", even if were repeated over and over again. Can you flesh out that statement? I think that that is the only thing anyone here is interested in anymore. :cheers:

[mighty_duck]

Jim,

You claim your famous two presuppositions are both necessary. What I will show here is that they are actual superfluous. This ties in to things aharvey and chili said recently.

You claim that God provides a justification for our use of logic. But the second you mention justification, you acknowledge that you have already accepted the verity of logic. Logic can't be accepted rationally - IE logically. Logic must be accepted non-rationally, by presupposition or by "faith", before you can even begin to consider things rationally. Thus asking why logic is true is an irrelevant question, since we ALL presuppose the verity of logic. Even a Christian presuppositionalist.

You may claim that you don't need to presuppose logic, you can derive it from your other presuppositions. But to logically derive anything, you must first be sure that your method of deriving things is valid. So without presupposing logic, please show why the following is wrong:
P1 If God exists, then He ensures the verity of Logic.
P2 God exists.
C Logic is FALSE.

If at any point in time you remove your presupposition of the verity of logic, you are stuck in irrationality. So in fact, without presupposing logic, nothing can be proved.

Same goes for Induction/UoN. Without presupposing induction, you wouldn't be able to be sure that any of "premise", "God", "exists" etc. still mean what they meant when you began the sentence. You can't prove induction without first presupposing the verity of induction. So in fact, without presupposing induction, nothing can be proved.

Same goes for the semi-reliability of our senses (the world is mostly as we perceive it). There is no way to escape the brain-in-a-vat conundrum without presupposing our senses give a semi-reliable true perceptions. Even if we presuppose God and the Bible, it could apply to the person monitoring our little vats, but our perceptions do not represent reality. If it helps, imagine us putting other people in vats, and having a supercomputer simulate their lives. The people in the vats may make TAG non-arguments as well, how would they know they are wrong?

Same goes for the semi-reliability of our memory. This ties in with UoN, and can also be treated as another perception. You are stuck presupposing your memory is semi-reliable, since you have no way of verifying it. Even with God. We could all have been poofed here 5 minutes ago with our memories in tact. Or our vat technician could have inserted memories in there.

So what we are finally left with are the same presuppositions most sane humans naturally accept. You don't like the term self-evident (even though it applies very well here ), then how about the term "undeniable". If we demand rationality, then these are necessary presuppositions. To add to them a presupposition of an unverifiable entity, just to "justify" their verity, is superfluous. We already accept their verity non-rationally, and there is no need for further justification. This further justification doesn't really justify them, if we drop my presuppositions, we roll back in to irrationality.

The tricky thing about your non-argument, is that you define your presuppositions as necessary (by definition). This is question-begging, and if we choose to remove your presuppositions and their so called necessity, we are left in a perfectly valid logical system. As long as our presuppositions hold true that is, but this was never challenged at any time in your posts.

[Metalking]

"Perfect Design"? Ask New Orleans.
We can never understand the fullness of God’s ways. We must simply have enough faith to believe that, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).Trying to figure out God's plan is certainly a task not for the light-hearted.
:crackup:

[Jukia]

We can never understand the fullness of God’s ways. We must simply have enough faith to believe that, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).Trying to figure out God's plan is certainly a task not for the light-hearted.
:crackup:
Are you saying that Hurricane Katrina was part of God's plan?

[Metalking]

Are you saying that Hurricane Katrina was part of God's plan?
I thought you said "ask New Orleans?"..., ...anyway mankind was removed from the Garden of Eden with the help of a certain fallen angel.
:chew:

[Mr Jack]

Hi Mighty Duck,

If at any point in time you remove your presupposition of the verity of logic, you are stuck in irrationality. So in fact, without presupposing logic, nothing can be proved.

You can derive logic using induction, so you need only presuppose induction.

But, of course, induction doesn't get us certainty anyway.

[Jukia]

I thought you said "ask New Orleans?"..., ...anyway mankind was removed from the Garden of Eden with the help of a certain fallen angel.
:chew:
You made a comment in Post #622 about a perfect design and perfect designer. I was just wondering how all that perfection could lead to the destruction that Katrina caused in New Orleans. The last part of your post here makes no sense to me.

[Metalking]

You made a comment in Post #622 about a perfect design and perfect designer. I was just wondering how all that perfection could lead to the destruction that Katrina caused in New Orleans. The last part of your post here makes no sense to me.
My point being we don't live in the Garden of Eden anymore...we are subject to conditions that did not happen to mankind in that area, conditions like Hurricane Katrina ..etc..etc..etc..
this isn't taking anything away from perfection in design seen all around us.
:Patrol:

[Jukia]

My point being we don't live in the Garden of Eden anymore...we are subject to conditions that did not happen to mankind in that area, conditions like Hurricane Katrina ..etc..etc..etc..
this isn't taking anything away from perfection in design seen all around us.
:Patrol:
Hmmm, I guess my point is that there never was a Biblical Garden of Eden.

And the existence of storms, earthquakes, disease etc really presents an issue about the perfection all around us. Unless you consider that the world is perfect for bacteria as opposed to human beings.

[mighty_duck]

Hi Mighty Duck,

You can derive logic using induction, so you need only presuppose induction.

But, of course, induction doesn't get us certainty anyway.

Interesting point. It really made me think. I suppose we can bundle them up as "human reasoning" anyway, since I'm not sure we can really imagine going without either. Is this the result of hard-wiring in our brain, or the collective experience of our whole life?

In the limited context of this thread, it has been stipulated that you CAN prove things. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this assertion (at least in the way the proof is defined here). If we do want to play by these rules, then, as I see it, the basic laws of logic are accepted axiomatically. We treat them as true, even though it can't be proven. After accepting these basic principles, we can actually go about proving things by using them.

Induction without omniscience can't really prove anything, so we may have to add a line about the semi-reliability of human induction - IE it is reasonable to infer a rule based on a sample.

[Mr Jack]

Hi Duck,

Interesting point. It really made me think. I suppose we can bundle them up as "human reasoning" anyway, since I'm not sure we can really imagine going without either. Is this the result of hard-wiring in our brain, or the collective experience of our whole life?

I think humans are hardwired with a form of reasoning, but I don't think it's actual logic. The number of logical fallacies that people both come up and fall for, demonstrates that.

In the limited context of this thread, it has been stipulated that you CAN prove things. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this assertion (at least in the way the proof is defined here).

I agree proof is logically impossible.

If we do want to play by these rules, then, as I see it, the basic laws of logic are accepted axiomatically. We treat them as true, even though it can't be proven. After accepting these basic principles, we can actually go about proving things by using them.

This happens to be one of my bug bears from studying philosophy (particularly the philosophy of science): that philosophy tends to assume the primacy of deductive reasoning. I prefer a approach of pragmatics, in which we assume there is a real world, and it corresponds in a meaningful way to our senses. We then accept logic because it seems to work without ascribing it any special place.

[phil121]

Jim,

I wanted to say thank you for the interesting debate, and the work you do on the comments here. As an old earth creationist (see Hugh Ross), I was rather skeptical of your approach at first. As the debate went on I began to see that your approach in fact addressed the issue of whether evolution was science. Your round 7 post was really good at clarifying your point in the debate.

This debate really highlights how many scientists (evolutionists) blindly accept (by faith), as Dr. Stratnerd apparently does, a pragmatic and materialistic worldview. I really appreciated your comments regarding the importance of worldview issues. In fact, millions of people dead under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao might even say that it eventually makes a pragmatic difference. I too care about my kids, and because I care about them and other people's kid's I want to help convince others that their value is rooted in a loving God who gives them value.

Anyway, thanks again,

Mike

[Balder]

I agree with Jim on one thing: that materialism is ultimately a metaphysical paradigm, not just "the facts" as disclosed by objective and impartial scientific methods.

[Balder]

In another thread, I've been debating with Hilston whether there really are any eternal "laws of logic" that exist beyond or behind the universe, deterministically driving it, or if speaking "laws of logic" (and nature) is rather one way of describing and conceptually navigating the universe (the order of which derives from the holism and interrelatedness of the cosmos).

Since not being able to account for "laws of logic" was one of Hilston's most important lines of attack, I think it is necessary to question whether we really need to presuppose the actual existence of such laws. Although I posted this on other thread, I wanted to repeat my argument here:

the idea of "laws of logic" is just that, an idea. You can use the phrase, "laws of logic," as a conventional way of describing patterns of interaction and interrelationship in mind and nature, or you can "reify" the idea and assert that these laws are actual entities which stand apart from and actually dictate the behavior of phenomena.

Take it out to the level you consider ultimate. You say that logic is part of God's nature. In the case of God, are the "laws of logic" actual abstract entities which dictate the behavior of God? Or are "laws of logic" a way describing the essential nature of God?

If God Himself is also subject to abstract, eternal laws that dictate what God can and cannot do, then God is not Absolute.

If God, in His own being, is holistically coherent and orderly, then abstract, deterministic "laws of logic" are not necessary for order and coherence.

Best wishes,
Balder

[Clete]

In another thread, I've been debating with Hilston whether there really are any eternal "laws of logic" that exist beyond or behind the universe, deterministically driving it, or if speaking "laws of logic" (and nature) is rather one way of describing and conceptually navigating the universe (the order of which derives from the holism and interrelatedness of the cosmos).

Since not being able to account for "laws of logic" was one of Hilston's most important lines of attack, I think it is necessary to question whether we really need to presuppose the actual existence of such laws. Although I posted this on other thread, I wanted to repeat my argument here:

the idea of "laws of logic" is just that, an idea. You can use the phrase, "laws of logic," as a conventional way of describing patterns of interaction and interrelationship in mind and nature, or you can "reify" the idea and assert that these laws are actual entities which stand apart from and actually dictate the behavior of phenomena.

Take it out to the level you consider ultimate. You say that logic is part of God's nature. In the case of God, are the "laws of logic" actual abstract entities which dictate the behavior of God? Or are "laws of logic" a way describing the essential nature of God?

If God Himself is also subject to abstract, eternal laws that dictate what God can and cannot do, then God is not Absolute.

If God, in His own being, is holistically coherent and orderly, then abstract, deterministic "laws of logic" are not necessary for order and coherence.

Best wishes,
Balder

The three laws of logic are utterly irrefutable Balder. Even this post uses them. Even you must concede that the laws of logic either exist or they do not. This is the second law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which states that everything must either be or not be.
This will always happen. Every attempt to deny one or more (in your case all three) of the laws of logic utilizes those very same laws. Any such argument is therefore self-refuting and ridiculous.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Balder]

Clete,

I think you've missed an important part of what I'm saying. I am not challenging the fact that logic provides relatively reliable ways to describe, navigate, and interact with the world. I am challenging the notion that there are abstract entities called "laws" that exist behind the universe, governing them and dictating the behavior of all members of the universe.

Although it is something of a tangent, I would also suggest that the "logic of the excluded middle" may represent a contingent, relative perspective. You may not be familiar with it, but Lupasco and other modern logicians have fully formalized a "logic of the included middle," which is transcendental in scope, and which functions best when describing complex, holistic systems (which is how Buddhism describes the nature of our world).

As an example of "undivided wholeness" in which opposites are co-arising and co-determining, think of a magnetic field. If you have a magnetic bar, one end will be positive and the other negative. As you continue to cut the magnet, the positive or negative poles will continue to manifest, even when you have reduced the magnet down to the "end" that was originally negative. The positive and negative "ends" are particular (polarized) expressions of the properties of the field as a whole, rather than truly existing at some point on the metal.

Best wishes,

Balder

[Clete]

Clete,

I think you've missed an important part of what I'm saying. I am not challenging the fact that logic provides relatively reliable ways to describe, navigate, and interact with the world. I am challenging the notion that there are abstract entities called "laws" that exist behind the universe, governing them and dictating the behavior of all members of the universe.
It doesn't matter Balder. You have to use logic to posit the idea that logic may not exist. It's self-refuting.

Although it is something of a tangent, I would also suggest that the "logic of the excluded middle" may represent a contingent, relative perspective. You may not be familiar with it, but Lupasco and other modern logicians have fully formalized a "logic of the included middle," which is transcendental in scope, and which functions best when describing complex, holistic systems (which is how Buddhism describes the nature of our world).
Your so called "contingent, relative perspective" either exists or it does not and thus cannot refute or in any way impinge upon the law of excluded middle. No matter what you do Balder every attempt to refute the laws of logic employs those very laws and thereby refutes itself. The laws of logic are therefore utterly irrefragable.

As an example of "undivided wholeness" in which opposites are co-arising and co-determining, think of a magnetic field. If you have a magnetic bar, one end will be positive and the other negative. As you continue to cut the magnet, the positive or negative poles will continue to manifest, even when you have reduced the magnet down to the "end" that was originally negative. The positive and negative "ends" are particular (polarized) expressions of the properties of the field as a whole, rather than truly existing at some point on the metal.
And yet you still have a north pole which is quite separate from the south. You've not turned the south pole into the north or vise versa you simply made the field smaller by reducing the size of that which is producing it. Every single partical of the magnetic bar are all magnetic themselves and as such produce a magnetic field. You example is meaningless. At the end of the day, you either have a magnetic field or you do not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Best wishes,

Balder[/QUOTE]

[Balder]

I have not said that logic does not exist. You are still missing my point.

Similarly, you have dismissed my magnet example without grasping the point of the argument.

[Clete]

I have not said that logic does not exist. You are still missing my point.

Similarly, you have dismissed my magnet example without grasping the point of the argument.
Explain it to me then. I don't want to be arguing against points that aren't being made.

Did you not say...
Since not being able to account for "laws of logic" was one of Hilston's most important lines of attack, I think it is necessary to question whether we really need to presuppose the actual existence of such laws.

[aharvey]

This debate really highlights how many scientists (evolutionists) blindly accept (by faith), as Dr. Stratnerd apparently does, a pragmatic and materialistic worldview.
You are inappropriately treating these as mirror images:

Hilston: presupposes the Bible is literal and inerrant.
Stratnerd: does not presuppose the Bible is literal and inerrant.

Notice where the "not" is! This is profoundly different from where you are implying scientists place it:

Cartoon version of scientist: presupposes the Bible is not literal and inerrant.

Do you see the critical difference between these two?

Stratnerd: does not presuppose the Bible is literal and inerrant.
Cartoon version of scientist: presupposes the Bible is not literal and inerrant.

The Bible might be true, it might not. Some of it might be true, all of it, very little of it. God might exist, He might not. He might exist exactly as Jim presupposes Him, He might exist in a slightly to extremely different version. No scientific theory presupposes a priori anything about God or the Bible, in general or in specifics. I can pretty much guarantee that.

It seems to me that the exact opposite of "blind faith" is to say that you don't make any assumptions in advance about something. Don't get caught up in the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

[Clete]

Jim will correct me if I'm wrong on this but I do not believe that he presupposes that the Bible is true. The inerrancy of the Bible is a conclusion based on his presuppositions but I do not think that it is itself one of those presuppositions.

[Balder]

Hi, Clete,

I am not denying that there is order in the universe, or that logic -- which is a cognitive, conceptual process -- helps one to navigate and interact with an orderly cosmos. What I am questioning is the metaphysical model that assigns order to the deterministic influence of abstract, transcendent laws which deterministically impose order from above, or from "outside" the system.

Interestingly, and ironically, in presupposing the necessity of laws, not as conceptual conventions for describing order but as actual metaphysical entitites, the Christian who does so appears also to presuppose certain central tenets of the "blind chance universe" that he decries in his conception (caricature) of the modern scientific worldview: He presupposes that, without the influence of these laws, blind, random, disobedient matter would fly off into chaos and dissolution. He doesn't see that he still has one foot in the door of a worldview he rejects (and even most scientists now reject).

Concerning the logic of the excluded middle, if it is absolute -- meaning it is an inviolable description of how things are, with no perspective above it (and hence not contingent) -- then you are left with a contradiction. The logic of the excluded middle declares it impossible for a cause to directly create its total opposite, or something completely unrelated to it: turning on a light switch does not produce water, or jello. Buddhism uses this form of reasoning too. But if this is the case, and there is no higher order -- one which would accommodate a logic of the included middle, for instance -- then you are left with a problem. How could God, as pure Spirit and Life, and as first cause of the universe, ever produce something totally unrelated to him -- e.g., inert, dead matter? You are left, not with a logical explanation (under your current presuppositions), but a miracle.

There is more I could write on the logic of the included middle -- as a Trinitarian Open Theist, you should actually be interested in a ternary logical system which presupposes the fundamental openness of knowledge -- but I'm out of time this morning.

