Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Knight]

EVOLUTION: Science or Science Fiction?
Battle Royale IX
Hilston vs. Stratnerd


Battle Royale IX (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23808)is located here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23808).

Both Hilston and Stratnerd have made their opening statements. What do you think of them? Who has positioned themselves better for the battle?

NOTE: Stratnerd posted two hours early and Hilston had some trouble posting and therefore made two posts. I am more relaxed these days and am not going to worry about these minor rules infractions. I will only take action if I feel a combatant breaks a rule that would allow him an unfair advantage in the battle i.e., editing a post after the other combatant made their next post or something major like that.

[The Berean]

I like Jim's approach. He is going to look at the root of the difference between evolutionists and creationists, thier underlying worldviews. This will make the debate far more interesting since mearly debating the "Evidence" will go nowhere fast. I didn't understand Stranerd's comment about falsifying evolution:


The most popular presentation of the scientific method is that of Popper where the hallmarks of science are falsification and skepticism. Skepticism is the incentive – and we usually articulated this as the scientist’s claim that all explanations are tentative and should be tested over and over. As Karl Popper (Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959) put it: [an explanation (hypothesis) is speculation until it] "proved its mettle" by attempts to falsify it. What do we mean falsify? It means to build a test or make observations based on supposed mechanisms at work and if that mechanism is absent then the results or matching observation will not turn out as predicted. The way I build predictions is by means of “if-then” statements with justification. If you cannot justify it then you can’t make the “then” connection (see intelligent design for examples) This is, by far the most popular concept of the scientific method. In almost any text we see “observe, make a hypothesis, test it or make observations, then reject or support hypothesis [I would also add publish to this last step because what value is knowledge if not part of the scientific community?].
Isn't the purpose to create experiments, in terms of trying to falsify an hypothesis, to stablish results that are not predicted by the hypothesis itself? :confused:

[Knight]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

[The Berean]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.
I like it. It gives the rest of us something to discuss while we wait for the Startnerd's next post. :thumb:

[Johnny]

"Isn't the purpose to create experiments, in terms of trying to falsify an hypothesis, to stablish results that are not predicted by the hypothesis itself?" Yes, but Stratnerd is saying the same thing. He is saying that you pick a test of an underlying mechanism in your theory. If the observation isn't want was predicted, then the mechanism is absent or different than hypothesized.

What do we mean falsify? It means to build a test or make observations based on supposed mechanisms at work and if that mechanism is absent then the results or matching observation will not turn out as predicted.

[SUTG]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

Not only is it nicer for the peanut gallery (since we don't have to wait), but it also seems more fair. This way, one debator does not have the advantage of seeing the other's OP before posting his.

[SUTG]

Isn't the purpose to create experiments, in terms of trying to falsify an hypothesis, to stablish results that are not predicted by the hypothesis itself? :confused:

Yes. I think Stratnerd is using Popper's demarcation criteria to distinguish science from non-science. If there is not concieveable experiment that can be done to falsify a theory, it isn't science.

For example, if I posit a hypothesis that everytime an orange object touches a green object, the orange object turns blue. You could devise an experiment that would test, and potentially falsify, my hypothesis.

[The Berean]

Yes. I think Stratnerd is using Popper's demarcation criteria to distinguish science from non-science. If there is not concieveable experiment that can be done to falsify a theory, it isn't science.
Then youare saying the "theory" is not "science", right?

For example, if I posit a hypothesis that everytime an orange object touches a green object, the orange object turns blue. You could devise an experiment that would test, and potentially falsify, my hypothesis.
OK, I understand that. Let's say over the next 1000 years people perform millions of orange-blue tests. And every time an orange object touches a green object it turns blue. Would that confirm the theory to be true? It would, only if we've exhausted all green objects in the universe. But how would we know if we have exhausted all green objects in the universe?

[SUTG]

Then youare saying the "theory" is not "science", right?

No. I was just presenting Karl Popper's idea of the 'falsification criteria' as the demarcation between sciende and non-science.

OK, I understand that. Let's say over the next 1000 years people perform millions of orange-blue tests. And every time an orange object touches a green object it turns blue. Would that confirm the theory to be true? It would, only if we've exhausted all green objects in the universe. But how would we know if we have exhausted all green objects in the universe?

Sticking with Popper, we can never confirm a theory to be true. we can only falsify them.

[The Berean]

No. I was just presenting Karl Popper's idea of the 'falsification criteria' as the demarcation between sciende and non-science.



Sticking with Popper, we can never confirm a theory to be true. we can only falsify them.
I see. It seems, judging from your avatar, you've been inspired by On Fire. :chuckle:

[Servo]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.

Yes, much better! :thumb:

[SUTG]

It seems, judging from your avatar, you've been inspired by On Fire. :chuckle:

Yes, I've been very inspired by the work of On Fire.

[mighty_duck]

My notes of the debate so far:
Stratnerd:
1. Made the standard positive claims regarding the debate subject, nothing unexpected.
2. Did volunteer to debunk creationism, since most of the audience here adheres to that.
3. It seems he did not do his homework on Hilston. This is not going to be a standard my evidence vs your evidence debate. It will be more on the lines of what is evidence, and what is your foundation to recognize evidence. If he is willing to engage his opponent on thier field and is really unprepared, then as Clete said, Hilston will eat his lunch.
A winning strategy would be to not get suckered in. This is not a debate about whether science is a credible worldview, but rather if evolution is science. Hilston will not let him out so easily, and if stratnerd sticks to this valid point, we will all be left with a very uninteresting debate. So Stratnerd will have to choose between winning (while appearing bad, he won't answer his opponents out-of-topic questions), or a risky but interesting debate.

Hilston.
1. Jim seems like one bright cookie, and his writing style and formating is much clearer. It looks like experience is on his side.
2. He has taken on much more burden than would be necessary to win the debate. All he had to do was falsify the statement "evolution is science", but he took on the responsibility of a positive claim regarding creationism.
3. I hope this debate won't get too bogged down in terminology. It would be unfortunate to reach round 7 when the debaters still have trouble agreeing on basics. Hilston's case is largely based on agreeing to favorable terminology, so I doubt he would make many concessions here. His experience is showing, in that he defines many terms in advance, to save some back and forth.
4. His definition of faith should raise some objections.
5. Winning the debate. Hilston recognizes that no one is actually going to admit defeat here, and is laying the groundwork to claim he has won.
6. Definition of science. This is where the future of this debate stands or falls. Hilston makes some fantastic claims here (that the biblical worldview is required to make sense of science). Opposing this will mean Stratnerd has been suckered in to Hilston's well mined territory.
7. Hilston does leave his chosen path of debate a couple of times, such as claims like

how does his worldview get things to become their opposites? E.g. Orderliness out of chaos. How does Muller's paradigm generate such things as hearing and seeing..

These are direct attacks on the Evolutionary theory, and Stratnerd should be able to combat these types of claims. Hilston main claim does not rely on this, but it would be interesting to see him defend it.

[GuySmiley]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.
Hey good question because this was the essence of the comment I was going to make! After reading Stratnerds post I was thinking I didn't like it because he only provided definitions and didn't really make any kind of argument. I was thinking that the first round would be a waste. But I was happy to see the last part of Hilston's post where he actually began an argument and we can get a glimpse of where he'll be headed. In short I like the new format, if both parties would agree to get to the point instead of wasting the first round.

[fool]

A big :thumb: to Hilston for this part;
for to delegitimize one view does not sufficiently prove the legitimacy of the opposing view
Maybe he can help us explain that to Bob in the nodule thread.
But then he falls in this hole.
The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions. The foundation of this principle is the existence and attributes of God and His maintenance of the universe.
It's like saying "if you don't believe in the Flying Spigetti Monster you nave no foundation to believe anything" It seems to this Atheist that Theists want you to believe in some kind of God, no matter which God, cause you can't know anything unless you first believe.
If this were true, then An Unbeliever would invariably come to the wrong conclusion, or a correct conclusion that was somehow conterfiet?
How do you tell the difference between a correct conclusion and a conterfiet correct conclusion?
Seems as though if you use Hilstons standard the foundational logic of any conclusion would depend on the positors state of believing in God or not Believing in God.
Hence a conterfiet correct conclusion could become a legitamate correct conclusion by virtue of a change in the positors worldview.
So if you asked Hilston "here is a statement by person a, is it a correct conclusion? or a conterfiet correct conclusion?" he could only respond with "it depends on what the person thinks now ".

[SUTG]

6. Definition of science. This is where the future of this debate stands or falls. Hilston makes some fantastic claims here (that the biblical worldview is required to make sense of science). Opposing this will mean Stratnerd has been suckered in to Hilston's well mined territory.

I'm almost certain :chuckle: that this will generate into another tired Argument by Assertion, like Clete's Carl Sagan thread. Here is a hint:

The Creationist's faith in God grounds his reliance upon the principle of induction. Whereas, the Evolutionist must believe it blindly, with no rational grounding whatsoever.

I'll wager you dollars to donuts that Hilsont will be as skeptical as they come until it is time to assert absolute knowledge of the Christian Triune God.

Over the years, I've scome across quite a few of these transcendental argument threads, and they always end the same.

[The Berean]

I'm almost certain :chuckle: that this will generate into another tired Argument by Assertion, like Clete's Carl Sagan thread. Here is a hint:



I'll wager you dollars to donuts that Hilsont will be as skeptical as they come until it is time to assert absolute knowledge of the Christian Triune God.

Over the years, I've scome across quite a few of these transcendental argument threads, and they always end the same.
Since the topic of this debate, I'm sure, has been debated for decades what new argument can there possibly be?

[Johnny]

Hilston's approach was a bit suprising, I didn't think he'd come out so opposed to intelligent design.

Nonetheless, what's to stop me from substituing the flying spaghetti monster as the one who told me that the axioms science assumes are correct? Or what about a giant axiom spitting machine who spits out true axioms at earthlings who happened to write them down? Further, why is faith in God any different than just assuming axioms?

Hilston concludes with: Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.But the same worldview brought us all the other disciplines of science as well as their respective advancements. Do these not qualify as science? Does that make them invalid?

[SUTG]

Since the topic of this debate, I'm sure, has been debated for decades what new argument can there possibly be?

Apparently, not all of the transcendentalists got the memo.

[mighty_duck]

Nonetheless, what's to stop me from substituing the flying spaghetti monster as the one who told me that the axioms science assumes are correct? Or what about a giant axiom spitting machine who spits out true axioms at earthlings who happened to write them down? Further, why is faith in God any different than just assuming axioms?


As far as I can tell, Hilston will claim that a worldview has to account for everything in this world, including logic, natural laws, morality, love, etc. and that the only possible presupposition that can account for all that is the Christian god.
Logicallty, I think he has a point. I would love to see him try to prove all other groundings of axioms to be impossible. The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to have a MUCH better account for the existence of pasta in the world.

[Johnny]

As far as I can tell, Hilston will claim that a worldview has to account for everything in this world, including logic, natural laws, morality, love, etc. and that the only possible presupposition that can account for all that is the Christian god.But I don't understand what's stopping someone from claiming that the pepsi can sitting next to them is the originator of all things, and that the worldview the pepsi can shared with them accounts for all of the above. Can't you substitute any belief and have this logic hold true? It doesn't have to be the Christian God.