Best wishes,

Balder

[Tinark]

I just wanted to give a big :up: to mighty_duck in this thread. The clarity of your words made this the most enlightening thread I've read in awhile. Thanks. Very interesting discussion by all.

[Chilli]

Hi Hilston,

Sorry if this is badly formatted, I typed it at home and cut and paste.

If a magazine is all it took to shake your conception of a young earth, then it could not have been based on anything solid to begin with.
As usual, Hilston, you assume too much. My conception of a young earth was based upon my interpretation of the Bible, which I suppose yours must also be based upon, given that there are no other sources I know of that would lead someone to take such a view. Admittedly, I may have overstated when I said I had never before questioned the tenet of Young Earth Creationism. Actually, the first questions I had arose when I noticed contradictions within the text of Genesis itself. I don’t really think this was anything like serious doubt though, as I started reading the arguments of Young Earth proponents in full confidence that I would find the Biblical account affirmed.
Unfortunately, what I found was a whole lot of arguments similar to yours, which essentially boiled down to “evolution can’t be right, because it doesn’t conform to our strictly literalistic view of Scripture, therefore we will interpret all the evidence to fit in with our unalterable preconceived notions”. After a while, I realized that this is exactly what I had been doing, not just with the age of the Earth issue, but with other things that I couldn’t make sense of in Scripture or experience: if they didn’t fit, I’d make them fit. Of course, this is the kind of rationalization that humans do all the time, and by your own admission, this is also what you do. The difference between you and most of the human race is that you do it consciously and intentionally. The fact that you admit it makes me wonder whether there’s any point in having a discussion with you, not because I don’t want to, but because I’m not sure you’re currently capable of understanding perspectives or approaches other than your own.

Originally Posted by Chilli:
Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt… this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.

Chilli, let's assume for the moment that your experience with that magazine were the exact opposite. The young earth proponents had bulletproof science on their side. They were not arrogant or desperate, but absolutely humble, nice, and pleasantly confident in their claims, leaving themselves and their findings wide-open to critical assessment and peer review. Let's further suppose you then showed up here and said:
"I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that has convinced me that I'm on the right track in believing in a young earth. ... Many of the arguments in the magazine were wonderfully scientific and showed not hint of desperation in their conclusions. Furthermore, many of the contributors seemed to openly welcome opposing views without a bit of arrogance. The combination of these things solidifies my confidence in young-earth creationism.

If you based your belief in the young-earth model on the above, I would tell you that your view is just as irrational and unjustified as Stratnerd's, aharvey's, SUTG's, mighty_duck's and all the rest. Such a belief, and such a foundation for that belief is tenuous and it's no wonder that you were swayed away from it. You should have been, given those criteria.
Please see above for clarification on where my confidence in a Young Earth Creation came from. It seems you are assuming I am trying to prove something by my reference to the magazine, or worse yet that my entire worldview is founded upon my reaction to it, but in fact I only mentioned it to indicate what my impetus was for wading through this lengthy and tortuous thread in the first place, I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Furthermore, it seems that the Answers in Genesis team, who put out the magazine, use a similar approach to you: they assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture, and then they set out to prove it by interpreting the evidence to fit their views, one notable difference being that they at least are not afraid to present evidence. What is your take on the Answers in Genesis team? Do you think they are basically good guys, but they are doing the wrong thing by arguing evidence?

I really wanted to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, as my entire life and plans for the future were built on this foundation. There is still a part of me that wishes to believe it, and would love to be convinced (although you will probably employ your own apparently infallible psychic powers to tell me what my real motives are).

Originally Posted by Chilli:
I think it was perhaps a mistake to pit a scientist against a non-scientist, because despite Hilston’s assertion that in one sense everybody is a scientist, he clearly is not a scientist in the generally accepted sense of the word. Then again, perhaps this was not a mistake, but an intentional strategy aimed at livening up the debate. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the strategy clearly has not worked.

You're absolutely right. It's probably because I admitted to a lack of scientific credentials in my very first post, which would explain the lack of interest and utter boredom expressed by so many in this discussion. It should come as no surprise that this particular thread has only a scant handful of posts.
What do you mean by a scant handful of posts? This thread is nearly fifty pages long!

Originally Posted by Chilli:
I say this because although Hilston conveniently claims he is loath to argue particularities when it comes to scientific evidence for evolution because he believes it will end in nothing but parties futilely lobbing facts and figures back and forth, he is apparently quite happy to do the philosophical equivalent, with the result that the debate and accompanying grandstand thread has effectively ground to a halt about half way through.


I wish I could offer something more entertaining, Chilli. If I were to gauge the success of my discussion and debate by this thread alone, I would probably become depressed and wonder what I've done wrong. But by attempting to stick to a strictly biblical approach in my argumentation (I've blundered quite a bit here and there, but my goal was nonetheless to stay bibilical), I've had the pleasure of receiving an unusual number of private messages and e-mails from TOL regulars, from TOL newbies, from TOL lurkers and from people out of the blue who have expressed gratitude and appreciation for what I've attempted to do. Most gratifying has been the winning of converts to a strictly biblical approach to argumentation. So regardless of what you think, Chilli, the intolerable boredom of this thread has been of at least some benefit to others.
When I said the debate and this thread had effectively ground to a halt, I did not mean to imply it was boring, nor that you were personally a failure or anything else (although I find your argument very unconvincing). Also, I admitted to having found this thread instructive, and I do consider it to have been a benefit, just not for the reasons I had initially hoped.

I know you sometimes like to bleat about how you are the underdog on this forum and everybody hates you, but you can take some comfort in the fact that you do have at least a few things in common with the majority of Christians who regularly post here: you are extremely arrogant and make snap judgments about people you have never met, you will not accept or even entertain any idea or evidence that does not fit in your worldview, and you routinely ridicule and condemn those who disagree with you. Yep, welcome to Theology Online.

Originally Posted by Chilli:
It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.

By the way, it has been said more than once recently that I've "already decided [I am] right." I'd like to request a show of hands: Is anyone involved in this debate arguing from the standpoint: "I haven't decided whether or not I'm right"?
Well, the idea that everybody thinks they are right was first posited by you in one of your earliest posts in the debate. I think that may just be excuse for always thinking you are right. Contrary to what you might think, people are often uncertain of what they believe, or do not deliberately affirm most of what constitutes their worldview. I suppose that you will not be convinced of this because you think you are right (by your own admission). In my opinion, it is this attitude that caused the discussion to stop progressing, as it does every other discussion you figure prominently in. Consider this: if you think that you are right, how the hell would you be able to tell if you were wrong? What I’m saying is, by embracing the idea that everyone thinks that they are right, you’re effectively disqualifying yourself from being able to accurately interpret or assess their worldview, seeing as you have an a priori and unchangeable belief that they are wrong and you are right.

Furthermore, I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.
Let me genuinely (as genuine as I can be in your eyes) congratulate you for your honesty here. I think that this paragraph is the closest you’ve come to exhibiting a semblance of true humility and a teachability. Usually when excuse yourself by saying that it is not you saying it, it is what the Bible teaches, you do not add the qualifier “…as I understand it.”

Having said that, I’m having trouble reconciling your statement here that you know you’ve got things wrong about what the Bible teaches with your previous claim that everyone thinks they are right. I suppose you could be saying that people basically approach topics with the view that they are probably right, but may be open to the idea that they are wrong, a view which I generally would accept. However, I can’t see how this attitude squares with your belief that people simply interpret evidence to fit their worldview, because it seems to me that if you take the latter approach, you are excluded from genuinely thinking that you may be wrong as you are impervious to evidence. In other words, when you say “when I find [my incorrect beliefs about what the Bible teaches,] I’ll correct them,” how exactly will you find them? How will you become convinced you are wrong? Would you mind more precisely explaining your views in this area?

Originally Posted by Chilli:
Hilston, I find it interesting that throughout so many posts, you have pretty much kept your cool, but you seemed to lose it at the very point where you were finally pinned down by Mighty_Duck and SUTG in posts 541 and 542.

Actually, your psychic skills are slightly off. I've lost my cool in my every post on this thread. Here's what I do: First, I read the posts directed at me (as time allows), then I allow myself to get highly pissed. I then violently get up from my comfy office chair and start breaking things. Once there is no smidge of coolness left in mind or body, I sit down, in a white-hot rage, and answer these posts. For the past month, I've busted nearly everything in my house, I've thrown things, I've kicked my dog, I gave my 7-year-old the finger, I called up and cussed out my Republican congresswoman just for the hallibut, and head-butted the elderly lady next-door. She's so old that she burst into a cloud of dust like an Egyptian mummy. I looked like Tom Cruise in "War Of The Worlds" after his first encounter with the alien incineration ray. Yet, you only single out two posts as "losing my cool"? Please.

Where's my webcam?
Wow, that’s hilarious. Not really, but I like the tom Cruise from War of the Worlds bit: was that adlibbed? But seriously, I did not mean that you actually flew into a fit of rage (I’m assuming you didn’t, although I do from time to time), but by “losing your cool” I meant that it was clear that you were floundering when your answers devolved from self-assured and civilized replies to belittling ad hominem attacks. In my experience, this is a common response by those who are cornered, but do not want to admit they are wrong. You are intelligent enough to understand what Mighty_Duck are saying and to realize the import of their lucid points upon what you are proposing, but your stubbornness and your attitude that you are right prevents you from being able to accept it, and so when the arguments have been made in a way that you can no longer evade them or throw up smokescreens or muddy the waters, you revert to juvenile taunts and crass insults.

Originally Posted by Chilli:
This is the crux of the issue, and the weakest link in your argument, and you had no recourse but to say things like “what are you talking about?” and resort to belittling M_D and SUTG. I was so relieved when it got to the point where you could no longer possibly pretend to not understand what M_D and others were getting at, and so disappointed by your response, as up until this very post I had held onto the hope that you really were honestly confused.

I, too, am relieved, because from the above paragraph, it sounds as if you understand m_d's and SUTG's arguments. Please explain them to me, because they're doing an awful job.
I will certainly attempt to do so in my next post (thank you for your patience), but I must say that they have done a fairly good job, even just by virtue of the fact that they have stuck around for so long to argue with someone who seems so determined not to understand what they are saying.

Hilston, I don’t know if you are really having trouble understanding or not. I am leaning towards the view that you could understand if you let yourself entertain the idea that you might be wrong. You seem to have a reasonable level of intelligence, but to utilize my psychic powers again, I would say that from your posts it seems that you are lacking in basic insight, and your desire not to be wrong is making you seem stubborn or stupid. It is not stupid to be wrong, but it is stupid to think that you can’t be wrong. Forgive my patronizing attitude, I just don’t know how else to say it and I think it needs to be said. You obviously have a lot riding on whether or not your particular brand of theology is right, and I really do understand how that feels. Sooner or later though, you will need to either give up your attempt to neatly wrap up the mysteries of God and the paradox of human experience in a tidy little bundle, or leave them as they actually are: mystery and paradox.

I really would like to be convinced of your view, there is nothing I would find more comforting than crawling back into the insulating shell I lived in when I thought I had it all figured out.

As sincere as I can be in your worldview,
Chilli

[Chilli]

Well, just in case anyone is still checking in here, I'm not going to post any kind of recap of mighty_duck's, aharvey or SUTG arguments unless Hilston posts a response.

There are two reason for this:

Firstly, I'm not even sure Hilston is reading this anymore, it looks as if he's run with his tail between his legs, like he did in Balder's challenge to presuppositionalists. It's beginning to remind me of Zakath's convenient disappearance halfway through the 'Does God Exist?' debate.

Secondly, I'm not sure I can paraphrase any of the aforementioned contenders in a way that will help Hilston understand the points being made against his claims, as it is beginning to look like the problem is with Hilston's ability to reason, rather than the reasonableness of the arguments he is presented with.

Another thought has just occurred to me: perhaps Hilston has not responded because there are no direct questions for him in my last post. If this is the case Hilston, can I request that you view my post more as a discussion than a debate. That is, feel free to respond to my responses to your accusations in order to help clarify your point and possibly facilitate greater understanding.

*sigh*

[Hilston]

Hi Chilli,

Hilston wrote: If a magazine is all it took to shake your conception of a young earth, then it could not have been based on anything solid to begin with.

My conception of a young earth was based upon my interpretation of the Bible, which I suppose yours must also be based upon, given that there are no other sources I know of that would lead someone to take such a view.Using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view. The problem is that human beings, by and large, want nothing to do with the God of scripture and presume to do science in willful defiance of their Creator.

Admittedly, I may have overstated when I said I had never before questioned the tenet of Young Earth Creationism. Actually, the first questions I had arose when I noticed contradictions within the text of Genesis itself. I don't really think this was anything like serious doubt though, as I started reading the arguments of Young Earth proponents in full confidence that I would find the Biblical account affirmed. Unfortunately, what I found was a whole lot of arguments similar to yours, which essentially boiled down to "evolution can't be right, because it doesn't conform to our strictly literalistic view of Scripture, therefore we will interpret all the evidence to fit in with our unalterable preconceived notions".The interpretation of scripture is not arbitrary. There are rules of interpretation that, if followed consistently and logically, provide a coherent, perspicuous, non-contradictory and singularly reasonable worldview.

After a while, I realized that this is exactly what I had been doing, not just with the age of the Earth issue, but with other things that I couldn't make sense of in Scripture or experience: if they didn't fit, I'd make them fit. Of course, this is the kind of rationalization that humans do all the time, and by your own admission, this is also what you do.Not so. The Bible is the sole guide for what fits and what doesn't. I don't "make" things fit. It's not "my" view, per se, but that of the Bible. The Bible provides the sole grounds for truth and rationality, so it follows that all truth claims will necessarily fit the testimony of scripture. Anything that doesn't fit the testimony of scripture is not true.

The difference between you and most of the human race is that you do it consciously and intentionally. The fact that you admit it makes me wonder whether there's any point in having a discussion with you, not because I don't want to, but because I'm not sure you're currently capable of understanding perspectives or approaches other than your own.I think I've demonstrated abundantly that I understand opposing perspectives. The same can't be said for those who oppose Scripture, sadly. Add to that to fact that, again, it is not "my own view" that I'm defending, but rather the testimony of the Bible. It's there for anyone to read and challenge, if they dare.

Chilli wrote previously: Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt... this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.

Hilston wrote: Chilli, let's assume for the moment that your experience with that magazine were the exact opposite. The young earth proponents had bulletproof science on their side. They were not arrogant or desperate, but absolutely humble, nice, and pleasantly confident in their claims, leaving themselves and their findings wide-open to critical assessment and peer review. Let's further suppose you then showed up here and said: "I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that has convinced me that I'm on the right track in believing in a young earth. ... Many of the arguments in the magazine were wonderfully scientific and showed not hint of desperation in their conclusions. Furthermore, many of the contributors seemed to openly welcome opposing views without a bit of arrogance. The combination of these things solidifies my confidence in young-earth creationism. If you based your belief in the young-earth model on the above, I would tell you that your view is just as irrational and unjustified as Stratnerd's, aharvey's, SUTG's, mighty_duck's and all the rest. Such a belief, and such a foundation for that belief is tenuous and it's no wonder that you were swayed away from it. You should have been, given those criteria.

Please see above for clarification on where my confidence in a Young Earth Creation came from. It seems you are assuming I am trying to prove something by my reference to the magazine, or worse yet that my entire worldview is founded upon my reaction to it, but in fact I only mentioned it to indicate what my impetus was for wading through this lengthy and tortuous thread in the first place, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Furthermore, it seems that the Answers in Genesis team, who put out the magazine, use a similar approach to you: they assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture, and then they set out to prove it by interpreting the evidence to fit their views, ...First of all, it isn't my "assumption." It is the Bible's self-attesting claim. When one investigates those claims, one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever. I don't assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture. It's what the Bible itself claims. And no one has been able to refute those claims without sacrificing rationality.

... one notable difference being that they at least are not afraid to present evidence. What is your take on the Answers in Genesis team? Do you think they are basically good guys, but they are doing the wrong thing by arguing evidence?Most of evangelism is fraught with misconceptions about apologetics. I was impressed by one of Ken Ham's papers in which he took a strongly biblical stance. A lot of what the AIG guys do is show the reasonableness of scripture. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem with AIG and organizations like it is that they go too easy on anti-Biblical worldviews. If God is real and the Bible is His Word, then no other competing views are legitimate. Period. Anyone who believes the Bible to be what it claims must be impressed with that. The Bible presents a "take-no-prisoners" approach to apologetics. It's not my method. It's what the Bible teaches.