[mighty_duck]

Can't you substitute any belief and have this logic hold true?

Yes, you can, which makes Hilston's claims all the more interesting. stay tuned :)

[truthteller86]

:neck: Maybe one of you smart, educated people (not me) can start a mirror thread for us simple folk called: Battle Royale IX - The Redneck Version. I would pay good money (coupon for one free order of fries at McDonalds) to have someone translate both opening posts into redneck (Two sentences or less please). I'm sure there is a small portion of TOL audience out there who enjoy Nascar and Science. In all seriousness, I really appreciated Hilston's formatting. I hope Stratnerd can see the benefit to the reader, especially those who accidentally went over their "legal" limit this deer season. ;)

[fool]

:neck: Maybe one of you smart, educated people (not me) can start a mirror thread for us simple folk called: Battle Royale IX - The Redneck Version. I would pay good money (coupon for one free order of fries at McDonalds) to have someone translate both opening posts into redneck (Two sentences or less please). I'm sure there is a small portion of TOL audience out there who enjoy Nascar and Science. In all seriousness, I really appreciated Hilston's formatting. I hope Stratnerd can see the benefit to the reader, especially those who accidentally went over their "legal" limit this deer season. ;)
From Stratnerd's OP
now off to Christmas shop, write two lectures, a lab exam, a final exam, finish a manuscript, review of manuscript, learn R and nonmetric nondimensional scaling, and bottle my first home brew!
Stratnerd has told us he is making beer.
Hilston has not mentioned beer as far as I know.

[2ephesians8]

From Stratnerd's OP

Stratnerd has told us he is making beer.
Hilston has not mentioned beer as far as I know.


Buzzz, wrong answer. Please play again.

[fool]

Buzzz, wrong answer. Please play again.
Did Hilston mention beer? :doh:

[2ephesians8]

Yeah, AND he paired them with cigars... :BillyBob:


True Redneck info fo' sho'! :D

[truthteller86]

Yeah, AND he paired them with cigars... :BillyBob:


True Redneck info fo' sho'! :D
To prevent any further disruption to this thread, I submit: Battle Royale IX: The Redneck Version (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=956756#post956756)

[Carver]

Hey, what do you guys think of the new format where both fighters make their opening posts the first day? I have never liked (in past battles) that when the battle begins you had to wait a day or two for the first post to be made.
I think the best and most fair solution would be to have them both send their beginning posts to you, and then you post them both at the same time, but I have absolutely no clue if that's feasable.

[Carver]

Also, real quick, how is Battle Royale 9 going on after BR 10?

[Hilston]

Greetings Grandstanders,

I've enjoyed the comments. I thought I'd offer some replies while I have some time. I've culled the most salient and/or interesting remarks from this thread thus far (in my arrogant opinion) for rejoinder. Each is preceded by the screen-name of the person who made the salient and/or interesting remark. Also, I've replied in the order that these excerpts were posted, so a particular screen-name may occur several times throughout the post.

SUTG
Yes. I think Stratnerd is using Popper's demarcation criteria to distinguish science from non-science. If there is not concieveable experiment that can be done to falsify a theory, it isn't science.I like Popper. I also like Kuhn. I haven't read everything they've written on the philosophy of science, but from what I have read, I admire their efforts to formulate a cogent accounting of and grounding of the scientific enterprise. From my Biblical position, however, I don't expect there to ever be a sufficiently coherent and defensible thesis for the verity of science apart from the full recognition of the God of the Bible.

The Berean
Then you [SUTG] are saying the "theory" is not "science", right?If I can jump in here, it is a mistake to think that a theory is less scientific than science or facts or data. They are different things and should not be misconstrued as anything like "degrees of certainty" or "levels of verification." The theory of evolution is scientific in certain aspects. The theory of creationism is scientific in certain aspects. The difference is this: Evolutionism must blindly assume the inductive principle upon which the scientific enterprise is based. Whereas the Creationist view can make application of the inductive principle with certainty because it derives from the existence and attributes of God, who created, governs and maintains the universe.

mighty_duck
I hope this debate won't get too bogged down in terminology. It would be unfortunate to reach round 7 when the debaters still have trouble agreeing on basics.I agree with you, m_d. I will do my best to make sure the discussion does not slip into that muddy gultch.

Hilston's case is largely based on agreeing to favorable terminology, so I doubt he would make many concessions here.Several of the of the definitions I've offered were based on Evolutionist formulations with an aim toward speaking the same language, of avoiding the pitfalls of miscommunication, and of not talking past one another, as is so often encountered in these types of discussions. I am very open to using whatever definition my opponent prefers, but I reserve the prerogative to quallify those definitions in my own usage of the terms. Clear communication is vital, and I do not wish to undermine profitable discussion by getting derailed into a semantic squabble.

4. His definition of faith should raise some objections.Yes, I expect it may. But as a Biblical theist, I must be loyal to the biblical definition. I am willing to consider a modified definition, should Stratnerd choose to offer one, but my use of his definition will always be qualified for clarity.

5. Winning the debate. Hilston recognizes that no one is actually going to admit defeat here, and is laying the groundwork to claim he has won.I can see how you would view this as a pre-emptive strategy toward claiming victory. And since you've pointed it out, perhaps I will actually do that. But seriously, it's not a matter of simply making a claim at the conclusion of the debate. I should be able to demonstrate the cogency of my arguments and the incoherence of my opponent's. My summation might not be persuasive, but if I am to declare victory in the end, it had better be coherent.

7. Hilston does leave his chosen path of debate a couple of times, such as claims like ...

how does his worldview get things to become their opposites? E.g. Orderliness out of chaos. How does Muller's paradigm generate such things as hearing and seeing ...It's very astute of you to recognize the different tack employed by my statement that you quoted. However, in my defense, it is not a departure from my chosen path, but rather the other wheel of the vehicle I use to navigate that path.

fool
But then he falls in this hole.

The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions. The foundation of this principle is the existence and attributes of God and His maintenance of the universe.It's like saying "if you don't believe in the Flying Spigetti Monster you nave no foundation to believe anything."I often see these kinds of claims, suggesting that the Biblical conception of God can be merely replaced by any number of imagined entities (Coke cans, Spaghetti Dieties, etc.). The problem with this approach is twofold: First, I've yet to meet someone who starts off with such inane boasts to carry them through. In other words, those who offer up such propositions will not defend them because they don't really believe their own proposition. Competing worldviews cannot be adequately compared if one of the views is not seriously put forth and affirmed. Second, whenever I've pressed those who make such suggestions to begin to describe the nature and attributes of their Coke can deity or their Pasta Papa in the Sky, the ostensible votaries inevitably back down. This is because they realize where my questions will lead, namely, to a description that begins to match in varied respects the true God as revealed in the Bible.

It seems to this Atheist that Theists want you to believe in some kind of God, no matter which God, cause you can't know anything unless you first believe.This is true. Knowledge, that is true and certain knowledge, begins with the fear (reverence, respect) of the Lord. Apart from the existence of God, the laws and methods you use to navigate through life make no sense. You must blindly assume them to be magically trustworthy. All knowledge based on the blind application of these unverified laws and method will ever be suspect. Strangely, we find evolutionists who say this very thing: No knowledge is certain; everything is subject to revision, pending superior evidence to the contrary.

If this were true, then An Unbeliever would invariably come to the wrong conclusion, or a correct conclusion that was somehow conterfiet?This is an excellent question. The answer is no. All men are created in the image of God (i.e. possessing reason and personality). And as such, they are endowed by their Creator with the ability to learn by the application the inductive principle in a universe that is uniform in its behavior. The problem for the Unbeliever is this: He cannot justify or account for his method or his conclusions on the basis of his own espoused worldview. He is using God's tools to come to his correct conclusions, but he fails to acknowledge the Source and Basis for his method and conclusions, and instead trusts in them blindly, irrationally, as if they arose out of the void or out of chaos.

How do you tell the difference between a correct conclusion and a conterfiet correct conclusion?I know you won't like this, but the Authority to which I defer, that is, the Bible, allows no other answer: A correct conclusion is distinguished by counterfeit conclusions according to whether or not it comports with reality, the ultimate description of which is God Himself.

Seems as though if you use Hilstons standard the foundational logic of any conclusion would depend on the positors state of believing in God or not Believing in God.This is a keen observation, but it is only partly correct. I do not deny true conclusions to the anti-Theist/Unbeliever. Unbelievers are perfectly capable of counting the change in their pockets and inventing antibiotics. The problem is, by not acknowledging the God of the Bible as the very foundation for their successful application of the inductive principle, logic and science, they become irrational in their blind reliance upon tools for which they cannot account. "It's axiomatic," they'll say, which is to say, "It's magic."

Hence a conterfiet correct conclusion could become a legitamate correct conclusion by virtue of a change in the positors worldview.No, this is backward. A correct conclusion held by an Unbeliever doesn't move from being counterfeit to genuine. Rather, it moves from being an irrational assumption to being a grounded certainty.

So if you asked Hilston "here is a statement by person a, is it a correct conclusion? or a conterfiet correct conclusion?" he could only respond with "it depends on what the person thinks now ".My rejoinder above should suffice to correct this statement. Let me know if you wish for me to unpack it further.

SUTG
I'll wager you dollars to donuts that Hilsont will be as skeptical as they come until it is time to assert absolute knowledge of the Christian Triune God.I assure you that my skepticism is limited to that which the Bible does not address by explicit pronouncement or by sound inference. I am not skeptical in the least concerning the verity of science, the laws of logic, issues of morality, the nature of reality, the grounding of knowledge and of applied ethics. Where I become the skeptic is when I put myself in the shoes of the anti-Theist/evoutionist and I try to make sense of these things in terms of a Godless universe governed by impersonal entities or forces such as time, necessity and chance.

Johnny
Hilston's approach was a bit suprising, I didn't think he'd come out so opposed to intelligent design.Although I might be able to guess, I'd like to hear from you why this is a surprising development in your eyes?

Nonetheless, what's to stop me from substituing the flying spaghetti monster as the one who told me that the axioms science assumes are correct?Would you like to sincerely posit that view? If so, I have a battery of questions for you by which we will ascertain the nature and attributes of the FSM. Please let me know if you're interested in pursuing this.

Or what about a giant axiom spitting machine who spits out true axioms at earthlings who happened to write them down?See above.

Further, why is faith in God any different than just assuming axioms?This is like asking: Why is a grounded and certain knowledge any different from a blindly assumed conjecture?

Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.But the same worldview brought us all the other disciplines of science as well as their respective advancements. Do these not qualify as science? Does that make them invalid?Whatever successes and advances made by science are in spite of, not because of, blind-faith commitments to the tools of science.

mighty_duck
As far as I can tell, Hilston will claim that a worldview has to account for everything in this world, including logic, natural laws, morality, love, etc. and that the only possible presupposition that can account for all that is the Christian god.Although roughly stated, you are, for the most part, correct.

Logicallty, I think he has a point. I would love to see him try to prove all other groundings of axioms to be impossible.I am happy to oblige, as time allow, m_d. But if I may first ask, what would constitute acceptable proof for you?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to have a MUCH better account for the existence of pasta in the world.See my above comments regarding the Awe-Inspiring Airborne Al Dente Deity. I would like to ask It about some problems I have with Angel Hair pasta (it absorbs too much sauce; something has got to be done about that).

Johnny
But I don't understand what's stopping someone from claiming that the pepsi can sitting next to them is the originator of all things, and that the worldview the pepsi can shared with them accounts for all of the above. Can't you substitute any belief and have this logic hold true? It doesn't have to be the Christian God.But it does. That's the point. Do you seriously wish to advance the notion of a universe governed by the Paternal Pepsi Can in the Sky? Because that is the only condition upon which your All-Powerful Pepsi Can will get a fair hearing.

fool
Did Hilston mention beer?See my bio. I do believe I paid proper homage, not only to the Blessed Gods of the Barley-Based Bubbly, but also to the Titans of Tobacco. If I am truly guilty of oversight, I will duly repent in sackcloth and (cigar) ashes.

Thanks for the lively discussion. I will gladly continue to participate as time allows.

All the best,
Jim

[Hilston]

Hi Carver,

I know you asked for a real quick explanation. However, you've presented me with a terrific opportunity to demonstrate something pertinent to the discussions here in the Grandstands. You write:Also, real quick, how is Battle Royale 9 going on after BR 10?Obviously, you detected a problem with BR9 coming after BR10. I suspect the reason you see this as a problem is because of something called the principle of induction. Induction is the idea of moving from particular cases (such as the sequencing of numerals) to generalities (such as the sequencing of numbers). Here are my questions for you, Carver: Why do you expect 9 to precede 10? On what grounds have you raised your objection or question concerning the numerical sequencing of the Battle Royales?

Thank you for considering my questions.

Warm regards,
Jim

[Carver]

I have 10 fingers. When I hold up all 10 of them, that's, um, like, a whole bunch. When I only hold up 9 of them, that's like, not as much. So, 10 is more than 9. [/child talk]

[Balder]

Hey, Jim,

It's been awhile. Hope you're doing well, dude.

Why do you expect 9 to precede 10? On what grounds have you raised your objection or question concerning the numerical sequencing of the Battle Royales?
Offering an unsolicited response, and expecting you not to have found what you were looking for in Carver's answer, I would say in this instance, we have a pretty good example of something that could be learned simply based on experience in conjunction with convention. I add convention because it is conceivable that in some cultures, people might have reason to consider certain number sequences "sacred" or special, perhaps based on some myth of time being suspended by Chronos or whatever, and then people in that culture might choose to reverse a sequence of numbers on certain occasions, or for certain purposes. Or perhaps we can take the convention of counting age. A year after a child is born, we expect her to be celebrate her first birthday and to be 1 year old. But in Korea, she would be considered 2 years old after her first birthday. Is she really 1 or 2?

[Balder]

Hey, Jim,

It's been awhile. Hope you're doing well, dude.


Offering an unsolicited response, and expecting you not to have found what you were looking for in Carver's answer, I would say in this instance, we have a pretty good example of something that could be learned simply based on experience in conjunction with convention. I add convention because it is conceivable that in some cultures, people might have reason to consider certain number sequences "sacred" or special, perhaps based on some myth of time being suspended by Chronos or whatever, and then people in that culture might choose to reverse a sequence of numbers on certain occasions, or for certain purposes. Or perhaps we can take the convention of counting age. A year after a child is born, we expect her to celebrate her first birthday and to be 1 year old. But in Korea, she would be considered 2 years old after her first birthday. Is she really 1 or 2?

[Carver]

Do we really have to question everything? Doesn't it just get ridiculous after some point? 9 is before 10. That's just the way it is. 2+2 is 4. Leave Math alone. Argue God, argue sin, argue logic, argue whether or not we really exist or whether everything is just a figment of one person's imagination, but for love of Pete, leave Math alone.

[Casey]

It's a good debate but I disagree with Jim's assertion that it would be scary if creationism were to be taught in schools. If there is reason to believe that life came about through the means of a "creator" then why would it be scary or wrong to give our children in public schools this other option to consider? It doesn't mean that schools have to define this creator, i.e., who he is, what his purpose was in creating life, etc., but to deny a student the right to have other valid theories presented to them merely because people are afraid of dealing with the concept of a "creator," seems wrong.

[truthteller86]

It's a good debate but I disagree with Jim's assertion that it would be scary if creationism were to be taught in schools. If there is reason to believe that life came about through the means of a "creator" then why would it be scary or wrong to give our children in public schools this other option to consider? It doesn't mean that schools have to define this creator, i.e., who he is, what his purpose was in creating life, etc., but to deny a student the right to have other valid theories presented to them merely because people are afraid of dealing with the concept of a "creator," seems wrong.Casey, I believe the sentiment was the government (any) does not have the right or ability to educate our children, especially on something as important as where they came from. -michael

[elected4ever]

I don't understand why someone would have a biases against disorder to order in the creation of things? Though in this world we see the opposite taking place, order to disorder. In the Genesis account we all ways see disorder to order in the six days and order to disorder after the six days. Why is the evolutionist idea of disorder to order a bad idea when it seems to be supported biblically?

[Clete]

Well even though this first round wasn't really set up in such a way as to make declaring a winner very meaningful, if clarity of presentation, writting skills, and good old fashioned making yourself look smarter than the other guy counts for anything at all, I am going to say that Jim blew Stratnards doors off in round one.

And post XXXII of this thread is just amazingly brilliant! We couldn't have found a better man to debate BR IX after BR X if we had spent XX years planning it out!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[sentientsynth]

Hilston: Just the man for the job.

[fool]

My rejoinder above should suffice to correct this statement. Let me know if you wish for me to unpack it further.
By all means, let us unpack further
I said;

Hence a conterfiet correct conclusion could become a legitamate correct conclusion by virtue of a change in the positors worldview.

To which you responded;

No, this is backward. A correct conclusion held by an Unbeliever doesn't move from being counterfeit to genuine. Rather, it moves from being an irrational assumption to being a grounded certainty.

So a correct conclusion from a believer is a grounded certainty, whereas a correct conclusion from an un believer is an irrational assumption.
Hence, were an unbeliever to become a believer his correct conclusions would cease being irrational assumptions and become grounded certainties.
Hence if Hilston were to look at a correct statement he would have no way of telling which it was without knowing the current state of mind of the positor.
Yes? No?

This is a keen observation, but it is only partly correct. I do not deny true conclusions to the anti-Theist/Unbeliever. Unbelievers are perfectly capable of counting the change in their pockets and inventing antibiotics. The problem is, by not acknowledging the God of the Bible as the very foundation for their successful application of the inductive principle, logic and science, they become irrational in their blind reliance upon tools for which they cannot account. "It's axiomatic," they'll say, which is to say, "It's magic

How bout they just say they don't know?

[GuySmiley]

Do we really have to question everything? Doesn't it just get ridiculous after some point? 9 is before 10. That's just the way it is. 2+2 is 4. Leave Math alone. Argue God, argue sin, argue logic, argue whether or not we really exist or whether everything is just a figment of one person's imagination, but for love of Pete, leave Math alone.I think that in the end you will find that Hilston's question involves God, logic, and whether or not we really exist.

[GuySmiley]

I don't understand why someone would have a biases against disorder to order in the creation of things? Though in this world we see the opposite taking place, order to disorder. In the Genesis account we all ways see disorder to order in the six days and order to disorder after the six days. Why is the evolutionist idea of disorder to order a bad idea when it seems to be supported biblically?Because the evolutionist idea is supposed to be driven by pruely natural forces, the Bible does not support that.

[GuySmiley]

Hilston looks like Captain Jack Sparrow and when I read his posts I read it in that voice, although not aloud.

[elected4ever]

Because the evolutionist idea is supposed to be driven by purely natural forces, the Bible does not support that.Aren't the natural laws of the universe created by God? Didn't he place them there so they could be observed and witness to Himself? It would be the erroneous conclusion of the non-believing observer that would be wrong, not the law itself. Isn't that correct?

[The Berean]

Hey, Jim,

It's been awhile. Hope you're doing well, dude.


Offering an unsolicited response, and expecting you not to have found what you were looking for in Carver's answer, I would say in this instance, we have a pretty good example of something that could be learned simply based on experience in conjunction with convention. I add convention because it is conceivable that in some cultures, people might have reason to consider certain number sequences "sacred" or special, perhaps based on some myth of time being suspended by Chronos or whatever, and then people in that culture might choose to reverse a sequence of numbers on certain occasions, or for certain purposes. Or perhaps we can take the convention of counting age. A year after a child is born, we expect her to be celebrate her first birthday and to be 1 year old. But in Korea, she would be considered 2 years old after her first birthday. Is she really 1 or 2?
Isn't it both? After one year the child will have completed their first year and begin their second year of life. Koreans simply celebrate the begining of the "new" year. My wife is Korean and she explained it to me.

[SUTG]

SUTG
I like Popper. I also like Kuhn. I haven't read everything they've written on the philosophy of science, but from what I have read, I admire their efforts to formulate a cogent accounting of and grounding of the scientific enterprise. From my Biblical position, however, I don't expect there to ever be a sufficiently coherent and defensible thesis for the verity of science apart from the full recognition of the God of the Bible.

For the record I don't really care for Popper or Kuhn, or Feyerabend or Lakatos. I was just stating Popper's position (which I do not adhere to) earlier. These guys have all drawn from Hume's Inductive Skepticism, but they've taken it to different places. Especially Feyerabend. You could probably use some of his stuff in the skeptical half of your apologetic.

[mighty_duck]

I am happy to oblige, as time allow, m_d. But if I may first ask, what would constitute acceptable proof for you?


This would depend on your method of proving it, say against a otherwise deist god, who just spoke to me a few minutes ago, and grounded my axioms. I even have written proof.
There are some flaws with this, but it would serve to show your method, and so fuel objections. There are an infinite amount of possible groundings, but thoroughly debunking a few archtypes with slight modifications would be an acceptable method of convicing me.
1. A well defined FSM.
2. SUTG, who admitted to being omniscient on another thread. He is truely amazing! The guys at the state lottery keep getting the numbers wrong though :(
3. A presupposition that does not rely on god - everything just is.
4. The biblical god, with slight modification. He created the world in just 5 days.

That would be a good (if long) start.


See my above comments regarding the Awe-Inspiring Airborne Al Dente Deity. I would like to ask It about some problems I have with Angel Hair pasta (it absorbs too much sauce; something has got to be done about that).


Angel hair pasta was made to test your faith. Also known as the Problem of Evil Pasta (POEP). How could a perfect Spaghetti monster exist, that allows such vile forms of creatures in his image to exist.

[Johnny]

Do you seriously wish to advance the notion of a universe governed by the Paternal Pepsi Can in the Sky? Because that is the only condition upon which your All-Powerful Pepsi Can will get a fair hearing.Sure, why not. I'm not asking you to spend a lot of time engaging me, I know you're busy. But since you asked..