I really wanted to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, as my entire life and plans for the future were built on this foundation. There is still a part of me that wishes to believe it, and would love to be convinced (although you will probably employ your own apparently infallible psychic powers to tell me what my real motives are).I have no idea what your motives are, and would not presume to ascertain them. But belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true. If that's your aim, then it is sadly misguided, futile, and never-ending. There are many areas of the Bible that I've not studied, but when I do study it, it's not to see if it's true, but rather to understand what the living God wants me know and went as far as documenting in order for me to know it. The Bible claims to be God's inerrant and infallible Word, and it answers every philosophical question that can brought to bear on human existence and experience, without contradiction. No other book makes that claim and can do that.

Chilli previously wrote:
It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.

Hilston replied:
Originally Posted by Hilston By the way, it has been said more than once recently that I've "already decided [I am] right." I'd like to request a show of hands: Is anyone involved in this debate arguing from the standpoint: "I haven't decided whether or not I'm right"?

Well, the idea that everybody thinks they are right was first posited by you in one of your earliest posts in the debate. I think that may just be excuse for always thinking you are right.There is a difference between arguing for something that one believes to be right, and always thinking one is right. I know I'm not alway right. I'm wrong quite often, in fact. But what I believe to be right, I believe I am right about. I acknowledge I could be wrong about things, but until I discover otherwise, I will proceed to argue for what I believe to be true. What is right, true, correct is the Bible. Of that we should all be confident. We might bicker about the details, but understood normatively and consistently, the Bible is clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and pervasively pertinent in all matters that concern man and his existence.

Contrary to what you might think, people are often uncertain of what they believe, or do not deliberately affirm most of what constitutes their worldview.I agree with you fully.

I suppose that you will not be convinced of this because you think you are right (by your own admission).I just agreed with you. Now who is making snap judgments and invoking their psychic skills?

In my opinion, it is this attitude that caused the discussion to stop progressing, as it does every other discussion you figure prominently in.You don't think this thread stopped because I stopped participating? You don't think this thread would have continued if I chose to continue it? Have a look at the last few pages. What becomes curiously absent from this thread?

Consider this: if you think that you are right, how the hell would you be able to tell if you were wrong?I would be able to tell by seeing an area of my thinking that does not align with the Bible.

What I'm saying is, by embracing the idea that everyone thinks that they are right, you're effectively disqualifying yourself from being able to accurately interpret or assess their worldview, seeing as you have an a priori and unchangeable belief that they are wrong and you are right.You're missing the point. My point is that no one argues for a position that they do not personally believe to be true. Unless they're just being academic about some hypothetical consideration, which has its place. I assume from the onset that anyone who cares enough to come here and debate has a view that they believe to be correct and wants to have it challenged. Otherwise, why show up? If they just have questions, that will be obvious. But usually everyone has a axe to grind, and they think that axe is the right axe and that it is worth grinding.

Hilston wrote: Furthermore, I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.
Let me genuinely (as genuine as I can be in your eyes) congratulate you for your honesty here. I think that this paragraph is the closest you've come to exhibiting a semblance of true humility and a teachability. Usually when excuse yourself by saying that it is not you saying it, it is what the Bible teaches, you do not add the qualifier "...as I understand it."Look, Chilli, my attitude has not changed throughout this debate. I've been as honest as I know to be. Anyone on the receiving end of my claims is going to view me as a big meanie, an arrogant know-it-all SOB. I know this going in. Nobody likes to be told they're wrong, especially when it is expressed in the kind of absolute and authoritative terms that the Bible uses. It's a sad thing that people get their backs up so readily because of Biblical language, but it is to be expected. The Bible said it would happen. I'm not here to impress you or anyone with my erudition, honesty or niceness. I just want to see the Biblical view defended clearly and coherently, and cogently, if that's possible. But persuasion is not the same as coherence. The Bible puts the priority on the latter.

Having said that, I'm having trouble reconciling your statement here that you know you've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches with your previous claim that everyone thinks they are right. I suppose you could be saying that people basically approach topics with the view that they are probably right, but may be open to the idea that they are wrong, a view which I generally would accept.That's exactly what I mean. No one carries around a view that they think is probably wrong.

However, I can't see how this attitude squares with your belief that people simply interpret evidence to fit their worldview, because it seems to me that if you take the latter approach, you are excluded from genuinely thinking that you may be wrong as you are impervious to evidence.It's not that simple. There is a whole network of beliefs that are brought to bear upon evidence. If a person is a methodological naturalist, they not only summarily dismiss any notion of extra-logical considerations, but there is an entire worldview that underpins that assumption. I've done work for the creationist movement for years. I understand the evidence. I understand the arguments on both sides. I understand how one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview. Do you see that?

In other words, when you say "when I find [my incorrect beliefs about what the Bible teaches,] I'll correct them," how exactly will you find them? How will you become convinced you are wrong? Would you mind more precisely explaining your views in this area?Yes. I used to think that the Bible's description of believers identified as "The Body of Christ" was the same "New Covenant Israel." I used to believe that the Body of Christ was the fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel, hence name, New Covenant Israel. I had someone suggest to me otherwise. So I checked it out. I re-evaluated the assumptions I brought to the biblical evidence and found that I was in serious error. Another example concerns the role of angels. I once thought that angels were ministering to believers invisibly, and even though it bothered me deep down that I never saw the kind of angelic activity or presence described in the Bible, I decided that I would believe it because the Bible seemed to teach that this was the case. Someone suggested to me that I was mistaken, that the angels do not have an active ministry to believers today, and that the reason we do not see or experience their presence is because they no longer have a role in the lives of believers. So I re-evaluated the assumption that I brought to the biblical evidence and discovered, in fact, that I was wrong. The Bible teaches that the angels are not ministering invisibly or otherwise today.

But seriously, I did not mean that you actually flew into a fit of rage (I'm assuming you didn't, although I do from time to time), but by "losing your cool" I meant that it was clear that you were floundering when your answers devolved from self-assured and civilized replies to belittling ad hominem attacks. In my experience, this is a common response by those who are cornered, but do not want to admit they are wrong.If there were points I could not or did not answer, I could see why you might come to that conclusion. But my ridicule, mockery and insults were offered after the points were answered, not in lieu of.

You are intelligent enough to understand what Mighty_Duck are saying and to realize the import of their lucid points upon what you are proposing, ...That's where we disagree. The points are not lucid. They are fraught with uncritical assumptions and linguistic wrangling. They're just further attempts to accomplish what has already been tried from a different angle. There comes a point where there argument has been made and understood, and the opponent starts grasping for other alternatives, trying other angles. From where I'm sitting, they all seemed to be the same complaints cast in different terms, and I already knew what the outcome would be. I had to give up a couple months of my life to participate in the Battle Royale and the Grandstands. The argument has been made. There comes a point where I must stop and let the argument stand for itself. If you're confused about any part of the argument, I will happily clarify, but I cannot possibly answer each and every variation of the same failed notions that people come up with.

but your stubbornness and your attitude that you are right prevents you from being able to accept it, and so when the arguments have been made in a way that you can no longer evade them or throw up smokescreens or muddy the waters, you revert to juvenile taunts and crass insults.I'm sure it appeared that way. I assure you -- and you can go back and see for yourself -- that all arguments have been met coherently and soundly by what the Bible says about them. My taunts and crass insults are designed to expose the futility and inanity of anti-Biblical worldviews. Jesus did it. Paul did it. We are to follow biblical examples and that's what I've tried my best to do. My insults were crass, yes; but juvenile? Hardly.

Hilston, I don't know if you are really having trouble understanding or not. I am leaning towards the view that you could understand if you let yourself entertain the idea that you might be wrong.OK, what are you suggesting I could be wrong about?

Sooner or later though, you will need to either give up your attempt to neatly wrap up the mysteries of God and the paradox of human experience in a tidy little bundle, or leave them as they actually are: mystery and paradox.Please give me an example of a mystery or paradox I should be willing to accept.

I really would like to be convinced of your view, there is nothing I would find more comforting than crawling back into the insulating shell I lived in when I thought I had it all figured out.From what you've written, it doesn't appear you've ever really stood on the solid foundation of God's Word, especially if you're so willing to sacrifice rationality on the altar of mystery and paradox.

Are you following the One-On-One between SUTG and me? The subject is not dead, and if you think SUTG raised points that I have not answered, I'm sure that they'll come up again in that debate. Or perhaps you can remind him.

Pretty colors,
Jim

[Balder]

Using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view. The problem is that human beings, by and large, want nothing to do with the God of scripture and presume to do science in willful defiance of their Creator.
A very interesting claim...and typically outrageous! Since you presume that all people knowingly and purposefully reject the Judeo-Christian God, with the choice of any non-Christian religion amounting to a conspiracy against Christianity, it should not be surprising that you see a conspiracy afoot also in science. What is the proper use of the tools of science, in your view?

The interpretation of scripture is not arbitrary. There are rules of interpretation that, if followed consistently and logically, provide a coherent, perspicuous, non-contradictory and singularly reasonable worldview.
What are these rules of interpretation, and why don't all Christians agree on them? If they do, why is there so much fragmentation and disagreement? It seems the "rules of interpretation" you are asserting are themselves the result of a particular interpreation of the Bible, which sort of gets you into a catch-22.

Not so. The Bible is the sole guide for what fits and what doesn't. I don't "make" things fit. It's not "my" view, per se, but that of the Bible. The Bible provides the sole grounds for truth and rationality, so it follows that all truth claims will necessarily fit the testimony of scripture. Anything that doesn't fit the testimony of scripture is not true.
So if there a number of different methods used to calculate the distance of stars, the speed of light, etc, which indicate that the universe is older than the Bible indicates, how do you proceed? By assuming the calculations must be faulty? By ignoring them?

I think I've demonstrated abundantly that I understand opposing perspectives. The same can't be said for those who oppose Scripture, sadly. Add to that to fact that, again, it is not "my own view" that I'm defending, but rather the testimony of the Bible. It's there for anyone to read and challenge, if they dare.
No, you haven't. You've claimed to have been unable to make heads or tails of arguments I have made that others here have been able to grasp and rationally evaluate.

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view. The problem is that human beings, by and large, want nothing to do with the God of scripture and presume to do science in willful defiance of their Creator.

A very interesting claim...and typically outrageous! Since you presume that all people knowingly and purposefully reject the Judeo-Christian God, ...It's not my presumption. It's what the Bible says. Try to get this, Balder.

... with the choice of any non-Christian religion amounting to a conspiracy against Christianity, it should not be surprising that you see a conspiracy afoot also in science. What is the proper use of the tools of science, in your view?Forget "my view." The Bible says that the proper use of the tools of science must acknowledge and submit to God as the very foundation for their use and application.

Hilston wrote: The interpretation of scripture is not arbitrary. There are rules of interpretation that, if followed consistently and logically, provide a coherent, perspicuous, non-contradictory and singularly reasonable worldview.

What are these rules of interpretation, ...Click HERE. (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/nherm.htm)

... and why don't all Christians agree on them? If they do, why is there so much fragmentation and disagreement?They don't agree because the Bible said that there would be disagreement.

It seems the "rules of interpretation" you are asserting are themselves the result of a particular interpreation of the Bible, which sort of gets you into a catch-22.Not at all. Read the link.

Hilston wrote: Not so. The Bible is the sole guide for what fits and what doesn't. I don't "make" things fit. It's not "my" view, per se, but that of the Bible. The Bible provides the sole grounds for truth and rationality, so it follows that all truth claims will necessarily fit the testimony of scripture. Anything that doesn't fit the testimony of scripture is not true.

So if there a number of different methods used to calculate the distance of stars, the speed of light, etc, which indicate that the universe is older than the Bible indicates, how do you proceed? By assuming the calculations must be faulty? By ignoring them?I proceed to show how false underlying assumptions erroneously dictate how those findings are evaluated and interpreted.

Hilston wrote: I think I've demonstrated abundantly that I understand opposing perspectives. The same can't be said for those who oppose Scripture, sadly. Add to that to fact that, again, it is not "my own view" that I'm defending, but rather the testimony of the Bible. It's there for anyone to read and challenge, if they dare.

No, you haven't. You've claimed to have been unable to make heads or tails of arguments I have made that others here have been able to grasp and rationally evaluate.You're right. I'm not smart enough to make heads or tails out of your arguments. I can't even see "arguments" in what you write. I'm just too stupid.

Mamma's got a squeeze box she wears on her chest,
Jim

[Balder]

Hilston wrote: Using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view. The problem is that human beings, by and large, want nothing to do with the God of scripture and presume to do science in willful defiance of their Creator.

It's not my presumption. It's what the Bible says. Try to get this, Balder.
No, I understand very well that human authors of the Bible have made this claim also. But I don't think you can white yourself off the page when you make your comments. I made some comments about this on another thread:

The Presuppositionalist claim [that only the Judeo-Christian God can account for such-and-such] is not based on personal experience or history, but rather upon the self-attesting claims of the Bible, the Word of God. No presuppositionalist would make such a claim based on his own experience or authority, but rather refers to the claims of God Himself.
I find this to be a confused argument. One, it attributes personal will and agency to an artifact. Some individual authors have made specific claims, which have been enshrined in print and are now being attributed to the book itself.

Two, even allowing this anthropomorphizing of an artifact, there are a number of non-Christian religious texts which are similarly "self-attesting." Even The Teachings of Don Juan and The Da Vinci Code are self-attesting. There is no reason to believe a book simply because "it" attests to its own verity, accuracy, or divine origin. The moment you begin to determine whether a "self-attesting" book is indeed reliable, you must bring in evidence and methods of interpretation, which go beyond the mere fact of "self-attestation" that presuppositionalists assert.

Three, the presuppositionalist may want to leave personal experience and history out of the picture, but will ultimately fail in this endeavor. Because the presuppositionalist has personally chosen to believe that the Bible is infallible, or else chosen to believe that he has been personally regenerated (an experience which supposedly compells him to place unwavering faith in the Bible).

The interpretation of scripture is not arbitrary. There are rules of interpretation that, if followed consistently and logically, provide a coherent, perspicuous, non-contradictory and singularly reasonable worldview.

Click HERE. (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/nherm.htm)
Interesting article. I think it's naive, though, if the authors expect that the everyone using the same tools in exactly the same way will produce exactly the same interpretations of every Biblical teaching or claim. Postmodern hermeneutics has abundantly revealed the problems with this naive expectation.

They don't agree because the Bible said that there would be disagreement.
This is not a "reason," just a prediction. Unless God compells men to disagree.

I proceed to show how false underlying assumptions erroneously dictate how those findings are evaluated and interpreted.
What false assumptions are causing scientists to grossly overestimate the age of the universe?

Best wishes,

Balder

[Chilli]

Hi Hilston,

Thanks so much for your response, I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this, as it is quite an important topic to me.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I will post a full reply after the weekend, but there is one thing I would quickly like to respond to in reference to the following exchange:

Originally Posted by Chilli
I'm not sure you're currently capable of understanding perspectives or approaches other than your own.

I think I've demonstrated abundantly that I understand opposing perspectives. The same can't be said for those who oppose Scripture, sadly.

I made the above statement in reference to an earlier challenge you made, where you implied that you didn't understand m_d's and SUTG's arguments:

I, too, am relieved, because from the above paragraph, it sounds as if you understand m_d's and SUTG's arguments. Please explain them to me, because they're doing an awful job.

I was simply wondering if there was any point in me trying to paraphrase their arguments, as they seemed quite lucid to me. Add to this the fact that as Balder has already pointed out, you admit to not being able to understand his arguments on the presuppositionalism thread, and you have basically admitted to not being able to understand the arguments of some of the most articulate and intelligent posters on TOL. Seeing as many others, including those who do not agree with their arguments, are able to grasp them, I think you need to ask the question whether the fault lies not with their lack of ability to reason or explain themselves clearly, but with your inability, or unwillingness, to entertain the points they are making.

Kind regards,

David.

[Chilli]

Hi Hilston,

Please forgive me, but I won't be able to post my response in full just yet. I will be going away for a few days, and I can see no reason why I won't have finished by the time I get back. I considered posting the first half, but I would prefer if it was given as a whole, as this means I will make fewer mistakes, and will hopefully be able to make myself clear and avoid repeating myself.

Thanks for your patience.