This is like asking: Why is a grounded and certain knowledge any different from a blindly assumed conjecture? No, it's asking why blind faith in axioms is different than blind faith in God.
Whatever successes and advances made by science are in spite of, not because of, blind-faith commitments to the tools of science.Of course they are. The axioms function whether or not they are philosophically grounded and are logically coherent because of your faith in God. All you seem to be arguing (so far) is that you have a logical reason to employ these ideas that science uses (induction, uniformity, etc) whereas an atheist does not. But as you are forced to admit, they work fine even without this philosophical support. And why do the tools of science work fine in describing the rest of the universe but suddenly stop working when we knock on evolution's door?

[Johnny]

Also want to tack this on. You stated,
"Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."Then aren't all scientific advancements blindly religious and therefore they do not qualify as science? What valid science have we done?

[fool]

I often see these kinds of claims, suggesting that the Biblical conception of God can be merely replaced by any number of imagined entities (Coke cans, Spaghetti Dieties, etc.).
You see this because it draws a logical parrallel. You posit an unfalsifiable, invisable prime cause, they posit another, neither of you can prove the others dosen't exist.

The problem with this approach is twofold: First, I've yet to meet someone who starts off with such inane boasts to carry them through. In other words, those who offer up such propositions will not defend them because they don't really believe their own proposition.

No defense is nessasary, you can't prove there is no FSM just as they can't prove there is no Yaweh. Besides the point is to illustrate the weakness of your arguement, not bring people to the FSM faith.

Competing worldviews cannot be adequately compared if one of the views is not seriously put forth and affirmed.

Again I don't think many people actually believe in the FSM, it is used to show that making unfounded assertations does not prove your point.
It's unfounded assertation for unfounded assertation. 1

Second, whenever I've pressed those who make such suggestions to begin to describe the nature and attributes of their Coke can deity or their Pasta Papa in the Sky, the ostensible votaries inevitably back down. This is because they realize where my questions will lead, namely, to a description that begins to match in varied respects the true God as revealed in the Bible.
This description you seek would be no more than a game of "My unfounded assertation can beat up your unfounded assertation"



1( my apologies to anyone that does believe in the Flying Spigetti Monster)

[Balder]

Isn't it both? After one year the child will have completed their first year and begin their second year of life. Koreans simply celebrate the begining of the "new" year. My wife is Korean and she explained it to me.
Sure, you can say it's both. I'm just pointing out that how we number things is sometimes based on convention -- it is not absolute, and doesn't require "God" to explain the apparent "inevitability" of our expectations. I'm not arguing against God here; just saying that the belief that something should obviously be numbered in a particular way isn't a particularly good argument in favor of the necessity of God's existence.

I worked for a couple years in Korea, by the way, and some of my friends have married into Korean culture. Sometimes I miss a good, make-your-eyes-run-with-tears-and-your- face-flush- with-heat Korean meal.

Annyonghi kyeshipshio,

Balder

[fool]

Annyonghi kyeshipshio,

Balder
"Hey now fellas, we don't need any trouble in here, not in any language."-the sheriff in Tombstone.

[avatar382]

Thanks to both Strat & Hilston for taking the time to debate! I'm hoping for a very interesting debate between both of them.

I see that Hilston is going the same way Clete went in his Carl Sagan thread.

Since I've yet to get a response from Clete regarding certain points I've made, perhaps, if the debate goes that way, Hilston will have an a opportunity to respond to them.

First, the topic of the debate is "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction"? To win, one must merely define science, and then show that the Theory of Evolution fits, or doesn't fit.

Stratnerd basically describes "science" as falsifiable. At the center of Hilstons argument is that science is impossible without a "rational basis" for induction, which is belief, or faith, as he puts it, in his God.

I hope that the following is touched on:
a.) Why is it necessary to justify or have a "basis" for concepts which are self-evident? When one says that a concept is an axiom or is axiomatic, we say that it is to be accepted on its intrinsic evidence, to borrow from the Russell quote Hilston provided.

b.) If it's blind faith that one is to accept axioms only on their intrinsic evidence, then it must also be blind faith to accept one's senses. Our senses are also axiomatic. Like logic, it is not possible to verify or falsify one's senses without using the same senses.

c.) What about the possiblity that the origins of nature and logic are merely beyond the capacity of human comprehension?

[avatar382]

Thanks to both Strat & Hilston for taking the time to debate! I'm hoping for a very interesting debate between both of them.

I see that Hilston is going the same way Clete went in his Carl Sagan thread.

Since I've yet to get a response from Clete regarding certain points I've made, perhaps, if the debate goes that way, Hilston will have an a opportunity to respond to them.

First, the topic of the debate is "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction"? To win, one must merely define science, and then show that the Theory of Evolution fits, or doesn't fit.

Stratnerd basically describes "science" as falsifiable. At the center of Hilstons argument is that science is impossible without a "rational basis" for induction, which is belief, or faith, as he puts it, in his God.

As others in this thread have said, I hope that the following is touched on:
a.) Why is it necessary to justify or have a "basis" for concepts which are self-evident? When one says that a concept is an axiom or is axiomatic, we say that it is to be accepted on its intrinsic evidence, to borrow from the Russell quote Hilston provided.

b.) If it's blind faith that one is to accept axioms only on their intrinsic evidence, then it must also be blind faith to accept one's senses. Our senses are also axiomatic. Like logic, it is not possible to verify or falsify one's senses without using the same senses, so such an attempt would be begging the question.

Since the senses are used by Christians to observe the world and read the Bible, the Bible cannot be used as a "rational basis" for our senses. In fact, nothing can be used as a rational basis for our senses, since everything we experience relies on them! This is exactly why they are axiomatic.

c.) What about the possiblity that the origins of nature and logic are merely beyond the capacity of human comprehension?

[avatar382]

Yeesh. I thought I was editing my post, Turns out I was quoting myself.

Please, read the second post.

Mods, if you would be good enough to replace post 55 with the content from 56 and delete 56, I'd be much obligied! :e4e:

[Zimfan]

Isn't it both? After one year the child will have completed their first year and begin their second year of life. Koreans simply celebrate the begining of the "new" year. My wife is Korean and she explained it to me.

[worthless trivia] One of my Political Science professors told me once that that method of counting age is used in certain parts of central/eastern Europe, too. [/worthless trivia]

[Just_like_Peter]

I am very excited! Thank you for the email concerning the start of the Battle. I am a Pastoral student and I believe Jim opened with an excelent style to his debate. I am on the edge of my seat! I am still trying to navigate through this site, so please stick with me while I do learn. Oh, and i surely can not type! So forgive me. I think this is a great start and would have to agree that Stratnerd did not do his homework on Jim. Hilston, I must say has blown me away with his style of debate. I absolutely like the way he writes, and I spend 90% of my time in comentaries. I think this is a great site, and am very glad I stumbled accross it.

[avatar382]

The Carl Sagan thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=24292) has been closed.

Although I completely understand the reason why - (and even agree with the closing) - as the subject matter is virtually identical to BR IX, I cannot help but feel slightly annoyed that I will be unable provide a rebuttal to Clete's latest argument in that venue. Especially since Clete has inheretied the Enyartian tendency to declare "victory" in the middle of a debate.

This thread is not about Clete and I, however - it doesn't seem quite right to quote and rebut the last post made in the Sagan thread here - but, I would like to offer some of my obversations about the presuppositional argument used by Hilston in BR IX and Clete in the aforementioned thread.

It is my observation that the presuppositional argument is circular.

It seeks to begin with the Bible to defend the Bible. Of course, the presuppositional theist will argue that the non-theist does the same - presupposing logic to defend logic.

There is much to say on this matter (obviously), and I'd like to see how the battle plays out rather than dump a bunch of arguments at this early stage, but I would like to explain where I was going with one of my arguments to Clete, which, incidentally, I repeated to Hilston just a few posts above.

I mentioned the human senses because we are utterly dependant on them, like logic, to percieve and interact with the world around us.

Clete has made the claim that like logic, our senses are accounted for because we have been created by a being that is logical, and able to sense.

My question is then - How do we know of this being, called "God"? The theist answer is: By revelation from the Bible.

My very next question of course is: How is one to recieve revelation from the Bible, without senses to read the words or to hear them spoken?

So, given that man's only method of revelation is utterly reliant on the senses, it is necessary to presuppose their (and ultimately, logic's) verity before we can presuppose the Bible. One cannot use the Bible to account for the verity of the senses while relying on the very same senses to know what the content of the Bible is.

[Hilston]

Greetings again, Grandstanders.

The following post contains responses to:

Balder
Carver
Casey
elected4ever
fool
SUTG
mighty_duck
avatar382

Balder
Hey, Jim,

It's been awhile. Hope you're doing well, dude.Thanks, Balder. Life is busy, but it's a wonderful time to be alive. Good to hear from you.

Hilston originally wrote [to Carver]: Why do you expect 9 to precede 10? On what grounds have you raised your objection or question concerning the numerical sequencing of the Battle Royales?

Offering an unsolicited response, and expecting you not to have found what you were looking for in Carver's answer, I would say in this instance, we have a pretty good example of something that could be learned simply based on experience in conjunction with convention. I add convention because it is conceivable that in some cultures, people might have reason to consider certain number sequences "sacred" or special, perhaps based on some myth of time being suspended by Chronos or whatever, and then people in that culture might choose to reverse a sequence of numbers on certain occasions, or for certain purposes. Or perhaps we can take the convention of counting age. A year after a child is born, we expect her to be celebrate her first birthday and to be 1 year old. But in Korea, she would be considered 2 years old after her first birthday. Is she really 1 or 2?Are you suggesting that Carver's question is without warrant? In Korea, does one often see numerical sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9? Does a child in Korea celebrate their 10th birthday after their 8th, followed by their 9th?

Carver
Do we really have to question everything?If you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then yes, you must question everything, including the reason why you would expect 9 to follow 8, instead of 10. However, if you're satisfied with operating on blind assumption and magic, then no.

Doesn't it just get ridiculous after some point?How will you ascertain when something has indeed become "ridiculous"? What does such a word even mean without applying the inductive principle?

9 is before 10. That's just the way it is. 2+2 is 4. Leave Math alone. Argue God, ...Am I allowed to say, "God exists. Evolution is wrong. That's just the way it is"? If I'm NOT allowed to say that (nor should I be), then you're not allowed to say "9 is before 10. That's just the way it is."

argue sin, argue logic, argue whether or not we really exist or whether everything is just a figment of one person's imagination, but for love of Pete, leave Math alone.Carver, you've demonstrated here a fascinating (to me) fallacy that has existed for a long time. It is the fallacy of pretended neutrality. In an effort to appear fair, unbiased and neutral, many if not most people from both camps, evolutionist and creationist, want to put various kinds of knowledge into different compartments. They want knowledge about God and sin and morality to go into a compartment where bias and opinion have free reign. But they want knowledge about math and facts and data to go into a compartment where neutrality is the governing concern. Go ahead and argue about biased, opinion-laden concepts, but leave math out of it. But the fact is, which I've demonstrated and will continue to drive home, there is no such thing as neutrality. Math is not neutral. An attack on the existence of God is an attack on math. An attack on the verity of the Creation account is an attack on math.

Casey
It's a good debate but I disagree with Jim's assertion that it would be scary if creationism were to be taught in schools.Have you ever had a teacher teach you something that they didn't believe to be true? Have you ever seen a teacher give a lecture that taught, with fairness and accuracy, the flat-earth theory or the geo-centric model? Can you imagine such a thing? If creationism were taught in schools, do you expect the teachers who disagree with the theory to nonetheless teach it as something that could be true?

If there is reason to believe that life came about through the means of a "creator" then why would it be scary or wrong to give our children in public schools this other option to consider?Because requiring a anti-Creationist teacher to teach the merits of creationism would be like asking a pro-choice activist to teach the merits of the pro-life thesis.

It doesn't mean that schools have to define this creator, i.e., who he is, what his purpose was in creating life, etc., ...That's a problem. It is an attempt to take a neutral approach to the question of origins. Not only is it unbiblical, it is irrational. There can be no cogent discussion of origins apart from a positive affirmation and acknowledge of God, specifically and non-negotiably, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.

... but to deny a student the right to have other valid theories presented to them merely because people are afraid of dealing with the concept of a "creator," seems wrong.You used the word "valid." What makes a theory "valid"? And who gets to decide that?

elected4ever
I don't understand why someone would have a biases against disorder to order in the creation of things?Evolutionists don't believe in creation.

Though in this world we see the opposite taking place, order to disorder. In the Genesis account we all ways see disorder to order in the six days and order to disorder after the six days. Why is the evolutionist idea of disorder to order a bad idea when it seems to be supported biblically?Because the evolutionist either rejects, or he undermines by his assertions, the teaching of Genesis 1.

fool
So if you asked Hilston "here is a statement by person a, is it a correct conclusion? or a conterfiet correct conclusion?" he could only respond with "it depends on what the person thinks now ". To which I replied: My rejoinder above should suffice to correct this statement. Let me know if you wish for me to unpack it further.

To that, fool responded: By all means, let us unpack further.OK. Person A says X. The verity of falsity of X is independent of whether or not Person A has a workable worldview on which to base that conclusion. If he holds conclusion X and it happens to be true, his reasoning may or may not be justified, but he holds the correct view nonetheless. However, holding the correct view is not the same as having justified knowledge. But this gets into a difficult area of epistemology called Gettier problems. Are you familiar with them?

Hilston originally wrote: No, this is backward. A correct conclusion held by an Unbeliever doesn't move from being counterfeit to genuine. Rather, it moves from being an irrational assumption to being a grounded certainty.

So a correct conclusion from a believer is a grounded certainty, whereas a correct conclusion from an un believer is an irrational assumption.I would say it this way: A correct conclusion can be held by both the believer and the anti-believer. The difference is, the believer holds a correct conclusion based on principles that are grounded and certain. Thus he has certain and justified knowledge. The anti-believer holds a correct conclusion based on principles that he assumes to be grounded and certain, but in actuality, he is personally unable to rationally ground or certify them. Regardless of whatever assurance or confidence he may claim to have in that knowledge, ultimately his knowledge, although correctly held, is not justified.

Hence, were an unbeliever to become a believer his correct conclusions would cease being irrational assumptions and become grounded certainties.I would say, if an anti-believer were to become a believer, his correct conclusions would no longer be based on principles assumed to be axiomatic (i.e. magical), but rather based on principles that have a rational grounding in reality (i.e. God's existence).

Hence if Hilston were to look at a correct statement he would have no way of telling which it was without knowing the current state of mind of the positor.
Yes? No?No. The verity or falsity of a statement is objective, independent of who holds the statement. Again, a believer and an unbeliever can hold the same true statement, for example, lightning causes thunder. However, the principle of induction, which is what is required for causality and to understand how lightning and thunder are related, only makes sense in the believer's worldview. The believer holds the statement rationally; the unbeliever holds the statement irrationally.

Hilston wrote originally: This is a keen observation, but it is only partly correct. I do not deny true conclusions to the anti-Theist/Unbeliever. Unbelievers are perfectly capable of counting the change in their pockets and inventing antibiotics. The problem is, by not acknowledging the God of the Bible as the very foundation for their successful application of the inductive principle, logic and science, they become irrational in their blind reliance upon tools for which they cannot account. "It's axiomatic," they'll say, which is to say, "It's magic."

How bout they just say they don't know?That would be fine. I've never heard that admission. I would regard such an admission as a gift.

SUTG
For the record I don't really care for Popper or Kuhn, or Feyerabend or Lakatos. I was just stating Popper's position (which I do not adhere to) earlier. These guys have all drawn from Hume's Inductive Skepticism, but they've taken it to different places.I'll have a look at Feyeraband and Lakatos. I see them both quoted or in footnotes in Kuhn's Revolutions. Thanks for the recommendation. What would your response be to Bertrand Russell's statement about the inductive principle that I cited in my Opening Statement in the BRIX?

mighty_duck
Logicallty, I think he has a point. I would love to see him try to prove all other groundings of axioms to be impossible.

Hilston wrote: I am happy to oblige, as time allow, m_d. But if I may first ask, what would constitute acceptable proof for you?

There are some flaws with this, but it would serve to show your method, and so fuel objections. There are an infinite amount of possible groundings, but thoroughly debunking a few archtypes with slight modifications would be an acceptable method of convicing me.
1. A well defined FSM.A well defined FSM may not be debunkable, especially if it turns out that It has all the same attributes as the Biblical God.

2. SUTG, who admitted to being omniscient on another thread. He is truely amazing! The guys at the state lottery keep getting the numbers wrong though.Again, a well defined SUTG may not be debunkable. We might find out that we just have different names for the same omniscient Being.

3. A presupposition that does not rely on god - everything just is.In a rational debate that sets out to resolve a difference of opinion about the nature of reality or of the origins and diversity of life, the claim, "everything just is," is an admission of irrationality, and thus a concession to defeat. The person offering such a claim should not bother showing up for a debate.

4. The biblical god, with slight modification. He created the world in just 5 days.Exactly how does the 5-day Creator ground the aforementioned axioms?

Johnny
But I don't understand what's stopping someone from claiming that the pepsi can sitting next to them is the originator of all things, and that the worldview the pepsi can shared with them accounts for all of the above. Can't you substitute any belief and have this logic hold true? It doesn't have to be the Christian God.

Hilston replied: Do you seriously wish to advance the notion of a universe governed by the Paternal Pepsi Can in the Sky? Because that is the only condition upon which your All-Powerful Pepsi Can will get a fair hearing.

Sure, why not. I'm not asking you to spend a lot of time engaging me, I know you're busy. But since you asked.OK, what convinced you to worship the Pepsi Can Deity and to recognize It as the originator of all things Who accounts for the nature and existence of reality? Given Its existence, how is it that the Pepsi Can Deity originated all things and accounts for reality? Finally (for now), please describe the character, nature and attributes of the Pepsi God Deity Whom you worship.

Hilston wrote: This is like asking: Why is a grounded and certain knowledge any different from a blindly assumed conjecture?

No, it's asking why blind faith in axioms is different than blind faith in God.Faith in God doesn't have to be blind. In fact, true faith in God is not blind at all. Please read my Opening Statement in the BRIX. I give an extended treatment of faith, complete with references to the Bible's descriptions of true faith.

Hilston wrote: Whatever successes and advances made by science are in spite of, not because of, blind-faith commitments to the tools of science.

Of course they are. The axioms function whether or not they are philosophically grounded and are logically coherent because of your faith in God. All you seem to be arguing (so far) is that you have a logical reason to employ these ideas that science uses (induction, uniformity, etc) whereas an atheist does not.Exactly. And this is precisely what the debate is about, Johnny. The Evolution position will stand or fall in this debate depending on how it fares regarding this issue.

But as you are forced to admit, they work fine even without this philosophical support.That's true. I readily admit that, because it is biblical. The Bible addresses the fact that all men, theists and anti-theists alike, use the tools of science and rationality that God gave them, even when they use those tools to oppose Him. Cornelius Van Til described this as a little girl climbing up on her father's lap in order to smack him in the face. This is what anti-theists do when they use logic and science to try to disprove God as Creator.

And why do the tools of science work fine in describing the rest of the universe but suddenly stop working when we knock on evolution's door?They don't.

Also want to tack this on. You stated,
Originally Posted by Hilston: "[For the] Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."

Then aren't all scientific advancements blindly religious and therefore they do not qualify as science? What valid science have we done?It isn't a question of whether or not successful scientific advances invoke scientific principles, but rather a question of whether or not those who invoked said principles did so rationally or blindly. Evolution is not blindly religious because it uses science, but rather because it does so without rational warrant or justification.

fool
Originally Posted by Hilston: I often see these kinds of claims, suggesting that the Biblical conception of God can be merely replaced by any number of imagined entities (Coke cans, Spaghetti Dieties, etc.).

You see this because it draws a logical parrallel. You posit an unfalsifiable, invisable prime cause, they posit another, neither of you can prove the others dosen't exist.It turns out that they're not really parallel, but the same Being. If they're not the same Being, then at every point at which their "prime cause" deviates from the Biblical one, their "prime cause" can be shown to be internally incoherent and self-contradictory.

No defense [of the FSM] is nessasary, you can't prove there is no FSM just as they can't prove there is no Yaweh. Besides the point is to illustrate the weakness of your arguement, not bring people to the FSM faith.But it actually serves the opposite purpose. To propose that a supernatural FSM could ground their otheriwise magic assumptions is to concede the verity of such a supernatural grounding. All that is left to the task is to show that every characteristic and attribute of the FSM must align with the God of the Bible in order to be coherent and non-self-contradictory.

Again I don't think many people actually believe in the FSM, it is used to show that making unfounded assertations does not prove your point.I assure, and I can demonstrate that my statements are not unfounded, and that those statements do indeed prove my point.

avatar382
First, the topic of the debate is "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction"? To win, one must merely define science, and then show that the Theory of Evolution fits, or doesn't fit.Would you be inclined to proffer a definition of science?

Stratnerd basically describes "science" as falsifiable. At the center of Hilstons argument is that science is impossible without a "rational basis" for induction, which is belief, or faith, as he puts it, in his God.

As others in this thread have said, I hope that the following is touched on:
a.) Why is it necessary to justify or have a "basis" for concepts which are self-evident?Please unpack this for me. What does "self-evident" mean, and how do you distinguish between something that is self-evident and something that is not?

When one says that a concept is an axiom or is axiomatic, we say that it is to be accepted on its intrinsic evidence, to borrow from the Russell quote Hilston provided.Russell said, "... we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future."

On what basis have you chosen to blindly move from particuluar cases of induction (intrinsic evidence) to the generality called "the inductive principle." On what basis have you rejected the alternative posed by Russell ("to forgo all justification of our expectations about the future")?

b.) If it's blind faith that one is to accept axioms only on their intrinsic evidence, then it must also be blind faith to accept one's senses.Exactly. I have color blindness. I either can't trust my eyes or the occipital lobe of my brain (I don't know which is flawed) to communicate the sense of color accurately. Now how do I know other senses aren't flawed as well? How should I go about ascertaining this? By what method could I calibrate my sensory faculties to ensure that they comport with the real world?

Our senses are also axiomatic.Magic!