[Chilli]

Hi Hilston,

I have quoted most of your post in its entirety here, as it makes it easier for me to formulate my responses. For the sake of clarity, I have simply quoted large chunks, including comments I have made that you have quoted and the initial things you said that I was responding to. I’m not sure if this will make it easier or more painful to read, but let me know if it’s confusing and I’ll try to stick to the more traditional TOL formatting next time. Okay, so here we go…

Hilston wrote: If a magazine is all it took to shake your conception of a young earth, then it could not have been based on anything solid to begin with.

My conception of a young earth was based upon my interpretation of the Bible, which I suppose yours must also be based upon, given that there are no other sources I know of that would lead someone to take such a view.
Using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view. The problem is that human beings, by and large, want nothing to do with the God of scripture and presume to do science in willful defiance of their Creator.

Admittedly, I may have overstated when I said I had never before questioned the tenet of Young Earth Creationism. Actually, the first questions I had arose when I noticed contradictions within the text of Genesis itself. I don't really think this was anything like serious doubt though, as I started reading the arguments of Young Earth proponents in full confidence that I would find the Biblical account affirmed. Unfortunately, what I found was a whole lot of arguments similar to yours, which essentially boiled down to "evolution can't be right, because it doesn't conform to our strictly literalistic view of Scripture, therefore we will interpret all the evidence to fit in with our unalterable preconceived notions".
The interpretation of scripture is not arbitrary. There are rules of interpretation that, if followed consistently and logically, provide a coherent, perspicuous, non-contradictory and singularly reasonable worldview.
I am fully aware of what constitutes a normative hermeneutic, in fact I have taught a course on the subject myself. What I am trying to say is that a normative hermeneutic will typically lead to a literalistic interpretation of the first chapter in Genesis (usually not the second chapter though, interestingly), which when coupled with the non-negotiable view that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms, often leads one to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that it fits with what one already believes. Is “using the tools of science properly” as simple as interpreting the evidence to fit with a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth? You may prefer to think of it as looking at the evidence in light of Genesis, but I can really see no difference here. I would appreciate it if you would make this clearer, and please bear with me if you are covering old ground here, as I have somehow lost the rest of the thread, and I don’t have the internet at home.
Regardless of whether or not this is what you mean by your claim that “using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view,” you apparently advocate interpreting the scientific evidence to fit a literalistic reading of the first chapter of Genesis. Of course, your proposal is that scientists who believe in evolution simply interpret the evidence to fit with their worldview as well, in this case an evolutionary paradigm, and that in fact everybody interprets evidence in a way that fits with their presuppositions, with the result that there are no “brute facts,” but this is problematic for several, somewhat interrelated, reasons:

1. If you are claiming that everyone simply interprets the evidence to fit their presuppositions or preconceptions, there really is no rational basis for a ‘normative hermeneutic.’ In fact, such a view comports much more accurately with a postmodern literary approach. What I mean is that such an approach undermines the idea that we are to interpret the writings of Scripture in their grammatico-historical context, because we are actually interpreting them in line with our presuppositions. This is nothing if not arbitrary.

2. If it is disingenuous of a godless scientist to interpret scientific evidence to fit their worldview, why is it alright for a Christian scientist to do so? If you say it is because the Christian believes in the God of the Bible, then this also seems like an arbitrary approach. Furthermore, such an approach undermines any kind of scientific method, seeing as it is driven not by evidence but by sheer bias. I am aware that there are a number of prominent anti-theistic scientists who take such an approach, but surely you agree t¬hat this should not be normative? Can you see that the logical outcome of such a belief entails doing away with science altogether?

3. I’m not sure if when you say there are no uninterpreted, plain facts, you are including all scientific data. If this is what you are claiming, would you please explain how you would consider scientific facts such as the strata in which various fossils are discovered, or the time it takes for light to travel from one point to another to be tainted by interpretation or bias?

4. Furthermore, can you see that your claim that all facts are interpreted in a way that comports with a person’s presuppositions is again more in line with a postmodern epistemology, and undermines your claim that you can prove your own worldview and disprove all others? The logical outcome of such a belief will be that truth is relative and subjective, and cannot be transmitted, or that if there is objective truth, it is unknowable. If you know of another option, please tell me.

5. As stated above, I admit that theories about evolution may come about as a result of anti-theistic sentiments on the part of those who hold to them, and I suppose that given your ardent espousal of Van Til’s claim that there are no “brute facts,” you will find the following hypothetical situation difficult to imagine. I have also noticed that you tend to avoid arguing hypothetical situations, but please try to humor me. Please do not imagine that I really believe this, it is simply a hypothetical situation I am using to illustrate a point. Imagine that God created someone instantaneously as an adult with full reasoning capabilities but no prior conditioning, and was presented with all the wonders of creation as well as all the scientific data we have regarding it. They were not given a Bible or any other religious text, and they were not given revelation by any higher being. Now imagine that this person was asked to estimate the age of the earth using the information they had been given. I tend to think that such a person would arrive at the conclusion that a creator was a basic requirement as an explanation of the beauty and intricate design in everything they saw, but don’t you think that when they looked at the scientific data, they might also reasonably infer that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and that various species were not all created at once? If God is not trying to trick us, and intends for us to believe in a 6,000 year old earth, with all species instantaneously created at the inception of this time period, why doesn’t he make the evidence more incontrovertible? For instance, why do all YEC explanations for the age of the earth as estimated by the time it takes for the light from distant stars to reach us necessitate some kind of deceptive “appearance of age” theory?

6. Scientists who believe in evolution are not a homogenous group, and generally do not fit the caricatured view of rabid antitheists espoused by creationists, and in fact many of them trust in Christ for salvation. Scientists hold many different worldviews and presuppositions, and even if you say that they have the commonality that they are all against the God of the Bible on some kind of fundamental subconscious level, how do explain Christian scientists who believe in evolution? Furthermore, many people who have a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and YEC are convinced of evolution on the basis of the evidence. How do you explain this, or do you have to explain it away by putting on your Judgment Day hat and pronouncing that these people are not real Christians? How do you reconcile these things with the view that it is an opposition to the God of the Bible that causes people to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that leads them to believe evolution is true?

I know you addressed some of these things in your discussion with Stratnerd, but I can’t remember exactly what your answers were and as I said I don’t have that thread with me at the moment, so I’m sure a brief answer to any questions I have asked that Stratnerd has already asked will refresh my memory, but I would appreciate it if you could answer the other questions in a little more depth.


After a while, I realized that this is exactly what I had been doing, not just with the age of the Earth issue, but with other things that I couldn't make sense of in Scripture or experience: if they didn't fit, I'd make them fit. Of course, this is the kind of rationalization that humans do all the time, and by your own admission, this is also what you do.
Not so. The Bible is the sole guide for what fits and what doesn't. I don't "make" things fit. It's not "my" view, per se, but that of the Bible. The Bible provides the sole grounds for truth and rationality, so it follows that all truth claims will necessarily fit the testimony of scripture. Anything that doesn't fit the testimony of scripture is not true.
Actually, it is your interpretation of the Bible, and is therefore your view, unless you are claiming that when God regenerated you he also somehow faxed a 100% accurate interpretation of Scripture into your brain. I know you do not believe this, not just because it is silly, but because you have said elsewhere (Italics Mine):

I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.
Therefore, it is your view that you are defending, whether or not parts of that view are accurate interpretations of Scripture, and you decide to accept or reject evidence on the basis of your interpretation of Scripture, which you admit you may be wrong about. If you don’t like to think of this as “making the evidence fit your view,” we can say instead that you are “accepting or rejecting evidence on the basis of whether or not it fits with your interpretation of Scripture.” Is this a fairly accurate description of your method for interpreting scientific evidence? If you do not agree with it, please tell me specifically which part or parts are incorrect.


The difference between you and most of the human race is that you do it consciously and intentionally. The fact that you admit it makes me wonder whether there's any point in having a discussion with you, not because I don't want to, but because I'm not sure you're currently capable of understanding perspectives or approaches other than your own.
I think I've demonstrated abundantly that I understand opposing perspectives. The same can't be said for those who oppose Scripture, sadly. Add to that to fact that, again, it is not "my own view" that I'm defending, but rather the testimony of the Bible. It's there for anyone to read and challenge, if they dare.
Please see my previous post for my comments on your claim that you’ve demonstrated abundantly that you understand opposing perspectives. I would like to clarify my point by saying that when I wondered whether you were capable of understanding perspectives other than your own, I meant more that I wondered if you were willing to admit the rationality of an opposing perspective if you did understand it. I apologize, because reading back over what I wrote, I can see that I didn’t word it very clearly at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, I do think you are capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, in fact, I said this in response to your own claim[/] to [I]not be able to understand the arguments made against you on this thread by m_d, SUTG and aharvey.

The reason I think you may be being disingenuous when you say you can’t understand these people is that other people whose intelligence you easily match, including other Christians, can understand them. Is it not just a little too convenient that the only people who cannot make "heads or tails" of these arguments are those who have a presupposition that no beliefs other than their own can make sense? Can you see why people are having trouble accepting your claims that you do not understand these arguments, and instead believe that you are just trying to save face while you bail out of the argument?

Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt... this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.
Hilston wrote: Chilli, let's assume for the moment that your experience with that magazine were the exact opposite. The young earth proponents had bulletproof science on their side. They were not arrogant or desperate, but absolutely humble, nice, and pleasantly confident in their claims, leaving themselves and their findings wide-open to critical assessment and peer review. Let's further suppose you then showed up here and said: "I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that has convinced me that I'm on the right track in believing in a young earth. ... Many of the arguments in the magazine were wonderfully scientific and showed not hint of desperation in their conclusions. Furthermore, many of the contributors seemed to openly welcome opposing views without a bit of arrogance. The combination of these things solidifies my confidence in young-earth creationism. If you based your belief in the young-earth model on the above, I would tell you that your view is just as irrational and unjustified as Stratnerd's, aharvey's, SUTG's, mighty_duck's and all the rest. Such a belief, and such a foundation for that belief is tenuous and it's no wonder that you were swayed away from it. You should have been, given those criteria.

Please see above for clarification on where my confidence in a Young Earth Creation came from. It seems you are assuming I am trying to prove something by my reference to the magazine, or worse yet that my entire worldview is founded upon my reaction to it, but in fact I only mentioned it to indicate what my impetus was for wading through this lengthy and tortuous thread in the first place, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Furthermore, it seems that the Answers in Genesis team, who put out the magazine, use a similar approach to you: they assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture, and then they set out to prove it by interpreting the evidence to fit their views, ...
First of all, it isn't my "assumption." It is the Bible's self-attesting claim. When one investigates those claims, one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever. I don't assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture. It's what the Bible itself claims. And no one has been able to refute those claims without sacrificing rationality.
Can’t you see that by believing what the Bible says about itself, you are assuming its truthfulness? Even if you investigated every claim that Scripture makes, how would you find out that it was true, seeing as you believe that all epistemology that is not based on a belief in the God of the Bible leads to wrong conclusions? What I am saying is that in your view, wouldn’t you need to have the right assumptions about God before you set off to investigate the claims of Scripture, because otherwise you would interpret the evidence to fit in with your presuppositions? In order to have the correct view of God, you would had to have it shown to you by Scripture or some other means of special revelation, and you would be assuming that source to be true and inerrant. If there is some other evidence that will lead to a correct view of God, then how could someone interpret it correctly unless they already had the right presuppositions? I would really appreciate it if you could clear this up for me, as I consider it one of the central issues in the points made against your argument elsewhere on this thread.


... one notable difference being that they at least are not afraid to present evidence. What is your take on the Answers in Genesis team? Do you think they are basically good guys, but they are doing the wrong thing by arguing evidence?
Most of evangelism is fraught with misconceptions about apologetics. I was impressed by one of Ken Ham's papers in which he took a strongly biblical stance. A lot of what the AIG guys do is show the reasonableness of scripture. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem with AIG and organizations like it is that they go too easy on anti-Biblical worldviews. If God is real and the Bible is His Word, then no other competing views are legitimate. Period. Anyone who believes the Bible to be what it claims must be impressed with that. The Bible presents a "take-no-prisoners" approach to apologetics. It's not my method. It's what the Bible teaches.
I suppose it all hinges on the condition that you have given: “if God is real and the Bible is His Word.” Until recently, you have been arguing that believing the Bible was not a precondition, but a conclusion of correct presuppositions, whereas here you seem to be leaning more towards the idea that the truthfulness of Scripture must be assumed before one can have correct views about the world.


I really wanted to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, as my entire life and plans for the future were built on this foundation. There is still a part of me that wishes to believe it, and would love to be convinced (although you will probably employ your own apparently infallible psychic powers to tell me what my real motives are).
I have no idea what your motives are, and would not presume to ascertain them. But belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true. If that's your aim, then it is sadly misguided, futile, and never-ending. There are many areas of the Bible that I've not studied, but when I do study it, it's not to see if it's true, but rather to understand what the living God wants me know and went as far as documenting in order for me to know it. The Bible claims to be God's inerrant and infallible Word, and it answers every philosophical question that can brought to bear on human existence and experience, without contradiction. No other book makes that claim and can do that.
You certainly presumed to know the motives of poor old JackTheSeeker though, didn’t you? I had written that statement just after reading that thread where you attempted to expose his true motives after he had asked a couple of questions about Christianity. I was expecting more of the same brutal treatment, but I have noticed that if someone anticipates what you will do next you seem to take a perverse delight in doing the opposite.

How do reconcile your statement that the veracity of Scripture “is the Bible's self-attesting claim. When one investigates those claims, one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever” with your statement that “belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true”? How can you say that you “don't assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture. It's what the Bible itself claims” if you cannot investigate these claims to see whether or not they are true? When you say that if one investigates the claims of Scripture, “one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever”, are you talking only about people who already believe in the truthfulness of Scripture? Why is this not assuming the truthfulness of Scripture? How does someone come to believe in the veracity of Scripture if they do not assume it is true beforehand, and cannot investigate its claims to see if they are true until they believe in it? Please, please clear this up for me, because it sounds like sheer absurdity to me.

It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.

Hilston replied:
Originally Posted by Hilston
By the way, it has been said more than once recently that I've "already decided right." I'd like to request a show of hands: Is anyone involved in this debate arguing from the standpoint: "I haven't decided whether or not I'm right"?
Well, the idea that everybody thinks they are right was first posited by you in one of your earliest posts in the debate. I think that may just be excuse for always thinking you are right.
There is a difference between arguing for something that one believes to be right, and always thinking one is right. I know I'm not alway right. I'm wrong quite often, in fact. But what I believe to be right, I believe I am right about. I acknowledge I could be wrong about things, but until I discover otherwise, I will proceed to argue for what I believe to be true. What is right, true, correct is the Bible. Of that we should all be confident. We might bicker about the details, but understood normatively and consistently, the Bible is clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and pervasively pertinent in all matters that concern man and his existence.

Contrary to what you might think, people are often uncertain of what they believe, or do not deliberately affirm most of what constitutes their worldview.
I agree with you fully.
So you fully agree that people are often uncertain of what they believe?

I suppose that you will not be convinced of this because you think you are right (by your own admission).
I just agreed with you. Now who is making snap judgments and invoking their psychic skills?
I am a pro at making snap judgments, and like you I come across as arrogant and harsh, hyper-critical and opinionated; maybe its the residual effects of the churches I have been a part of, maybe I’m just a cocky bastard. Sometimes I think its because I’m passionate about knowing what is true, and I’m intolerant of irrational self-serving arguments that obscure truth. Actually, no... the cocky bastard idea may have been closer. I did not mean it as a personal insult when I said those things about you in a previous thread, I just think that your complaints that you don’t fit in here and that you are hated by most people on TOL are a gross exaggeration. Put it this way: you are not hated any more than anyone else that disagrees with the prevalent view on this thread that Open Theism is a Biblical idea.

As far as the “psychic skills” thing goes, again I wrote this after that disturbing JackTheSeeker thread, and you seemed to be starting to make similar judgments about me when you said that my belief in YEC must not have been based on anything solid to begin with. As I’ve stated, it was based quite solidly on God’s word, and I’m sure if you had known me personally at the time, you would have been hard-pressed to disagree. What I am beginning to realize is that your statements about the true condition of other people’s hearts and minds is perhaps not driven so much by conceit as it is by the Biblical proposal that the heart of man is deceitful and desperately sick. If this is the case, I do not agree with the way you interpret or apply scriptures such as these to mean that [I]you can judge the hidden things in people’s hearts, especially in light of Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 4:5, which says “judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts”.