Like logic, it is not possible to verify or falsify one's senses without using the same senses, so such an attempt would be begging the question.Brilliant! I commend you, avatar382. I've not met many people who are able or willing to acknowledge this issue in human experience. Your statement is exactly correct. So, in this regard, as it pertains to the verity of the senses, how is the Creationist view superior? It is superior, and in fact, exclusively rational, because God, the Creator of eyes, noses, taste buds, eardrums, nerve endings, the brain that processes the data, and the mind that cogitates it, assures the believer, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit in the experience of each believer, that our senses are generally reliable, barring obvious exclusions. The anti-Theist/anti-believer has no such assurance, and thus, can only rely upon his senses axiomatically (i.e., by trusting in magic).

Since the senses are used by Christians to observe the world and read the Bible, the Bible cannot be used as a "rational basis" for our senses. In fact, nothing can be used as a rational basis for our senses, since everything we experience relies on them! This is exactly why they are axiomatic.On the contrary, the existence of God is not known only through the senses. His existence is communicated immediately (as opposed to mediately), internally, to every human being, and is reciprocally reinforced by the rational faculties and sense experience. That is not to say that every human being acknowledges and embraces this truth. In fact, the Bible teaches that the vast majority of human beings hold this truth in unrighteousness, doing everything they can to push God and His truth down, out of their view.

c.) What about the possiblity that the origins of nature and logic are merely beyond the capacity of human comprehension?Then we're back to magic, and no one needs to show up for the debate.

It is my observation that the presuppositional argument is circular.You're right. But all worldviews are ultimately circular. It is an inescapable fact of philosophy. All worldviews are circular, but the Creationist worldview has a ratioanl starting point, and that is God. By falling back on so-called axioms, the anti-Theist/Evolution admits that he has no rationally justifiable starting point.

It seeks to begin with the Bible to defend the Bible.What's wrong with that?

Of course, the presuppositional theist will argue that the non-theist does the same - presupposing logic to defend logic. There's nothing wrong with that either.

I mentioned the human senses because we are utterly dependant on them, like logic, to percieve and interact with the world around us.It's a good point. I'm glad I have a worldview that grounds my reliance upon my senses and reason. I'm sad for anti-theists who must resort to blindly trusting them and relegating them to axioms.

My question is then - How do we know of this being, called "God"? The theist answer is: By revelation from the Bible.That's not what the Bible says.

Romans 1:19,20 ... [T]hat 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:

The Bible says all men know God and are without excuse, even those who have never read the Bible.

I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep this up, but I'm glad I was able to participate up to this point.

Keep on rockin' in the quasi-free world,
Jim

[mighty_duck]

The Carl Sagan thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=24292) has been closed.


This was a disappointing end, just when it was getting interesting. It diminishes this whole site that such a thread was inducted to the hall of fame, merely a day after it was started.

What I see carrying over from Clete to his mentor Hilston, is that the basis for his entire claim is an assertion:

Logic is an attribute of God and would not, could not, does not exist apart from Him. He is its source and its foundation. It is God that I presuppose not logic. Logic does not work apart from the existence of God, as I have demonstrated in this thread and thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

There is really no way to back this up aside from hand waving. Hilston does wave his hands pretty artfully, so I'd like to see him try to make this more than an assertion.

The other major quibble I have regards all this talk of absolute knowldge, when the basis for it is a presupposition that in itself is uncertain. There was also no mention of how Solipsism is refuted.

These issues should pop up in the BR IX debate, so we may get a better answer soon.

[Clete]

These issues should pop up in the BR IX debate, so we may get a better answer soon.

Which is why I closed the thread. It would have been a distraction to the Battle Royale.

And you're the one who deserves the credit for its early induction into the TOL Hall of Fame, not me. I just presented the argument in it simplest terms and instantly you responded with the following...

You are right. I don't know that reality is real.

Now if that isn't a classic I don't know what is. How common is it for one's opponent to come right out and say "You're right. I don't know anything including what the heck I'm talking about, or whether I'm really saying anything for that matter."! I mean what more could you ask for in a debate than that?! It's absolutely unbelievable. I literally don't recall that ever happening in any debate anywhere ever before. The only thing that could have been better is if you had used the realization you proclaimed as cause to repent, but I suppose that I'll take what I can get.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[fool]

OK. Person A says X. The verity of falsity of X is independent of whether or not Person A has a workable worldview on which to base that conclusion. If he holds conclusion X and it happens to be true, his reasoning may or may not be justified, but he holds the correct view nonetheless. However, holding the correct view is not the same as having justified knowledge. But this gets into a difficult area of epistemology called Gettier problems. Are you familiar with them?
Thank you.
I would submit that , since a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that the worldview of the positor is a moot point.

[Hilston]

Hi Eff (I really do hate calling you "fool").

This is an excellent post you've made. It provides a wonderful opportunity to talk about an important point concerning how a resolution of the differences between the Creationist and Evolutionist should be addressed.


Thank you.
I would submit that , since a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that the worldview of the positor is a moot point.I would agree with you if there were such a thing as "brute facts," i.e. uninterpreted data. The problem is, a worldview -- that is, a system of thought by which one regiments his reasoning and tries to make sense of the world -- is necessary to meaningfully make or comprehend any statement whatsoever. To say that "a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor" is NOT the same as saying "a statement can be comprehended or affirmed APART from a worldview." That is, apart from a working paradigm, even a true statement would be meaningless. While a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that statement can only be meaningful and make sense within a worldview, the Creationist/Theistic worldview in particular.

My position is that all true predication makes sense only in terms of the Creationist/Theistic worldview. All other worldviews will fail at this point. Furthermore, any meaning and comprehension attained and held by anti-Creationist/anti-theistic worldviews are in spite of, not because of, their false view. Moreover, any meaning and comprehension that is held by the anti-Creationist/anti-Theist comes from tacitly and unwittingly borrowing the tools of the Creationist/Theist paradigm, even while attempting to discredit and debunk Creationist/Theist claims.

Thanks again for your post.

Plays well with others,
Jim

[Balder]

Are you suggesting that Carver's question is without warrant? In Korea, does one often see numerical sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9? Does a child in Korea celebrate their 10th birthday after their 8th, followed by their 9th?
No, not without warrant; just not requiring the existence of the Judeo-Christian God to ground it. As I stated, experience and convention are sufficient to explain his expectation of a particular order to things: "If these conditions pertain, we call it this; if these other conditions pertain, we call it that." I expect that you will point past this particular instance to the general, asking if experience and order themselves can be explained in the absence of God. And here I will agree that the atheist materialist worldview is hard-pressed to explain the emergence of sentience out of a wholly insentient universe. Where I disagree is with the assertion that no perspective but the Christian one is capable of accounting for this; but we've been down that road...

How is the Creationist view superior? It is superior, and in fact, exclusively rational, because God, the Creator of eyes, noses, taste buds, eardrums, nerve endings, the brain that processes the data, and the mind that cogitates it, assures the believer, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit in the experience of each believer, that our senses are generally reliable, barring obvious exclusions.
To return closer to the discussion of evolution, do you have an explanation for why God gave human beings tail bones and human males nipples?

In another discussion, Clete talked about God being able to perceive his environment. Does God inhabit an environment, and if so, is it co-eternal with him? Do you, or Clete, think that a "God with senses and an environment" is necessary to rationally explain the existence of creatures with senses and an environment?

Best wishes,
Balder

[mighty_duck]

Again, a well defined SUTG may not be debunkable. We might find out that we just have different names for the same omniscient Being.


a SUTG is very well defined. He is an ape-like creature that lives and breathes, and occasionally posts in this forum. He has a funny looking goatee artificially painted on his face. He may not have created all of existence, but he's Omniscient. How do I know? I presupposed it. I will also presuppose that everything in this post is inerrant. How do I know that logic is vald? Because SUTG says it is, and he's always right.

Fun fact: while SUTG's morals are very different the God of the Blible (for example SUTG doesn't condone genocide, slavery, and other horrible things), he is nevertheless a perfect moral being. Morality is defined as being whatever SUTG says it is, and it is in his nature to be moral.


In a rational debate that sets out to resolve a difference of opinion about the nature of reality or of the origins and diversity of life, the claim, "everything just is," is an admission of irrationality, and thus a concession to defeat. The person offering such a claim should not bother showing up for a debate.


This just smacks of God of the gaps. While my worldview may not be able to "account" for logic (more on this later), that doesn't make it invalid. Whie you worldview does "account" for logic, it doesn't make it valid. A few thousand years ago someone with my worldview would not have been able to explain why the sun seems to go around the world. Someone with your worldview would have used the ever useful goddidt.
And how did God obtain this gift of logic? Oh, its in his nature. In other words, "it just is".

If you can, please also define "account".

Lastly, why can't we define logic as a formal way of describing how humans reason? If this is true, then logic came in the same way we did, which is what this debate is really about.

[aharvey]

As fascinating as a debate on whether evolution is science in which one side explicitly plans to avoid discussing the scientific evidence concerning evolution promises to be, I must limit myself to the occasional observation.

This is true. Knowledge, that is true and certain knowledge, begins with the fear (reverence, respect) of the Lord. Apart from the existence of God, the laws and methods you use to navigate through life make no sense. You must blindly assume them to be magically trustworthy. All knowledge based on the blind application of these unverified laws and method will ever be suspect. Strangely, we find evolutionists who say this very thing: No knowledge is certain; everything is subject to revision, pending superior evidence to the contrary. (my emphasis)

That’s all scientists, Jim, not just evolutionists, and if you think it's strange for scientists to think this way, you are going to have a difficult time making an intelligent statement about what qualifies as "science." Perhaps you are saying that you find it strange that evolutionists would think this way because you also assume they have blind faith in evolution? If so, then allow me to point out the obvious resolution to this paradox: your assumption is incorrect, evolutionists don't have blind faith in evolutionary theory.

Ironically, the only people who claim to have true and certain knowledge about anything derive that certainty entirely from blind faith in _____ (you’re welcome to fill in the blank). So you’ve got it exactly backwards. Scientists acknowledge that they lack certain knowledge of absolute truth because they are unwilling to place blind faith in anything. You, on the other hand, are quite happy to claim certain knowledge of absolute truths and you quite happily base it on your blind faith in a particular religious view. However, I would find it most entertaining for someone to try to demonstrate how one could believe they had certain knowledge of absolute truths without having blind faith in anything. And I know you've said your faith isn't blind faith, but saying they're different ain't the same as showing us how. One could make the case that "faith" is to "blind faith" as "circle" is to "round circle."

[mighty_duck]

Which is why I closed the thread. It would have been a distraction to the Battle Royale.


I agree with the rationalle. It is just a half baked thread, and should not have been HOF material just yet, regardless of the quote you're so proud of.


And you're the one who deserves the credit for its early induction into the TOL Hall of Fame, not me. I just presented the argument in it simplest terms and instantly you responded with the following...


This is why I would have made a terrible politician. Even though far greater minds than mine have posited similar affirmations. It would have been a lot less useful for you had I not made the semantic concession at the begining of that post, and worded it:

"I do not have absolute knowledge that reality is real."

If you wish to continue to use it out of context, feel free. It is only your integrity that is being shot each time you do. Isn't false testimony a no-no for Christians?