In my opinion, it is this attitude that caused the discussion to stop progressing, as it does every other discussion you figure prominently in.
You don't think this thread stopped because I stopped participating? You don't think this thread would have continued if I chose to continue it? Have a look at the last few pages. What becomes curiously absent from this thread?
Well, when I wrote the above statement, you had still been regularly posting in this thread. Sorry, sometimes there is a delay because i start writing at home, and then I might finish it a week or more later. Anyway, my statement that the discussion had stopped progressing was in reference to what I and others perceived as a halt in qualitative progress, which I think happened some time back. It just seemed as if things were going around in circles for a while there. I am glad you are still willing to post in this thread, and I really hope we can continue a progressive and fruitful discussion.


Consider this: if you think that you are right, how the hell would you be able to tell if you were wrong?
I would be able to tell by seeing an area of my thinking that does not align with the Bible.
What I'm saying is, by embracing the idea that everyone thinks that they are right, you're effectively disqualifying yourself from being able to accurately interpret or assess their worldview, seeing as you have an a priori and unchangeable belief that they are wrong and you are right.
You're missing the point. My point is that no one argues for a position that they do not personally believe to be true. Unless they're just being academic about some hypothetical consideration, which has its place. I assume from the onset that anyone who cares enough to come here and debate has a view that they believe to be correct and wants to have it challenged. Otherwise, why show up? If they just have questions, that will be obvious. But usually everyone has a axe to grind, and they think that axe is the right axe and that it is worth grinding.
Just for the record, I have not made up my mind about many of the issues discussed in this thread. I came here in the vague hope of finding some persuasive arguments in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis, because I believe that the reliability of Scripture rests largely on issues such as this. I think it is difficult to claim to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and interpret it with a consistent hermeneutic while at the same time believing the first chapter of Genesis is not to be taken literally. I do not believe I have an axe to grind; it just seems as if some crucial parts of your argument are inconsistent with other parts.

Hilston wrote: Furthermore, I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.
Let me genuinely (as genuine as I can be in your eyes) congratulate you for your honesty here. I think that this paragraph is the closest you've come to exhibiting a semblance of true humility and a teachability. Usually when excuse yourself by saying that it is not you saying it, it is what the Bible teaches, you do not add the qualifier "...as I understand it."
Look, Chilli, my attitude has not changed throughout this debate. I've been as honest as I know to be. Anyone on the receiving end of my claims is going to view me as a big meanie, an arrogant know-it-all SOB. I know this going in. Nobody likes to be told they're wrong, especially when it is expressed in the kind of absolute and authoritative terms that the Bible uses. It's a sad thing that people get their backs up so readily because of Biblical language, but it is to be expected. The Bible said it would happen. I'm not here to impress you or anyone with my erudition, honesty or niceness. I just want to see the Biblical view defended clearly and coherently, and cogently, if that's possible. But persuasion is not the same as coherence. The Bible puts the priority on the latter.
Reading back over this, I can’t believe I used the word “teachability”, as it is so prone to being misunderstood. What I meant was basically an attitude that you may be wrong, and the willingness to really listen to other people arguments without having made up your mind beforehand. This is what I mean by the word “teachable”, my use of it here is another residual effect of the churches I have been involved with. Please understand that I did not mean this in any kind of snide way, nor as a backhanded way of saying you were generally dishonest. I was essentially trying to point out that usually when you excuse yourself from criticism by saying that it not your view you are espousing, but the view of the Bible, you do not add the qualifier "...as I understand it", which makes a huge difference to your argument.


Having said that, I'm having trouble reconciling your statement here that you know you've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches with your previous claim that everyone thinks they are right. I suppose you could be saying that people basically approach topics with the view that they are probably right, but may be open to the idea that they are wrong, a view which I generally would accept.
That's exactly what I mean. No one carries around a view that they think is probably wrong.
Okay, I’m glad we could clear that up, even though it basically makes moot much of my last post.


However, I can't see how this attitude squares with your belief that people simply interpret evidence to fit their worldview, because it seems to me that if you take the latter approach, you are excluded from genuinely thinking that you may be wrong as you are impervious to evidence.
It's not that simple. There is a whole network of beliefs that are brought to bear upon evidence. If a person is a methodological naturalist, they not only summarily dismiss any notion of extra-logical considerations, but there is an entire worldview that underpins that assumption. I've done work for the creationist movement for years. I understand the evidence. I understand the arguments on both sides. I understand how one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview. Do you see that?
I do see what you are saying, and I think I fully understand your argument on this point. I agree that worldviews and presuppositions and the limitations of human reason need to be taken into consideration when interpreting evidence and that it is naïve to think that we can assess anything with true objectivity, although I think it is an unwarranted generalization to say that everyone interprets evidence to fit their worldview, seeing as it logically excludes the possibility of all rational discourse and argument. Indeed, if you really believed this, I doubt you would bother presenting any of the evidence for your worldview that you have so far.

You have not really responded to what I am saying here at all, you have just restated your claim that people interpret evidence to fit their worldviews, something which was included as a premise in what I said. The question implied in my above statement is how do you reconcile the view that people interpret evidence in keeping with their presuppositions with your claim that you allow for the fact that you may be wrong, and you are open to correction? Because if you are impervious to evidence that contradicts your worldview, you cannot genuinely think that you may be wrong, and you have no method for being convinced that you are wrong, seeing as you will consider any evidence presented against you as a result of your opponents worldview. Could you please answer this question?

Furthermore, when you say that “one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview”, I would be interested to know how you interpret a situation in which a person with a particular worldview is convinced by evidence to modify or even totally change their worldview. For example, what about an atheist who converts to Christ on the basis of the historical evidence for the reliability of the Scriptures and the resurrection of Christ? Conversely, consider a Christian missionary Bible translator who believes the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word but eventually leaves Christianity because of inconsistencies and discrepancies that he sees in Scripture, not being able to reconcile them with a truthful and consistent God.

Or, to make it more personal, please consider my own struggle to understand issues such as the age of the universe in light of the information presented in Genesis. I come from a background of ardent belief that the Bible is God’s Word, and that it is inerrant. I tend to agree with the argument that if the first Chapter of Genesis is arbitrarily allegorized, we might as well allegorize the rest of Genesis, which provides the historical and theological background for the most crucial (pun intended) events in Scripture, and that our confidence in Scripture and ultimately in Christ’s redeeming work is therefore seriously undermined. I am presented with evidence such as the time it takes for the light from the most distant star to reach us, and I find it compelling, but confusing because it contradicts my view that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point I can decide that it mustn’t be true because it contradicts my worldview, or I can try to be honest with God and with myself, and consider that perhaps there are elements of my own worldview that need adjusting.

How do these considerations square with your belief that people are not convinced to change their worldviews by evidence? Also, even though it is against your raison d’etre, I would really appreciate discussing the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth with you, perhaps in another thread, particularly because you have said that you have studied these things for some years. Would you consider this? I am not a scientist, so I should make easy pickings.


In other words, when you say "when I find [my incorrect beliefs about what the Bible teaches,] I'll correct them," how exactly will you find them? How will you become convinced you are wrong? Would you mind more precisely explaining your views in this area?
Yes. I used to think that the Bible's description of believers identified as "The Body of Christ" was the same "New Covenant Israel." I used to believe that the Body of Christ was the fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel, hence name, New Covenant Israel. I had someone suggest to me otherwise. So I checked it out. I re-evaluated the assumptions I brought to the biblical evidence and found that I was in serious error. Another example concerns the role of angels. I once thought that angels were ministering to believers invisibly, and even though it bothered me deep down that I never saw the kind of angelic activity or presence described in the Bible, I decided that I would believe it because the Bible seemed to teach that this was the case. Someone suggested to me that I was mistaken, that the angels do not have an active ministry to believers today, and that the reason we do not see or experience their presence is because they no longer have a role in the lives of believers. So I re-evaluated the assumption that I brought to the biblical evidence and discovered, in fact, that I was wrong. The Bible teaches that the angels are not ministering invisibly or otherwise today.
The examples you give of times you have been corrected are both regarding issues of Biblical interpretation, and presumably involve someone in your fellowship whom you respect and admire. They are derived from your worldview, but could hardly be said to constitute your worldview as you define it. It would be similar to an evolutionist changing their views from phyletic gradualism to that of puntctual equilibrium; the change is essentially superficial and the basic worldview of evolution remains the same. What is really relevant to the topic at hand is whether you think it possible that there are elements of your basic worldview that may be wrong. Do you think you might be wrong about anything other than particular interpretations of Scripture, and can anyone other than Christians who share your general worldview present you with evidence you may find compelling? How would you tell if you were wrong about evidence that contradicts your basic worldview?


But seriously, I did not mean that you actually flew into a fit of rage (I'm assuming you didn't, although I do from time to time), but by "losing your cool" I meant that it was clear that you were floundering when your answers devolved from self-assured and civilized replies to belittling ad hominem attacks. In my experience, this is a common response by those who are cornered, but do not want to admit they are wrong.
If there were points I could not or did not answer, I could see why you might come to that conclusion. But my ridicule, mockery and insults were offered after the points were answered, not in lieu of.

You are intelligent enough to understand what Mighty_Duck are saying and to realize the import of their lucid points upon what you are proposing, ...

That's where we disagree. The points are not lucid. They are fraught with uncritical assumptions and linguistic wrangling. They're just further attempts to accomplish what has already been tried from a different angle. There comes a point where there argument has been made and understood, and the opponent starts grasping for other alternatives, trying other angles. From where I'm sitting, they all seemed to be the same complaints cast in different terms, and I already knew what the outcome would be. I had to give up a couple months of my life to participate in the Battle Royale and the Grandstands. The argument has been made. There comes a point where I must stop and let the argument stand for itself. If you're confused about any part of the argument, I will happily clarify, but I cannot possibly answer each and every variation of the same failed notions that people come up with.

... but your stubbornness and your attitude that you are right prevents you from being able to accept it, and so when the arguments have been made in a way that you can no longer evade them or throw up smokescreens or muddy the waters, you revert to juvenile taunts and crass insults.
I'm sure it appeared that way. I assure you -- and you can go back and see for yourself -- that all arguments have been met coherently and soundly by what the Bible says about them. My taunts and crass insults are designed to expose the futility and inanity of anti-Biblical worldviews. Jesus did it. Paul did it. We are to follow biblical examples and that's what I've tried my best to do. My insults were crass, yes; but juvenile? Hardly.
I am confused about some of your arguments as presented earlier in this thread, and I might get around to rehashing the earlier exchanges in a future post, but for now I’ll just leave most of these comments of alone for the sake of brevity.

Ironically, though, your statement here that “there comes a point where there argument has been made and understood, and the opponent starts grasping for other alternatives, trying other angles” could be just as easily be levelled against you by mighty_duck and Co., with the difference that the only other angle you have at your disposal seems to be crass insults. On that topic, let me also point out that Jesus and Paul were of a somewhat different order than James Hilston. Jesus may have done it, and Paul may have done it, but that does not mean you can do it. The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, and although he may have insulted his opponents, he warned that anyone who says “you fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell. If Jesus jumped off a ten story bridge, would you do it too? The Bible says Paul is an Apostle of God who penned most of the New Testament, in which he has certainly bandied around a few crass insults, but he says that “the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone… those who oppose him he must gently instruct” and “in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us”. Do as I say, not as I do? Maybe. When you claim you are following the Biblical model by crassly insulting those with whom you don’t agree, you again sound like you fit right in on TOL, as most of the base insults lobbed by Christians in these forums usually end up with some kind of disgusting self-righteous gloss smeared over them.

Do you really want to argue that crassly insulting those who don’t believe you is the Biblical idea of the Christian life, or would you rather relegate this behavior to the human foibles of James Hilston? By the way, most people consider crass insults to be very juvenile.


Hilston, I don't know if you are really having trouble understanding or not. I am leaning towards the view that you could understand if you let yourself entertain the idea that you might be wrong.
OK, what are you suggesting I could be wrong about?
Your entire worldview.


Sooner or later though, you will need to either give up your attempt to neatly wrap up the mysteries of God and the paradox of human experience in a tidy little bundle, or leave them as they actually are: mystery and paradox.
Please give me an example of a mystery or paradox I should be willing to accept.
Okay, how about the mystery of the Triune God? Care to explain how someone can exist as three persons in one and one person in three? How about Jesus being simultaneously 100% God and 100% human? How does he do that? How about the mystery of eternality? Can you make that a bit less mysterious for me? How about the union between Christ and his Bride? How about the tension between predestination and human responsibility? How about the idea of an impartial God who chooses a special people for salvation and condemns all others, even though all are equally deserving of punishment? Perhaps you’ve got this one all figured out. How about the huge gap between our own concept of justice (which is apparently derived from God’s nature) and God’s idea of justice as eternal punishment? You believe the only way of salvation is through Christ don’t you? What about all the unsaved who have never heard of Jesus? What happens to babies who die in the womb without having heard of Jesus? As far as I can tell, in your own view most of these are things Christians should be willing to accept, and I would be very impressed if you can show how they are not mysterious and paradoxical. If you’ve got the answers, don’t keep them to yourself! Perhaps you could post them on your ministry’s website, or teach a course on them. Please be specific, and trite answers need not apply.


I really would like to be convinced of your view, there is nothing I would find more comforting than crawling back into the insulating shell I lived in when I thought I had it all figured out.
From what you've written, it doesn't appear you've ever really stood on the solid foundation of God's Word, especially if you're so willing to sacrifice rationality on the altar of mystery and paradox.
When I first read this, I took offense at your continuing cheek in asserting that you know how I stand in relation to God’s Word better than myself, my family and my friends. Haven’t I already stated that my belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis was based on the Word of God? Its is this kind of behavior that made me think you must be trying to brush up on your psychic skills. But, as I stated earlier, I think I can now understand where you are coming from a little bit more.

That doesn’t make your attitude right though. It’s pretty easy to get a bunch of categories for people based on what you believe and then force everybody into the category you think they belong in, but it’s also pretty arrogant and cruel. You are not God, you do not judge the hearts and minds, you are in no position to make such statements, and one day you might feel pretty embarrassed for having done so.

I am not willing to sacrifice rationality, but I have never been a friend of rationalism. You believe in meta-arguments, do you believe in meta-rationale? For the record, let me say that I am willing to sacrifice what seems rational to me in order to know the Truth.

Are you following the One-On-One between SUTG and me? The subject is not dead, and if you think SUTG raised points that I have not answered, I'm sure that they'll come up again in that debate. Or perhaps you can remind him.
I saved your discussion with SUTG to my hard drive, but have not gotten around to reading it yet. Perhaps I will read it when I get home from holidays.

I look forward to your responses Hilston, and I would just like to assure you that I am not “against” you, and I think you make some good points. I hope we can continue this discussion in a fruitful manner.

Cheers,

Chilli

[Balder]

This is a good, thoughtful letter, Chilli. I hope it gets a response!

[Chilli]

This is a good, thoughtful letter, Chilli. I hope it gets a response!

Thanks, I'm sure Hilston will respond eventually, lets's just hope its worth the wait.

[Spenser]

Wow, after taking the time to read this; the participant in this Battle Royal and the other creationists here wouldn't last a second over at the IIDB Evo forum. Something tells me many of you already know this...

[Spenser]

I was asked try and post this here as it is a serious question to creationists

Link (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._evolution.htm)

[Chilli]

Come on Hilston, C'moooonnnnnnNNN!.

[Spenser]

Come on Hilston, C'moooonnnnnnNNN!.

I've seem to have gotten his attention over here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=161187)

[Spenser]

I've seem to have gotten his attention over here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=161187)

And it took all of a couple hours for him (his arguments) to get beat up so bad he's disappeared... :chuckle:

[Chilli]

And it took all of a couple hours for him (his arguments) to get beat up so bad he's disappeared... :chuckle:

Don't be so sure... Hilston sometimes takes a while to get around to responding. Mind you, sometimes he does seem to run away as well... but then he comes back.... but just to take the piss out of everyone.

[Balder]

Don't be so sure... Hilston sometimes takes a while to get around to responding. Mind you, sometimes he does seem to run away as well... but then he comes back.... but just to take the piss out of everyone.
You've got the patience of a saint, Chilli.

Personally, I think he's not coming back, just as he bailed out of my conversation with him.

[Spenser]

Don't be so sure... Hilston sometimes takes a while to get around to responding. Mind you, sometimes he does seem to run away as well... but then he comes back.... but just to take the piss out of everyone.

I've seen this with TAGers before as well. It seems to be a tactic used so they can come back and regurgitate the exact same assertion that were already debunked. That or get a last word in on an argument when your opponent is no longer around. A cheap victory if one can even call it that...