Semantics aside, you still have not demonstrated that the folowing is any more than an assertion:

Logic is an attribute of God and would not, could not, does not exist apart from Him. He is its source and its foundation. It is God that I presuppose not logic. Logic does not work apart from the existence of God, as I have demonstrated in this thread and thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

I know, the word "demonstrated" is in there, but the only demonstration is more assertions.

It isn't just you, I have never seen any presuppositionilst back it up. Without this, you have no absolute knowledge either, and therefore are just as guilty as anyone of not "knowing" that reality is real. You just won't admit it...

[SUTG]

If you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then yes, you must question everything, including the reason why you would expect 9 to follow 8, instead of 10. However, if you're satisfied with operating on blind assumption and magic, then no.

It is best to go with the modern logicians on this one. That 2+2=4, or that P^Q implies P, and all of the other truths of logic, are true because we defined them that way. They give us no information about the world, and are true in every possible world. In Kant's terminology, they are the analytic apriori.

SUTG
I'll have a look at Feyeraband and Lakatos. I see them both quoted or in footnotes in Kuhn's Revolutions. Thanks for the recommendation.

I think you'd especially enjoy Feyerabend's "Against Method" which takes Hume's skepticism to its logical (pun intended) conclusion. David Stove would be his counterpart on the other side of the spectrum. See his "Rationality of Induction" for a rrefutation of Hume's thesis.

What would your response be to Bertrand Russell's statement about the inductive principle that I cited in my Opening Statement in the BRIX?

If I recall the quote correctly, it is simply another example of the Humean Thesis. This is one of the most popular areas in modern philosophy. It is always fun to introduce it to those who are unfamiliar with Hume's work. Of course, as humans, we have no choice but to use induction! And, to this date, no-one has been able to formalize a good way to determine whether inductive reasoning is appropriate in a given situation. You are probably familiar with examles of inductive reasoning leading to false conclusions.

Positing the Christian God adds nothing to the debate.

[SUTG]

It isn't just you, I have never seen any presuppositionilst back it up.

If there is anything you can ever have absolute knowledge about, it is that you never will see a presuppositionalist back up that statement. Every debate I have seen on the topic ends up with the presuppositionalist asserting the "impossibility of the contrary". The defense of the assertion is never fothcoming.

As a kick, go to a christian forum, or an athestic one like infidels.org, and search for threads on the TAG. They all end this way. By induction, this one will too.

[mighty_duck]

Stratnerd's second post is a mixed bag. He makes many good points, which would be very convincing had it not been for his opponent's strategy.
As I have said before, strategically, there are really only two ways he can win this debate:
1. Object to discussing "is Science valid?", and focus on "is evolution science?". Strictly define science as a toolbox, and define evolution as a tool which fits in that box. That would mean having the opponents talk past each other.
There was a little meat in Jim's 1st post that falls under scientific objection, that could have been used to fill an entire post. Such as the implied irreducable complexity of the eye, ear, etc. Refuting this line, while maintaining a strong line on definitions, would have meant victory.
2. "Answer the fool according to his folly". There are any number of refutations to Jim's TAG argument. The problem is that stratnerd has been hoodwinked in to posting under the assumption that this is a debate on evolution. It is not.
There is still time for refutations, which will be clearer once Jim formalizes his version of TAG in the next post.

My notes of stratnerd's 2nd post:
1. Others who could reconcile evolution with God. While a worthy attempt, every theist thinks he has a monopoly on the truth, which means that every other theists are wrong. And for any theist reading this that thinks I am wrong, think how wrong other denomination of your own faith got it. Take a look at posts here mocking Catholics/Baptists etc.
The "no true scottsman" fallacy will rear its ugly head in Jim's rebuttal: Those guys were wrong, God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago.
2. Evolution does not entail Atheism. Jim did not commit this fallacy, so rebutting it was not necessary. He did make a deeper statement about the presuppositions that must be made in order to do science.
3. Makes nice point about skeptisism regarding Jim's fantastic claim "the bible is necessary for science". In so doing takes the poison pill, in allowing in Jim's TAG.
4. Makes an astute comment

I haven't seen any philosophical discussion that hasn't ended like a dog chasing it's tail

From now on, all he can do is follow this needlessly complicated philosophical tail. We won't get any resolution on this matter.
5. Misunderstands Jim's stand on evidence. Evidence must be interpreted using your worldview, and if your worldview happens to say that the Bible is true (absolute truth, it's an axiom), then no competing evidence is going to change that.
To counter this point, it may be argued that it's less conductive to change. Is change a good thing? Science has certainly proven so. This will probably come up later. Also, can atheist science find evidence against it's own axioms? The answer may be surprising and damaging to Jim's case.
6. Does lay some groundwork, in that he argues that evolution is science, based on similarities to all the other scientific tools. If Jim is willing to throw away every scientific progress we've made, he would have lost the debate regardless of the success of his argument.

With some homework on Jim's methods, or a more honest debate topic, we could have saved 2 posts.

[Clete]

I will predict that you guys make the argument after this Battle Royale. The argument has been made and will be made a hundred times better during this BR but you guys still won't see it and will continue to claim that its nothinig more than an assertion.

Actually I understand where you guys are comming from. I didn't see it either for the longest time.

[aharvey]

I will predict that you guys make the argument after this Battle Royale. The argument has been made and will be made a hundred times better during this BR but you guys still won't see it and will continue to claim that its nothinig more than an assertion.

Actually I understand where you guys are comming from. I didn't see it either for the longest time.

To which argument/assertion are you referring? That a presupposition is the same as an assumption BUT presupposing the existence of a logical God is completely different from assuming the existence of a logical God?

[SUTG]

I will predict that you guys make the argument after this Battle Royale. The argument has been made and will be made a hundred times better during this BR but you guys still won't see it and will continue to claim that its nothinig more than an assertion.

Actually I understand where you guys are comming from. I didn't see it either for the longest time.

I won't deny that there are alot of nuanced practitioners of the TAG, and it can be hard to see at first, but it is ultimately rubbish. I understand where you are coming from, I didn't see this either for the longest time.

There are several ways of attacking the TAG, and all of them are fatal. The "impossibility of the contrary" sounds nice to say, but since there are no presuppositionalists that can show this, the contrary is possible.

Also, alternative worldviews can be proposed that stand up to scrutiny just as well as asserting the Christian God does. And so on...

Finally, it has to be asked of what use logic and rationality are that you even want your worldview to 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place.

[GuySmiley]

I thought after all the discussion in the Talk thread that Stratnerd would go read the Carl Sagan thread and have some idea of what Hilston was talking about but apparently he didn't. Since Hilston also included the beginnings of an argument in his first round, and Stratnerd didn't really, I think Stratnerd is now on his heels. I hope he doesn't want direct answers to the 500 questions he asked. I predict a discussion about the 'listing official questions at the end of each post' rules.

[sentientsynth]

Hilston,

Have you read any of Godel's work? If you haven't, I'm sure you'd enjoy him.

Keep up the extraordinary work.

SS

[sentientsynth]

Godel was some kinda smart.

Interesting Reading.

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

[PureX]

Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology.

[PureX]

Hilston's argument looks like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.

For some reason I couldn't edit this post, so I just reposted it, corrected.

[aharvey]

Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology.
In the context of this Battle Royale (which so far looks to be avoiding the supposed topic altogether), I would suggest that God per se is not the object of the relevant presupposition. That is, Hilston et al. are not presupposing a God, or a logical God. Evolution does not pose a conflict with God, or with a logical God. Evolution is a logical concept, indeed, it is an extraordinarily logical concept, to the point of inevitability. Evolutionary theory does pose a conflict with the specific story told in a specific document (collection of documents, actually). And yet lots of people who believe in God, and take the Bible very seriously, have no problems with evolutionary theory. How is that possible? It is because the creationist's fundamental presupposition is not that a logical God exists, but that the series of documents we call the Bible is in fact a single, complete, and inerrant account of the history of the universe. From that presupposition one infers the existence of a particular logical God. One does not assume/presuppose that God exists, and therefore believes what the Bible says. One assumes/presupposes that the Bible is inerrant and complete, and therefore believes that whatever it says about the existence, nature, and actions of God is unquestionably correct. Circular logic at its finest.

[jhodgeiii]

If Hilston intends to dismiss the various claims from the grandstands of circular reasoning, it seems he has his work cut out for him.

I don't think that circular reasoning necessarily undermines truth, though it can give good reason to doubt.

[jhodgeiii]

AND PLEASE! WHY CAN'T WE EDIT POSTS HERE? (Caps intended)

[aharvey]

If Hilston intends to dismiss the various claims from the grandstands of circular reasoning, it seems he has his work cut out for him.

I don't think that circular reasoning necessarily undermines truth, though it can give good reason to doubt.
Circular reasoning does not necessarily undermine truth, but it is necessarily incapable of establishing or demonstrating said truth. The Bible may in fact be complete and inerrant, but one can't establish or demonstrate that fact by assuming it in advance.

[SUTG]

Godel was some kinda smart.

Yeah, but he ended up some kind of crazy. His Incompleteness Theorem is very stimulating.

Back on topic: The transcendentalists seem to be wanting to do a giant Modus Ponens, as follows:

K->G
K
:.G

where G=God, and K=Knowledge (or whatever)

I think everyone agrees that the argument is valid. But, for soundness, K needs to be defined, and premise K->G needs to be shown. Otherwise, we are left with:

((K->G)^K)->G

Which is a boring tautology true in all possible worlds.

I hink it is safe to say that Hilston, Clete, Van Til, etc. can focus all of their efforts on showing K->G.

[bachartsayid2]

Stratnerd wrote: Throughout your opening post you equate evolution with atheism but these two things are wholly separate. Is it not possible to believe in evolution and in God? I can think of three resolute Christians who did...

I do not see where Hilston attempts to equate evolution with atheism. He asserts that one holding to the theory of evolution has an incorrect view of God.

Clearly it can be shown that many believe in God but also believe that our current universe came about by purely “natural” processes apart from any supernatural intervention. Hilston is asserting that this, holding to the modern version of evolution, is an irrational position because it is a position that is not aligned with a correct view of God and the truth He has communicated about His creation. Such a position could appear creative, thoughtful, and even be passionately held by a similarly unaligned group or individual. It cannot however be rational.

Faith = taking God @ His Word

[bachartsayid2]

Godel was some kinda smart.

Interesting Reading.

I have an article on my desk top "RANDOM REALITY" by
Marcus Chown that quotes Godel. Looks like he uses the same quote. Have you seen th earticle I mentioned?

[PureX]

Stratnerd wrote: Throughout your opening post you equate evolution with atheism but these two things are wholly separate. Is it not possible to believe in evolution and in God? I can think of three resolute Christians who did...

I do not see where Hilston attempts to equate evolution with atheism. He asserts that one holding to the theory of evolution has an incorrect view of God.

Clearly it can be shown that many believe in God but also believe that our current universe came about by purely “natural” processes apart from any supernatural intervention. Hilston is asserting that this, holding to the modern version of evolution, is an irrational position because it is a position that is not aligned with a correct view of God and the truth He has communicated about His creation. Such a position could appear creative, thoughtful, and even be passionately held by a similarly unaligned group or individual. It cannot however be rational.