[Chilli]

You've got the patience of a saint, Chilli.

Personally, I think he's not coming back, just as he bailed out of my conversation with him.

Well, it was a long post, so I assume it will take him a little longer to answer... Hilston has assured me in a PM that he has been working on a response, so I'm pretty sure he'll pop in at least once more.

Watch this space...

[Chilli]

I've seen this with TAGers before as well. It seems to be a tactic used so they can come back and regurgitate the exact same assertion that were already debunked. That or get a last word in on an argument when your opponent is no longer around. A cheap victory if one can even call it that...

Hilston is certainly a complex person... I don't think it's as simple as you say though.

My impression is that at a certain point Hilston genuinely believes that the argument is no longer worth having, because the person he is debating is irredeemably recalcitrant. In other words, he believes that they don't [I]really[/] want to know the truth, or that they are being deliberately obtuse.

Obviously, it is a little bit suspicious that he reaches this conlcusion when he cannot come up with a substantial answer though.

C'mon Hilston, take the bait...

[Spenser 2]

It is also a bit suspicious that even the majority of Christians don't take to the argument...

[Chilli]

It is also a bit suspicious that even the majority of Christians don't take to the argument...

Well, not really, when you consider that Hilston's presuppositionalist approach is only held by a very small minority of Christians. Mind you, so is the average TOL christian's open view of God...

[Chilli]

And it took all of a couple hours for him (his arguments) to get beat up so bad he's disappeared... :chuckle:

Spenser... I see you have already been banned. Not an uncommon occurrence for atheists on this forum... wlecome to TOL!

I just wanted to point out though, that the arguments delivered by those who disagreed with Hilston on that website are really not much different from those posed by might_duck, aharvey, SUTG and other atheists and agnostics in this thread... obviously, though, the members of that other forum are a lot more familiar with the TAGers reasoning, and so the lengthy and baffling process that took place in this forum was mercifully cut short.

As much as I'd like to think that those comments have caused Hilston to rethink his position, going by his track record in this thread, I seriously doubt he has been dissuaded in any way.

[Spenser 2]

I doubt he has been dissuaded either. TAGers love to spring the TAG upon an opponent in open debate. What is the last thing a proponent of evolution would expect to have thrown his way, an attack on his epistemology??? This battle royal had nothing to do with science and evolution from Hilston's corner, it was a trap from the outset. The people at 'the other forum' have seen and dealt with presups many times over and are open to any argument but don't let any of the BS the TAG asserts slip by.

It is a debate in which the presup insists you play by his rules and if you do your wrong and if you don't your wrong. It works well to advocate it in a forum like this where it will get little resistance since it already assumes what most here believe to be true. Hilston will probably eventually return here but I doubt to see him else where.

It is nice to see you take up the fight though

[Hilston]

Spenser has written here and elsewhere:

[Re: IIDB:]The philosophers there will eat you up ...I was really hoping to encounter some thinkers with whom I would not have to start from square one in explaining the basics of transcendental argumentation. I was sadly disappointed. The philosphers at IIDB were in no position to eat me up; the philosophers there have no teeth. That much was evident when I realized that those who chose to participate and answer my questions knew little more than a few terms and catch phrases that they must've learned at a community college summer course on "how to sound like you know what you're talking about when debating a presuppositionalist." Despite tossing around terms like TAG and IoC and speciously asserting that TAS and TAA as equally valid arguments, it is plain to anyone worth his intellectual salt that the participants at IIDB, at least the ones who chimed in when I visited, are poseurs. I'm sure there are exceptions; I just didn't encounter any.

Jim had plenty of good rebuttals he ignored ...The fact that Spenser called those "rebuttals" "good" says more about Spenser's calibre of understanding and argumentation than anything I've read of him thus far. It's one thing to be a weak philosopher who doesn't understand the arguments. It's quite another to be a weak philosopher who goes around lauding the bad and empty arguments of other weak philosophers.

... and its obvious that if he can't even debate with the top minds in atheism at IIDB then his argument never stands to gain much, considering it is all about engaging atheism as you say ...In my opinion, SUTG, aharvey, mighty_duck, ThePhy and others here on TOL are superior thinkers to what I encountered at IIDB. As to what my argument stands to gain, it's irrelevant since it's not MY argument. It is the argument of the Bible and it will continue to be irrefragable and singularly rational even if I never speak another word about it.

What I've found among anti-Theists who really understand the Biblical argument (there aren't many) is nominal agreement that their worldview cannot justify the laws of logic or account for the uniformity of nature. Where they have trouble is acknowledging the necessity of having to justify and account for them in order to do legitimate science. They also have trouble in acknowledging that God's existence and attributes are the justification and accounting for all of creation, but that's as much a moral/spiritual issue as it is a logical one. Anti-Theists like Spenser become a huge time-sink, because unlike anti-theists who understand the argument, recognize the coherence of it, but just refuse to accept it, Spenser THINKS he understands the argument, THINKS it has coherence problems, and THINKS he has a better argument. When one explores the arguments that anti-Theists like Spenser offer, they are found sadly wanting, and not even understanding the position they're arguing against, let alone the full ramifications of their own view.

For example ...Even asking for logic to be valid is rather strange since validity is a function of logic. Your question presupposes the validity of logic.Anyone who has thoughtfully followed this discussion or the BRIX should be able to predict the Biblical rebuttal of this statement.

Are you kidding, that is why TAG fails... parodies!!! Muslims TAG vs Christian TAG. Obviously there is a possibility of the contrary ...Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this statement? If you've followed this thread, you should already know what my response would be.

Sure, by making up a God that supposedly validates it for you. That is nothing more than an assertion. The validation fairy is an argument that carries the same weight.Anyone who has read the BRIX debate or my exchanges on this thread should be able to tell right away where the flaw lies in Spenser's "validation fairy" dig.

... it does not follow that if logic is rational then there is a rational God.Spenser has committed a fatal error with this statement. Can anyone tell me what it is?

... Further, a TAG argument for the God of Deism asserts another possibility therefore debunking your IoC. When you bite on this one I'll go further ...More evidence that Spenser is either very new to Biblical argumentation, or he's just not a very careful thinker.

It is also a bit suspicious that even the majority of Christians don't take to the argument ...The majority of Christians don't read their Bibles. This is the typical ad populum fallacy that anti-theists use with aplomb.

I doubt he has been dissuaded either. TAGers love to spring the TAG upon an opponent in open debate. What is the last thing a proponent of evolution would expect to have thrown his way, an attack on his epistemology???Ridiculous. Notice that the debate was about what is science, i.e. knowledge. Upon what is one's knowledge based? That is a valid question. That is epistemology. If Spenser is correct, that "the last thing a proponent of evolution would expect to have thrown his way [is] an attack on his epistemology," then it only goes to prove that anti-Theist scientists are irrational at the very foundation of what they claim to do.

This battle royal had nothing to do with science and evolution from Hilston's corner, it was a trap from the outset.Spenser obviously has not read the debate, or he did not read it very carefully.

The people at 'the other forum' have seen and dealt with presups many times over and are open to any argument but don't let any of the BS the TAG asserts slip by.They don't even get it. And what they get of it, they misapply. It's really quite pathetic. What's worse is how self-impressed they are, not to mention all the self-congratulation, back-patting and internal kudos they all give each other.

It is a debate in which the presup insists you play by his rules and if you do your wrong and if you don't your wrong.They're not "our" rules. They're God's rules. And yes, it is a rigged game. If you play, you have no choice on which rules to follow. The rules are set and non-negotiable. If you don't play, you can try to ignore the rules, but you do so at the expense of rationality.

It works well to advocate it in a forum like this where it will get little resistance since it already assumes what most here believe to be true. Hilston will probably eventually return here but I doubt to see him else where.The only reason I'm here is for Chilli. Spenser mistakenly assumes that I enjoy some sort of protection or insulation here at TOL. Just a cursory perusal of my interactions on this website will demonstrate abundantly how widely hated, loathed, ridiculed, mocked and despised I am here. Also, arguing for the Creationist view on a Christian forum is entirely new for me. I was invited here to debate this subject, or else I never would have done it. All of my past debates occurred at Freethinkers and Atheist forums, which is where I met some of my best Atheist friends.

You've got the patience of a saint, Chilli.No, Chilli is just a cocky bastard, just like I am. And just like me, I suspect that Chilli also has a life outside of TOL. Sadly, it would appear the same can't be said for those whose total posts outnumber the number of days they've been members of this forum.

Personally, I think he's not coming back, just as he bailed out of my conversation with him.Did he just call that a "conversation"? What Balder calls "bail[ing] out" of a "conversation" I call freeing myself from an endless quagmire of hopeless confusion and veiled contradiction.

Jim
(Hear the latest rockin' tune by James Hilston, Angry Rockstar (http://www.jameshilston.com/music/Angry_Rockstar.mp3))

[Hilston]

Hi Chilli,

This has taken quite a while to cobble together. I don't have the energy right now to read through it all. If I detect any errors or typos later, I'll send a follow-up.

I am fully aware of what constitutes a normative hermeneutic, in fact I have taught a course on the subject myself. What I am trying to say is that a normative hermeneutic will typically lead to a literalistic interpretation of the first chapter in Genesis (usually not the second chapter though, interestingly), ...You have to explain what you mean by "literalistic." It is a badly abused word. No one takes the entire Bible literally, and the Bible is clear regarding figurative narratives versus non-figurative ones. The normative hermeneutic leads to the same kind of interpretation in Genesis 2 as Genesis 1 and the rest of the Biblical corpus.

... which when coupled with the non-negotiable view that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms, often leads one to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that it fits with what one already believes.This is true of all belief systems, including Evolutionism and Methodological Naturalism. In that statement, you've made the very same point I was trying to convey in the Battle Royale IX. If indeed people are led by their beliefs to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that fits with what one already believes, then of what use is a discussion of evidence? That was the point I emphasized in my last post of BRIX.

Is “using the tools of science properly” as simple as interpreting the evidence to fit with a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth?No, using the tools of science properly means to think God's thoughts after Him, to acknowledge Christ Jesus, the Logos, as the foundation of all true knowledge ~ the very reason why logic and science work ~ to recognize that all of existence, all of nature, are orderly and uniform because Christ is holding it all together. By including those key ingredients in one's thinking and approach to science, the Young-Earth model emerges and all the claims of scripture are corroborated. By leaving those key points out of one's science, one becomes irrational in their pursuit of science and blindly invokes unjustified assumptions. Nonetheless, God's design of man is so robust, combined with the fact that man is created in God's image (i.e. rational, creative), that even God-less scientists can make technological progress in spite of those omissions, and not because of them.

Regardless of whether or not this is what you mean by your claim that “using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view,” you apparently advocate interpreting the scientific evidence to fit a literalistic reading of the first chapter of Genesis.This is too narrow. All evidence comes pre-interpreted from God, either by explicit claims or by inference from Scripture, ~ ALL of scripture ~ not just Genesis 1. Our obligation and responsibility, as God's pinnacle creation, created in His image, is to discover God's interpretation of the evidence, and not to presume to function autonomously, as if God can be rationally ignored.

Of course, your proposal is that scientists who believe in evolution simply interpret the evidence to fit with their worldview as well, in this case an evolutionary paradigm, and that in fact everybody interprets evidence in a way that fits with their presuppositions, with the result that there are no “brute facts,” but this is problematic for several, somewhat interrelated, reasons:

1. If you are claiming that everyone simply interprets the evidence to fit their presuppositions or preconceptions, there really is no rational basis for a ‘normative hermeneutic.’The rational basis for the normative hermeneutic lies in the fact that the writers of scripture, under inerrant and infallible divine guidance, wrote using certain rules of grammar and language that are known and comprehensible.

In fact, such a view comports much more accurately with a postmodern literary approach. What I mean is that such an approach undermines the idea that we are to interpret the writings of Scripture in their grammatico-historical context, because we are actually interpreting them in line with our presuppositions. This is nothing if not arbitrary.I'm not sure where you get this idea, because the normative hermeneutic and the grammatico-historical hermeneutic are one and the same.

2. If it is disingenuous of a godless scientist to interpret scientific evidence to fit their worldview, why is it alright for a Christian scientist to do so?What do you mean by "alright"? Anyone can interpret evidence however they want. But only the person with the correct worldview has sufficient warrant to interpret evidence in light of it and then to call it 'science'. The person with the false worldview has no warrant to do so.

If you say it is because the Christian believes in the God of the Bible, then this also seems like an arbitrary approach.How is it arbitrary? One worldview is true; all others are false. There is nothing arbitrary there. Fallible finite humans cannot autonomously decide which worldview is correct with consistency or coherence. All worldviews are irrational, with the sole exception of the Biblical one.

Furthermore, such an approach undermines any kind of scientific method, seeing as it is driven not by evidence but by sheer bias.EVERYTHING is driven by bias, David. The question is: What is the correct bias? It certainly cannot be the atheistic/Evolutionism view, which is irrational at its base.

I am aware that there are a number of prominent anti-theistic scientists who take such an approach, but surely you agree that this should not be normative? Can you see that the logical outcome of such a belief entails doing away with science altogether?It's not possible. Humans have been designed by God to be curious, inventive and logical. Humans, by their design, cannot help but pursue science, and this is what makes the rejection of The Designer/Creator so offensive and egregious.

3. I’m not sure if when you say there are no uninterpreted, plain facts, you are including all scientific data. If this is what you are claiming, would you please explain how you would consider scientific facts such as the strata in which various fossils are discovered, or the time it takes for light to travel from one point to another to be tainted by interpretation or bias?Those who hold the preconceived notion that the earth is billions of years old will look at fossils and assume they are eons old and that the strata can correctly indicate how old the fossils are. This is all based on the unproven assumption that the strata were deposited over long ages of time. Those who believe that the earth is young look at the same fossil evidence assume they are young based on the testimony of scripture. Both sides have bias. Both interpretations are affected by the respective biases. The latter view has the correct bias and is in a superior position to draw correct conclusions from the evidence.

4. Furthermore, can you see that your claim that all facts are interpreted in a way that comports with a person’s presuppositions is again more in line with a postmodern epistemology, and undermines your claim that you can prove your own worldview and disprove all others? The logical outcome of such a belief will be that truth is relative and subjective, and cannot be transmitted, or that if there is objective truth, it is unknowable. If you know of another option, please tell me.None of what you've stated aligns with my view, with the exception of the first part of your first sentence. Do you disagree that all facts are interpreted in a way that comports with a person's presuppositions? If so, give me a fact that you've interpreted apart from your presuppositions. I'd like to see one.

5. As stated above, I admit that theories about evolution may come about as a result of anti-theistic sentiments on the part of those who hold to them, and I suppose that given your ardent espousal of Van Til’s claim that there are no “brute facts,” you will find the following hypothetical situation difficult to imagine. I have also noticed that you tend to avoid arguing hypothetical situations, but please try to humor me. Please do not imagine that I really believe this, it is simply a hypothetical situation I am using to illustrate a point. Imagine that God created someone instantaneously as an adult with full reasoning capabilities but no prior conditioning, and was presented with all the wonders of creation as well as all the scientific data we have regarding it. They were not given a Bible or any other religious text, and they were not given revelation by any higher being. Now imagine that this person was asked to estimate the age of the earth using the information they had been given. I tend to think that such a person would arrive at the conclusion that a creator was a basic requirement as an explanation of the beauty and intricate design in everything they saw, but don’t you think that when they looked at the scientific data, they might also reasonably infer that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and that various species were not all created at once?Not at all! What would lead a person to believe that? Tell me why you, David, would look at the layers of strata and assume long eons of deposition? Why would such a person as you describe look at the rapid deposition of Mt. St. Helens or some similar cataclysmic phenomena, and not conclude that strata were similarly deposited in a rapid, cataclysmic fashion?

If God is not trying to trick us, and intends for us to believe in a 6,000 year old earth, with all species instantaneously created at the inception of this time period, why doesn’t he make the evidence more incontrovertible? For instance, why do all YEC explanations for the age of the earth as estimated by the time it takes for the light from distant stars to reach us necessitate some kind of deceptive “appearance of age” theory?No deception is intended by God in how He put together the constellations. God wanted there to be stars. He wanted them to be far away, and He also wanted their light to shine upon the earth. I don't call that deception. I call it purposeful and effective. It is only perceived by Evolutionists to be a deception because they erroneously assume that the lights in the sky can be used to ascertain the age of the earth. There is no warrant for that assumption.

6. Scientists who believe in evolution are not a homogenous group, and generally do not fit the caricatured view of rabid antitheists espoused by creationists, and in fact many of them trust in Christ for salvation. ...The Bible says that there is no neutrality. Either someone aligns with the God of Scripture or is against Him. Those who claim to be neutral are lying to us or themselves or both. Those who claim to trust Christ for salvation but disregard the claims of scripture are either misguided or self-deluded about their faith. These are not my ideas, but that which is taught in scripture.

Scientists hold many different worldviews and presuppositions, and even if you say that they have the commonality that they are all against the God of the Bible on some kind of fundamental subconscious level, how do explain Christian scientists who believe in evolution?I believe in evolution (lower-case "e"); living things certainly change and adapt. I don't believe in spontaneous generation. I believe God created the earth teeming with life. Professing Christians who believe in spontaneous generation are opposing the God they claim to believe in.

Furthermore, many people who have a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and YEC are convinced of evolution on the basis of the evidence.When I meet those people, I show them that the Biblical text does not allow that view. I try to show them that they have to choose, because they can't have both without contradicting scripture. If they stick to their spontaneous generation guns and continue to claim to believe in biblical inerrancy, then they're espousing a false view and they will be held accountable by God for it.

How do you explain this, or do you have to explain it away by putting on your Judgment Day hat and pronouncing that these people are not real Christians?It's not my judgment, David. It's not my view I'm defending. It's the teaching of scripture. You can complain all you want about what it says, but that doesn't change what it says.

How do you reconcile these things with the view that it is an opposition to the God of the Bible that causes people to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that leads them to believe evolution is true?I don't need to reconcile them. Biblically speaking, there is no conflict. The Bible predicted and addresses all these things you've raised.

The Bible is the sole guide for what fits and what doesn't. I don't "make" things fit. It's not "my" view, per se, but that of the Bible. The Bible provides the sole grounds for truth and rationality, so it follows that all truth claims will necessarily fit the testimony of scripture. Anything that doesn't fit the testimony of scripture is not true.

Actually, it is your interpretation of the Bible, and is therefore your view, unless you are claiming that when God regenerated you he also somehow faxed a 100% accurate interpretation of Scripture into your brain.If I never existed, you would still be held accountable by Christ to submit to a normative interpretation of the Bible. It's not my view; I didn't make this stuff up. It is the view of the Bible, understood according to the same rules of grammar, semantics and syntax that were used and understood by the original writer/audience. You are commanded to submit to that, not by me, not by anyone's interpretation, but by that which the scriptures affirm according to the rules of language in which they were written.

I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.

If you don’t like to think of this as “making the evidence fit your view,” we can say instead that you are “accepting or rejecting evidence on the basis of whether or not it fits with your interpretation of Scripture.” Is this a fairly accurate description of your method for interpreting scientific evidence? If you do not agree with it, please tell me specifically which part or parts are incorrect.Man is to accept or reject evidence on the basis of whether or not that evidence fits the normative interpretation of Scripture. Period. Whether or not I ever lived or tried to defend it is irrelevant.

I would like to clarify my point by saying that when I wondered whether you were capable of understanding perspectives other than your own, I meant more that I wondered if you were willing to admit the rationality of an opposing perspective if you did understand it.According to a normative interpretation of the Bible, all other worldviews are ultimately irrational. For me to be WILLING to admit the rationality of an opposing perspective would be to oppose the message taught by the Word of God.

I apologize, because reading back over what I wrote, I can see that I didn’t word it very clearly at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, I do think you are capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, in fact, I said this in response to your own claim to not be able to understand the arguments made against you on this thread by m_d, SUTG and aharvey.If I recall correctly, their particular arguments were incomprehensible, not their perspectives or worldviews, which I understand just fine. Specific arguments they were making were incoherent and desperate. That's what I was referring to.

The reason I think you may be being disingenuous when you say you can’t understand these people is that other people whose intelligence you easily match, including other Christians, can understand them.Then i would claim that their "understanding" is based on hasty assumptions and uncritical thinking. Lots of things seem to make sense until you think carefully about what is being claimed.

Is it not just a little too convenient that the only people who cannot make "heads or tails" of these arguments are those who have a presupposition that no beliefs other than their own can make sense? Can you see why people are having trouble accepting your claims that you do not understand these arguments, and instead believe that you are just trying to save face while you bail out of the argument?Go ahead and think whatever you want David. I don't give a rip about what you people assume to be my motive. If you want to say that I had no counterargument and that I quit in order to save face, go right ahead. Call me a coward; call me stupid if you want. It's all irrelevant. I'm not here to get people to "accept my argument." That has never been my goal.

Can’t you see that by believing what the Bible says about itself, you are assuming its truthfulness?Those who are regenerated do not merely assume the verity of scripture. They know with unwavering and unshakeable certainty. Those who are not regenerated must still face the fact that all the scriptures affirm comports with their experience and provide the singular rational basis for all their experience. They are without excuse. God has made Himself, His attributes, judgment and power known to all men, and yet the vast majority suppress the truth about Him in their unrighteousness.

Even if you investigated every claim that Scripture makes, how would you find out that it was true, seeing as you believe that all epistemology that is not based on a belief in the God of the Bible leads to wrong conclusions?I have NOT investigated every claim the Bible makes. Nor am I expected to do in order to find out that it is true. Fallible finite humans do not decide that the Bible is true. It is true regardless of any human assessment of it.

What I am saying is that in your view, wouldn’t you need to have the right assumptions about God before you set off to investigate the claims of Scripture, because otherwise you would interpret the evidence to fit in with your presuppositions?The regenerated person does not operate on assumptions. He knows with certitude.

In order to have the correct view of God, you would had to have it shown to you by Scripture or some other means of special revelation, and you would be assuming that source to be true and inerrant. Mt. 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

If there is some other evidence that will lead to a correct view of God, then how could someone interpret it correctly unless they already had the right presuppositions?God has shown Himself to all men and given them sufficient information from which to begin their study and understanding of His Word. There is no excuse.

I would really appreciate it if you could clear this up for me, as I consider it one of the central issues in the points made against your argument elsewhere on this thread.Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

I suppose it all hinges on the condition that you have given: “if God is real and the Bible is His Word.”That's not merely a condition I have given, but a necessary precondition to all rational thought, which is attested by scripture. No other self-described authority makes that claim in any kind of defensible or sustainable way. All other claims to self-attestation and authority are shown to be indefensible, unsustainable and false.

Until recently, you have been arguing that believing the Bible was not a precondition, but a conclusion of correct presuppositions, whereas here you seem to be leaning more towards the idea that the truthfulness of Scripture must be assumed before one can have correct views about the world.My position and argument has not changed. I would be interested in seeing where you got the idea that believing the Bible is a conclusion and not a prerequisite. I have not changed on my claim that if you reject the Bible you reject rationality. Believing the Bible is prerequisite to correct and coherent science.

I have no idea what your motives are, and would not presume to ascertain them. But belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true. If that's your aim, then it is sadly misguided, futile, and never-ending. There are many areas of the Bible that I've not studied, but when I do study it, it's not to see if it's true, but rather to understand what the living God wants me know and went as far as documenting in order for me to know it. The Bible claims to be God's inerrant and infallible Word, and it answers every philosophical question that can brought to bear on human existence and experience, without contradiction. No other book makes that claim and can do that.
You certainly presumed to know the motives of poor old JackTheSeeker though, didn’t you? I had written that statement just after reading that thread where you attempted to expose his true motives after he had asked a couple of questions about Christianity. I was expecting more of the same brutal treatment, but I have noticed that if someone anticipates what you will do next you seem to take a perverse delight in doing the opposite.I'm trying to recall who JackTheSeeker is. If I recall correctly, he was affecting neutrality and asking people convince him of which view to believe. The Bible calls this hypocrisy. When someone comes around and pretends to stand equipoised between two views, the Bible says their liars. It's not my presumption or exposure of his true motives, but that of the Bible. I don't normally treat people that way, mainly because most people don't pretend to be "seeking." The Bible says that those who do make this pretense are to be exposed.

How do reconcile your statement that the veracity of Scripture “is the Bible's self-attesting claim. When one investigates those claims, one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever” with your statement that “belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true”?"What one finds" and "belief in the inerrancy of Scripture" are not in conflict. There is no reconciliation of the statements necessary. Flesh and blood (investigation) does not convince a person of verity of God's Word. Regeneration does that.

How can you say that you “don't assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture. It's what the Bible itself claims” if you cannot investigate these claims to see whether or not they are true?No one says you can't investigate the claims. You just can't do so from a position of hostility toward God's Word without question-begging.

When you say that if one investigates the claims of Scripture, “one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever”, are you talking only about people who already believe in the truthfulness of Scripture?I'm talking about all people without exception. The problem is that many people would carry out their investigation with hostile motives, which amounts to question-begging, since the very act of investigation tacitly affirms the all-encompassing and necessary truth of scripture: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of true science.

Why is this not assuming the truthfulness of Scripture?It IS the assumption of the verity of Scripture, and a correct one at that. Even the opponent of Scripture unwittingly supports this assumption, all the while he decries it. That is what makes the rejection of God such an affront to Him. They use HIS logic, HIS creation and HIS scientific method in their every effort to disprove HIS existence, relevance, and righteous demand upon their lives.

How does someone come to believe in the veracity of Scripture if they do not assume it is true beforehand, and cannot investigate its claims to see if they are true until they believe in it? Please, please clear this up for me, because it sounds like sheer absurdity to me.Do you recognize that you keep shifting between two different subjects? One is the proof of the verity of the Bible, the other is the means by which one comes to believe in its verity. One's belief does not come from examining the proof ("flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee"). The verity of scripture has been proven to many people who still reject it. The Holy Spirit, via regeneration, brings about the confidence and unwavering certitude concerning God's Word. But that doesn't get the unbeliever off the hook for rejecting it, as the Bible's self-attesting claim is irrefragable and exclusively rational.

Contrary to what you might think, people are often uncertain of what they believe, or do not deliberately affirm most of what constitutes their worldview.I agree with you fully.So you fully agree that people are often uncertain of what they believe?Yes, I would say this is universally true. Myself included. There are subjects I've not tackled yet. I frankly haven't given them enough thought to tell you what I believe about them. Take hypnosis, for example. I used to think I understood hypnosis. It turns out that I didn't. So I'm currently reading about it to see if I can understand this phenomenon in light of what Scripture teaches.

I am a pro at making snap judgments, and like you I come across as arrogant and harsh, hyper-critical and opinionated; maybe its the residual effects of the churches I have been a part of, maybe I’m just a cocky bastard.I think we cocky bastards have a lot to offer the world. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Sometimes I think its because I’m passionate about knowing what is true, and I’m intolerant of irrational self-serving arguments that obscure truth. Actually, no... the cocky bastard idea may have been closer.Perhaps it takes one to know one.

I did not mean it as a personal insult when I said those things about you in a previous thread, I just think that your complaints that you don’t fit in here and that you are hated by most people on TOL are a gross exaggeration. Put it this way: you are not hated any more than anyone else that disagrees with the prevalent view on this thread that Open Theism is a Biblical idea.That's very nice of you to say. But if you venture outside the creation/evolution debate arena into the theological areas, you will find hatred of me that supplants the cause of Christ. In other words, there are those who would rather see me lose a debate than to see the gospel advanced.

As far as the “psychic skills” thing goes, again I wrote this after that disturbing JackTheSeeker thread, and you seemed to be starting to make similar judgments about me when you said that my belief in YEC must not have been based on anything solid to begin with.I can only go by your own words and the words of Scripture. The Scriptures say that belief in its claims are not secured by "flesh and blood" effort, but rather on the solid basis of the Spirit's conviction. So if your faith in God's word was so easily shaken, it must have been based on something other than the Spirit's conviction. It's not an attack against you personally, but rather the conclusion of a logical inference based on your own claims.

As I’ve stated, it was based quite solidly on God’s word, and I’m sure if you had known me personally at the time, you would have been hard-pressed to disagree.I only make the judgment when the available information warrants it. If I had known you before, and if you had told me that you were questioning the Bible's claim of YEC, I would earnestly show you how the language of Scripture makes it a non-negotiable issue. The earth is young, and no one can claim otherwise and remain consistent with Scripture. If you were to insist on being uncertain about this, I would begin to question the rationality of your belief in other areas as well.

What I am beginning to realize is that your statements about the true condition of other people’s hearts and minds is perhaps not driven so much by conceit as it is by the Biblical proposal that the heart of man is deceitful and desperately sick.No, you're right. It's my conceit.

I kid.

You are correct that it is indeed the Bible's claim that the heart of man is deceitful and sick, and that ~ with a dash of my own arrogance and conceitedness ~ is what drives my statements about the true condition of not only other people's hearts and minds, but my own heart and mind as well (hence, the arrogance and conceitedness).

If this is the case, I do not agree with the way you interpret or apply scriptures such as these to mean that you can judge the hidden things in people’s hearts, especially in light of Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 4:5, which says “judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts”.Again, it's not MY judgment, but that of Scripture. We are told to make righteous and logical judgments about people, in particular, when what is in their hearts are exposed and evident for all to see. Based solely on your statements, I was making a judgment according to what you yourself exposed. If there is other information that contributed to the problem, then my judgment was not fully informed. Again, I can only go on what I know.

Just for the record, I have not made up my mind about many of the issues discussed in this thread. I came here in the vague hope of finding some persuasive arguments in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis, because I believe that the reliability of Scripture rests largely on issues such as this.I agree with you, but the language of Genesis is not ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations. If we are understand the text according to a normative interpretation, the days of creation are 24-hour periods. God decided that a day would last 24 hours, comprising an evening and morning. The first day is described in Genesis as Day One (not literally "the first day", according to the meaning of 'echad). Whenever "day" is used with the phrase "evening and morning" it refers to a 24-hour day.

I think it is difficult to claim to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and interpret it with a consistent hermeneutic while at the same time believing the first chapter of Genesis is not to be taken literally.You're absolutely right.

I do not believe I have an axe to grind; it just seems as if some crucial parts of your argument are inconsistent with other parts.I'm happy to have the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings you may have of my argument. I believe that your perception of inconsistency will be resolved once things are made more clear.

However, I can't see how this attitude squares with your belief that people simply interpret evidence to fit their worldview, because it seems to me that if you take the latter approach, you are excluded from genuinely thinking that you may be wrong as you are impervious to evidence.


Hilston wrote: It's not that simple. There is a whole network of beliefs that are brought to bear upon evidence. If a person is a methodological naturalist, they not only summarily dismiss any notion of extra-logical considerations, but there is an entire worldview that underpins that assumption. I've done work for the creationist movement for years. I understand the evidence. I understand the arguments on both sides. I understand how one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview. Do you see that?

I do see what you are saying, and I think I fully understand your argument on this point. I agree that worldviews and presuppositions and the limitations of human reason need to be taken into consideration when interpreting evidence and that it is naïve to think that we can assess anything with true objectivity, although I think it is an unwarranted generalization to say that everyone interprets evidence to fit their worldview, seeing as it logically excludes the possibility of all rational discourse and argument.But it doesn't. First of all, you're suggesting that someone would/could interpret evidence in a way that does not fit their worldview. Can you give an example? Worldviews don't change as the result of rational discourse and argument. When I debate those of opposing worldviews, my goal is not to change them, but to expose their error whilst demonstrating the singular and exclusive rationality of the Biblical view.

Indeed, if you really believed this, I doubt you would bother presenting any of the evidence for your worldview that you have so far.I really do believe it. And there is no conflict with what I'm doing.

You have not really responded to what I am saying here at all, you have just restated your claim that people interpret evidence to fit their worldviews, something which was included as a premise in what I said. The question implied in my above statement is how do you reconcile the view that people interpret evidence in keeping with their presuppositions with your claim that you allow for the fact that you may be wrong, and you are open to correction?There is nothing that needs to be reconciled. A person can have a correct worldview and still come to wrong conclusions, either via sloppy thinking and/or erroneous application of the facts (I've been guilty of both). A person can also have a incorrect worldview and come to correct conclusions, albeit irrationally, in spite of it.

Because if you are impervious to evidence that contradicts your worldview, you cannot genuinely think that you may be wrong, ...If a person has a correct worldview, there will be no evidence to contradict it. Falsely interpreted evidence may appear to contradict it, but once the evidence is correctly understood, apparent contradictions disappear.

... and you have no method for being convinced that you are wrong, ...I cannot be wrong about the Biblical worldview. But I can still be wrong about a lot of things. Anyone who would try to convince me that the Biblical worldview is wrong would have to account for the very tools with which they attempt to argue (laws of logic, etc.). No one has been able to do that, and the Biblical worldview succeeds on all counts.

... seeing as you will consider any evidence presented against you as a result of your opponents worldview. Could you please answer this question?If I were to present to you evidence that contradicted your worldview, you would tell me that I've misinterpreted the evidence. I would do the same thing if to you. So where does that get us? We're back to discussing the coherence of worldviews, not the evidence.

Furthermore, when you say that “one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview”, I would be interested to know how you interpret a situation in which a person with a particular worldview is convinced by evidence to modify or even totally change their worldview. For example, what about an atheist who converts to Christ on the basis of the historical evidence for the reliability of the Scriptures and the resurrection of Christ?Excellent example. That would be a case of coming to a correct worldview on the basis of false premises. The false premise is the assumption that history and textual criticism can be a reliable basis of proving the verity of the Bible and the historicity of Christ. The Bible claims to be the ultimate expression of God's mind to man. Therefore, nothing can rationally sit in judgment over it, including historical evidence, lest history be made a more reliable authority than the Bible itself.

Conversely, consider a Christian missionary Bible translator who believes the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word but eventually leaves Christianity because of inconsistencies and discrepancies that he sees in Scripture, not being able to reconcile them with a truthful and consistent God.Another excellent example. I've seen this happen. In which case, such a person's basis for belief in the Bible must have been something other than the self-attesting testimony of Scripture and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Or, to make it more personal, please consider my own struggle to understand issues such as the age of the universe in light of the information presented in Genesis. I come from a background of ardent belief that the Bible is God’s Word, and that it is inerrant. I tend to agree with the argument that if the first Chapter of Genesis is arbitrarily allegorized, we might as well allegorize the rest of Genesis, which provides the historical and theological background for the most crucial (pun intended) events in Scripture, and that our confidence in Scripture and ultimately in Christ’s redeeming work is therefore seriously undermined. I am presented with evidence such as the time it takes for the light from the most distant star to reach us, and I find it compelling, but confusing because it contradicts my view that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point I can decide that it mustn’t be true because it contradicts my worldview, or I can try to be honest with God and with myself, and consider that perhaps there are elements of my own worldview that need adjusting.I appreciate your candor, David. Since my starting point is the testimony of Scripture, my immediate reaction is that there are unwarranted assumptions being invoked by those presenting the evidence. God stated His purposes for putting the constellations in the sky. Those purposes did not include using them to ascertain the age of the earth or the universe. I imagine someone standing before God, saying, "I claimed that didn't believe in you because I couldn't reconcile the claims of the Bible with what the scientists were telling me about the speed of light and the size of the universe regarding all the stars in the sky." I imagine God saying in response something like: "I put those stars there and brought their light to earth for the purposes I stated in my Word, not for the scientists to make all those assumptions about where the light came from and how long it took to get there." I imagine the unbeliever replying: "Oh."

How do these considerations square with your belief that people are not convinced to change their worldviews by evidence?It has to be more than just evidence, because evidence is interpreted in accordance with one's worldview. The very foundation of their thinking must change. The methodological naturalist summarily excludes anything extranatural from consideration in his evaluation of evidence. He has unequivocally dismissed out-of-hand the very notion of anything extranatural being relevant in his science. The very foundation of his thinking must change. Something has to happen that shakes him out of that assumption, and nothing "natural" is going to do it. Consider yourself, for an example. What would convince you to change your worldview?

Also, even though it is against your raison d’etre, I would really appreciate discussing the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth with you, perhaps in another thread, particularly because you have said that you have studied these things for some years. Would you consider this? I am not a scientist, so I should make easy pickings.Sure, I would consider it. But you may be disappointed by the calibre of discussion you'd get from me regarding the evidence. I'm curious as to specifically why you're interested in this in particular?

In other words, when you say "when I find [my incorrect beliefs about what the Bible teaches,] I'll correct them," how exactly will you find them? How will you become convinced you are wrong? Would you mind more precisely explaining your views in this area?Hilston replied: Yes. I used to think that the Bible's description of believers identified as "The Body of Christ" was the same "New Covenant Israel." I used to believe that the Body of Christ was the fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel, hence name, New Covenant Israel. I had someone suggest to me otherwise. So I checked it out. I re-evaluated the assumptions I brought to the biblical evidence and found that I was in serious error. Another example concerns the role of angels. I once thought that angels were ministering to believers invisibly, and even though it bothered me deep down that I never saw the kind of angelic activity or presence described in the Bible, I decided that I would believe it because the Bible seemed to teach that this was the case. Someone suggested to me that I was mistaken, that the angels do not have an active ministry to believers today, and that the reason we do not see or experience their presence is because they no longer have a role in the lives of believers. So I re-evaluated the assumption that I brought to the biblical evidence and discovered, in fact, that I was wrong. The Bible teaches that the angels are not ministering invisibly or otherwise today.

The examples you give of times you have been corrected are both regarding issues of Biblical interpretation, and presumably involve someone in your fellowship whom you respect and admire.Why the red herring, David? This has nothing to do with people I respect or admire. In fact it was suggested to me by someone I didn't even know at the time. It has to do with what the scriptures affirm, information that is accessible to anyone who cares to study it.

They are derived from your worldview, but could hardly be said to constitute your worldview as you define it.I didn't say it was.

It would be similar to an evolutionist changing their views from phyletic gradualism to that of puntctual equilibrium; the change is essentially superficial and the basic worldview of evolution remains the same.So what? I answered your question, which was about how I find out that I hold incorrect beliefs. If you want to know how I went about a worldview change, then the answer lies in my regeneration and subsequent conversion.

What is really relevant to the topic at hand is whether you think it possible that there are elements of your basic worldview that may be wrong. Do you think you might be wrong about anything other than particular interpretations of Scripture, ...Like what? Maybe I'm wrong about the verity of logic? Or Maybe I'm wrong about the use of language to communicate? What possible "element of my basic worldview" could be wrong? I can't hypothesize a single one. Can you?

... and can anyone other than Christians who share your general worldview present you with evidence you may find compelling?Who, other than Christians, shares my general worldview? How is that possible? Are you suggesting that some non-Christian who shares my general worldview might present evidence to me that would compel me to change my worldview?

How would you tell if you were wrong about evidence that contradicts your basic worldview?The biblical worldview is required to even look at, let alone analyze, evidence. No other worldview can coherently make such a claim. There is no evidence that contradicts the Biblical worldview. That's not my own assertion, but rather the claim of scripture.
... but your stubbornness and your attitude that you are right prevents you from being able to accept it, and so when the arguments have been made in a way that you can no longer evade them or throw up smokescreens or muddy the waters, you revert to juvenile taunts and crass insults.Hilston replied: I'm sure it appeared that way. I assure you -- and you can go back and see for yourself -- that all arguments have been met coherently and soundly by what the Bible says about them. My taunts and crass insults are designed to expose the futility and inanity of anti-Biblical worldviews. Jesus did it. Paul did it. We are to follow biblical examples and that's what I've tried my best to do. My insults were crass, yes; but juvenile? Hardly.

Ironically, though, your statement here that “there comes a point where there argument has been made and understood, and the opponent starts grasping for other alternatives, trying other angles” could be just as easily be levelled against you by mighty_duck and Co., with the difference that the only other angle you have at your disposal seems to be crass insults.Let them make the charge. It is irrelevant because they cannot justify even their use of sentences, let alone accounting for any kind of value judgment they might bring to bear upon anything whatsoever concerning my behavior.

On that topic, let me also point out that Jesus and Paul were of a somewhat different order than James Hilston. Jesus may have done it, and Paul may have done it, but that does not mean you can do it.We are commanded to follow their examples. If God did not intend for us to use the same apologetic methods as Biblical personalities, then He would not have given the exhortation to study and apply those examples.

The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, and although he may have insulted his opponents, he warned that anyone who says “you fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.This is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you even know what Jesus meant by this? Do you realize that Paul himself calls his readers "fools" in 1Co 15:36? Do you believe Paul was in danger of the fire of hell for writing this? If you want to discuss the teachings of Scripture on behavioral issues, you really should start another in the "Christian Living" forum or something.

If Jesus jumped off a ten story bridge, would you do it too?The Bible says that Jesus would not do such a thing. It's fascinating that you chose such an example. Lucifer attempted to taunt Jesus to do this very thing, and He refused. Lu 4: 9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

The Bible says Paul is an Apostle of God who penned most of the New Testament, in which he has certainly bandied around a few crass insults, but he says that “the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone… those who oppose him he must gently instruct” ...And that same man confronted Peter in public (Gal 2), to his face, and was not gentle at all. Again, if you want to discuss behavioral concerns, this is not the place. I could be the most evil person to walk the face of the earth (some here on TOL think so), and that still does not get you off the hook for rejecting God's written testimony.

... and “in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us”. Do as I say, not as I do? Maybe. When you claim you are following the Biblical model by crassly insulting those with whom you don’t agree, you again sound like you fit right in on TOL, as most of the base insults lobbed by Christians in these forums usually end up with some kind of disgusting self-righteous gloss smeared over them.You clearly don't understand the scriptures you are quoting; nor do you understand the difference between substantive insult and ad hominem fallacies. The kind of insults you read by the typical TOL zealot are neither substantive nor purposeful. They amount to petty name-calling and pathetic whining. My insults have both substance and purpose and are carefully measured. And again, you're off-topic.

Do you really want to argue that crassly insulting those who don’t believe you is the Biblical idea of the Christian life, or would you rather relegate this behavior to the human foibles of James Hilston?It's irrelevant.

By the way, most people consider crass insults to be very juvenile.The only opinion that matters is that expressed in Scripture. If Jesus and Paul used crass insults to instruct, that suffices to show that crass insults are not juvenile, but biblical when they are appropriate. Most TOLers don't know the difference.

Hilston, I don't know if you are really having trouble understanding or not. I am leaning towards the view that you could understand if you let yourself entertain the idea that you might be wrong.Hilston asked: OK, what are you suggesting I could be wrong about?

Your entire worldview.It's not possible for the Biblical worldview to be false. Many here have suggested otherwise, and not one of them has been able to coherently sustain such a claim.

Sooner or later though, you will need to either give up your attempt to neatly wrap up the mysteries of God and the paradox of human experience in a tidy little bundle, or leave them as they actually are: mystery and paradox.Hilston asked: Please give me an example of a mystery or paradox I should be willing to accept.

Okay, how about the mystery of the Triune God? Care to explain how someone can exist as three persons in one and one person in three?As a finite being, I can't comprehend, let alone explain, the Infinite. Moses wrote to Israel (in De 29:29) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." The same principle applies here. What God has kept secret is not available to or accessible by us. But that which He has revealed is comprehensible and logical and capable of being put into tidy little bundles.

How about Jesus being simultaneously 100% God and 100% human? How does he do that? How about the mystery of eternality? Can you make that a bit less mysterious for me? How about the union between Christ and his Bride? How about the tension between predestination and human responsibility? How about the idea of an impartial God who chooses a special people for salvation and condemns all others, even though all are equally deserving of punishment? Perhaps you’ve got this one all figured out. How about the huge gap between our own concept of justice (which is apparently derived from God’s nature) and God’s idea of justice as eternal punishment? You believe the only way of salvation is through Christ don’t you? What about all the unsaved who have never heard of Jesus? What happens to babies who die in the womb without having heard of Jesus? As far as I can tell, in your own view most of these are things Christians should be willing to accept, and I would be very impressed if you can show how they are not mysterious and paradoxical. If you’ve got the answers, don’t keep them to yourself! Perhaps you could post them on your ministry’s website, or teach a course on them. Please be specific, and trite answers need not apply.I have biblical answers for all of these. But how is any of this relevant to this discussion? Do you really want to know the answers? Where the Bible gives answers, we are commanded and obligated to rationally process and comprehend those answers. Where the answers are kept secret, we are to trust that God is working all things together for good for those who are the called. The source of logic and knowledge, the uniformity of nature, and God's meticulous control of all creation are answers that are revealed for us to know. There is no excuse or warrant for believing in an old earth cosmogony.

That doesn’t make your attitude right though.My attitude is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you will yield your thinking to God's Word.

It’s pretty easy to get a bunch of categories for people based on what you believe and then force everybody into the category you think they belong in, but it’s also pretty arrogant and cruel.You're again confusing some notion of MY view with what the Bible teaches. It is the Bible that categorizes people and describes where they belong. You can read it for yourself. You can leave me out of it altogether.

You are not God, you do not judge the hearts and minds, you are in no position to make such statements, and one day you might feel pretty embarrassed for having done so.This is all irrelevant. I don't know your heart or mind. All I have are your words. Your words give evidence to what you believe and the basis for those beliefs. If I make an error in judgment, it isn't because I presumed to read your mind or heart, but because I misinterpreted your words, or you misspoke. How is any of this relevant to this discussion?

I am not willing to sacrifice rationality, but I have never been a friend of rationalism. You believe in meta-arguments, do you believe in meta-rationale? For the record, let me say that I am willing to sacrifice what seems rational to me in order to know the Truth.The purpose of meta-arguments and meta-anything is to avoid question-begging. Do you believe there is such a thing as "the Truth"?

Hilston wrote: Are you following the One-On-One between SUTG and me? The subject is not dead, and if you think SUTG raised points that I have not answered, I'm sure that they'll come up again in that debate. Or perhaps you can remind him.

I saved your discussion with SUTG to my hard drive, but have not gotten around to reading it yet. Perhaps I will read it when I get home from holidays.Have you now read my One_on_One with SUTG?

Jim
(Hear the latest rockin' tune by James Hilston, Angry Rockstar (http://www.jameshilston.com/music/Angry_Rockstar.mp3))

[Balder]

Did he just call that a "conversation"? What Balder calls "bail[ing] out" of a "conversation" I call freeing myself from an endless quagmire of hopeless confusion and veiled contradiction.
Well, not everyone has the difficulties with comprehension that you appeared to have with regard to my posts. Mighty_duck didn't agree with me on a number of issues, for instance, but he didn't appear to get so lost or confused.

You set up and attacked a number of straw men in our debate. You also have made several references to contradictions, but have never been able to point any out. :think: You should back up your criticisms with facts, or stop making them.

[koban]

Chilli - might I suggest you save yourself some time and go directly to :mock:Hilston ? :think:

[fool]

Wow, that Hilston can sure make a long post.
I think that last one could be a book.

[koban]

Wow, that Hilston can sure make a long post.
I think that last one could be a book.


And think of the time he could have saved if he'd just condensed it:

I'm right. You're wrong. :nananana:





At least he left off the gay little "stylish" tag lines at the end. :BRAVO:

[Chilli]

Chilli - might I suggest you save yourself some time and go directly to :mock:Hilston ? :think:

Nah, I still like Hilston... I like your mockings too!

[Chilli]

Wow, that Hilston can sure make a long post.
I think that last one could be a book.

Yeah, but give him a break... half his post is quotes from my previous post.

It gives me something to do tonight anyway...

[Yorzhik]

A bit off the current topic, but a person that I haven't been able to get to think about his position took a look at BRIX; finally started reading it at my request And now he walks around with a furrow in his brow. When I ask him about it he just gives me this, "I'm thinking about it, I'll let you know when I'm done." It definitely didn't fit the mold of the normal biblical/philosophical discussion.

[Spenser]

They don't even get it. And what they get of it, they misapply. It's really quite pathetic. What's worse is how self-impressed they are, not to mention all the self-congratulation, back-patting and internal kudos they all give each other.

Where the hell do they do that? Don't answer, I am not allowed to discuss other sites anymore, been banned a few times now. But do realize you are stating this on a site that has reputation and medals.


They're not "our" rules. They're God's rules. And yes, it is a rigged game. If you play, you have no choice on which rules to follow. The rules are set and non-negotiable. If you don't play, you can try to ignore the rules, but you do so at the expense of rationality.

Everyone read this quote carefully, he is admitting the argument is rigged. It is a semantic game in which the assertion God can be used as the unexplained explanation for everything.

Other than an incredibly wordy reply filled with hollow rhetoric and the typical assertion that no one understands the TAG, think about this for a second. If the TAG is indeed false, imagine how silly all that crap you just said about it does actually look. Now, that said, I wish to ask if you have a post here or a website or something in which you present your version of the TAG argument in whole? I'd love to read it carefully and perhaps, to your wishes, better understand it...

[Spenser]

I'd like to note that the TAG heavily bases itself on the Impossibility of the Contrary (IoC). I brought up an argument with C