Faith = taking God @ His WordAll this says is that Hilton's meaningless tautology is based on his own understanding of the bible, and on the God he believes to be depicted, there. Adding the 'inerrent bible theory' to the tautology does nothing whatever to verify it, objectify it, or to give it meaning to anyone but himself.

[Johnny]

I do not see where Hilston attempts to equate evolution with atheism.

Thus, the anti-theist/agnostic is without a rational grounding of a major tool in the scientific enterprise, the principle of induction. The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions...This is the religious nature of the Evolutionist worldview. In the case of the Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.Here, in the crux of Hilston's arguments, I think this underlying assertion can be found:

[Johnny]

Er, I was quoting bachartsayid2 and Hilston respectively.

[bob b]

Johnny,
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Hilston is talking about those who believe in God versus those that don't, because neither atheists nor agnostics express a belief in God?

[truthteller86]

Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.PureX, maybe you should be reading or re-reading a different (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7709) Battle Royale as a prerequisite before you post such jibberish?

[Johnny]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Hilston is talking about those who believe in God versus those that don't, because neither atheists nor agnostics express a belief in God?But his argument that evolution is unscientific requires on an agnostic/atheistic worldview. This is why stratnerd asked about christian evolutionists.

[sentientsynth]

I have an article on my desk top "RANDOM REALITY" by
Marcus Chown that quotes Godel. Looks like he uses the same quote. Have you seen th earticle I mentioned?

Bach,

That's an interesting read. Kind of pseudo-science, but cool.

I'm not sure if I really got the connection between Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and chaos. And their paradigm doesn't really address ultimate origins either, but they adopted Leibniz's monad metaphysic.

Those guys seem pretty smart. I see that the paper's dated 2000. Anything more recent from these guys?

SS

[PureX]

PureX, maybe you should be reading or re-reading a different (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7709) Battle Royale as a prerequisite before you post such jibberish?Maybe you should be backing up such slurs with substance.

[PureX]

Here, in the crux of Hilston's arguments, I think this underlying assertion can be found:

"Thus, the anti-theist/agnostic is without a rational grounding of a major tool in the scientific enterprise, the principle of induction. The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions...This is the religious nature of the Evolutionist world-view. In the case of the Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."But there is no difference between the two except the word "God" and the personal injection of superstition and anthropomorphication. To the non-theists the fact that existence follows some rules is a mystery that he has learned to trust, because it has proven itself consistent. The same applies to the theist, except that the theist has given this mystery a name, and a mythical story, so that he can "interact" with it as if it were a personage. Both, however, have come to trust in this mystery because it has proven itself consistent, and neither can explain it.

So the differences here are basically irrelevant, except that they tend to cause human beings to view the universe through somewhat different paradigms. The added idea that viewing the universe through a theist's paradigm is inherently accurate while viewing it through a non-theist's paradigm is inherently inaccurate, is not borne out. If anything, it would be more logical to surmise the converse, simply because the more we label and anthropomorphize the mystery, the more other possible views of this mystery we are rejecting out of hand. And this would reasonably be considered an impediment to unraveling the real mystery.

[aharvey]

saith bobb: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Hilston is talking about those who believe in God versus those that don't, because neither atheists nor agnostics express a belief in God?
But his argument that evolution is unscientific requires on an agnostic/atheistic worldview. This is why stratnerd asked about christian evolutionists.
Exactly.

Hilston's argument has nothing to do with believing in God per se; it has everything to do with believing in a complete and inerrant Bible. It may seem that the creationist beef with evolutionary theory stems from the fact that it does not explicitly require godly intervention, but don't believe that for a second. Cell theory, germ theory, the heliocentric theory, in fact all other scientific theories do not explictly invoke God any more than does evolutionary theory, and yet we don't hear a fundamentalist peep about them (with one revealing exception: anyone care to guess which one?). What's the difference? None of these other theories deal with topics discussed in that series of documents collectively referred to as the Bible. Therefore, none of them present any potential conflict with the Bible. With that one rule-proving exception, of course! And even then, the potential conflict becomes a real conflict only if you presuppose that the Bible is literal, complete, and inerrant. So it's not the presupposition of God, it's not the presupposition of the Bible's importance, it's the presupposition of Biblical literalness, completeness, and inerrancy that motivates the creationist attacks on science.

This is all eventually going to present Hilston with a sticky problem, in this debate, at least:

* Presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify a logical theory, nor does it falsify a theory that does not specifically invoke godly intervention. Thus, presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify evolutionary theory.

* Presupposing/assuming a logical God neither falsifies nor corroborates the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible.

* Presupposing/assuming the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible, on the other hand, does lead to certain conclusions about the existence, nature, and actions of God.

* Presupposing/assuming the Biblical account is true does require presupposing/assuming the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life is false. While you're of course free to leave it at this in your personal belief system, it kinda violates first principles in a debate to claim your opponent is wrong because you assume he is wrong!

Now perhaps Hilston is way ahead of me, and is next planning to somehow validate his assumptions. However, given his expressed distaste at the idea of bringing relevant evidence into this debate, I worry that these efforts will explictly involve pulling us all further and further away from considerations of science and evolution (you know, the supposed topic of this debate!), and deeper and deeper into the vaguest realms of theological philosophy, where style becomes increasingly interchangeable with substance.

[bob b]

"Cell theory, germ theory, the heliocentric theory, in fact all other scientific theories do not explictly invoke God any more than does evolutionary theory, and yet we don't hear a fundamentalist peep about them"

If you don't know the fundamental difference between these theories and "goo to you" evolution I feel sorry for you.

BTW, you seem to have missed Hilston's fundamental point also.

[fool]

goo to you too.

[Johnny]

If you don't know the fundamental difference between these theories and "goo to you" evolution I feel sorry for you.It's clear you don't have a clue what's going on in this argument, Bob.

[docrob57]

I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?

[Metalking]

Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts?Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?

[docrob57]

Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts?Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?

Yes, and like other matters of classical mechanics, it fails to work once the particles get small, so it is just a theory with a more limited range of application than previously believed.

[Knight]

I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?We were set to do BR IX and then BR X (with Bob) but then the BR IX fell through at the last minute.

We were then compelled to leave Bob's battle as BR X.

Not to mention all of this adds extra intrigue. :

[fool]

I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?
Cause it's Knight's site and he can do it that way if he wants.
He mentioned it on whichever BEL that he and Lion Guest hosted diring the battle.
I believe it was the start of the show featuring fool.

[docrob57]

We were set to do BR IX and then BR X (with Bob) but then the BR IX fell through at the last minute.

We were then compelled to leave Bob's battle as BR X.

Not to mention all of this adds extra intrigue. :

I figured it must be something like that. I hope to read it in detail soon and offer critiques that you most likely will agree with. I am tired of disagreeing with the brethren, and want to disagree with others for a while.

[fool]

Cause it's Knight's site and he can do it that way if he wants.
He mentioned it on whichever BEL that he and Lion Guest hosted during the battle.
I believe it was the start of the show featuring fool.

[fool]

Knight;
Can you delete 107 and this one.
Thanx.

[PureX]

Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts? Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?Gravity is a phenomena, and that phenomena is a fact. How and why gravity works, however, is a theory.

[fool]

Just because the first button on the left is usually the edit button,
does not mean that the first button on the left is always the edit button.

[docrob57]

Just because the first button on the left is usually the edit button,
does not mean that the first button on the left is always the edit button.

Trueer words were never spoken, my friend. I have no idea why you said that, but it is certainly true.

[mighty_duck]

Jim's second post is somewhat of a disappointment. He did not make his TAG case, only kept on asserting it. This may be a good thing for stratnerd, who can likewise assert it is false. It looks like Jim is waiting for the actual question "Science does not rely on the biblical worldview. prove it!" before he feels justified in presenting his underlying argument.

1. Christian Evolutionists - How predictable. Jim asserts they are all wrong. Not true scottsmen. The Bible can only be interpreted as he would like it to be. When he would like, the Bible is to be read literally . In cases where it hurts his case, it should be read metaphoricaly, "in context", or some such BS. There is nothing arbitrary about this, the reader assumes what he would like, and tries to twist the Bible's words to fit that.
2. Does a bit of semantic shuffling, equating Evolutionist with Atheist. Stratnerd should NOT concede this, as it would be a de facto admition that there are no Christian Evolutionists.
3. Natural vs Supernatural. 5 senses have nothing to do with our definiton of natural (I've never seen or smelled an atom. Ditto for gravity). A more useful term would be to equate natural to "testable, falsifiable". Therefore by definition, science must ignore these "supernatural" factors. Fun fact: There is no such thing as supernatural. Once something is found to exist, it is natural. That's not to say we know everything there is to know.
4.

The concept of the uniformity of nature needs a rational foundation. It should not be blindly assumed.


So begins the double standard. In an atheist worldview, uniformity of nature (UoN) is an axiom, and requires no rational foundation, in an absolute sense. Assuming that one exists is begging the question. Another way to say this is that UoN is in the "nature of the universe". We can wrap all our axioms into one universe just as easily as you can into one god.
Now, can you explain the rational foundation for God? In your worldview, He is an axiom, and needs no foundation.


My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator.

Big fat non sequitur! God could have chosen for the world to work in a way that is wholly different than his nature! To deny this, is to deny God's power.
This should be rammed to the ground quickly, as it is the basis for Jim's entire claim that God is the Christian God, and not a Deist god or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

5. HQ2b. I would be very careful here. They are as certain as the axioms they are built upon. The same can be said of Jim's worldview. I am as justifiably certain of these, as you are with your God in your worldview.
This can later be used as an analogy to Jim's main argument - Iff Stratnerd's axioms are absolutely true, then his worldview is true. If judging Jim's worldview externally - IE assuming Stratnerd's Worldview and axioms, then Jim's is irrational! It does not use rational means to extract God using Stratnerd's Axioms. Likewise any other worldview is Irrational because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. Therefore the axioms are absolutely true. Fun Fun Fun!

6. HQ3: Jim asks a silly question. Its not that ID can't make a internally justified "if-then" condition. It's that under ID, ALL predictions are justified! Which is just as useless as making no predictions at all.

7. Is Jim claiming that an ameba is sentient? That's what it looks like he is predicting. Again, anything can be predicted in a creationist worldview, so nothing is. Sound confusing? let me demonstrate:
According to some worldview, I can rationally deduce that it will rain tomorrow. According to that same worldview, I can also predict that it will not rain tomorrow. Whether it rains or not, I will say I had predicted it. In fact, my predictions are useless.

8. Makes multiple references to Abiogenesis, which should routinely be ignored for the purposes of this debate.

9. HQ7: same question as HQ3, same fallacy. ID predicts that we will find a fossil of an ape with wings, that shoots fire out its backend.

10. Creationist studies. Stratnerd could take the time to debunk a couple of these studies, if for nothing else to devalue Jim's assertions. Best case scenario Jim will say "well those studies were wrong, but that doesn't prove you are right". WCS he denies the rebuttal.

11. Top down vs Bottom up. Jim essentially rejects the scientific method. I wound pounce on that, as it would mean victory in the debate.

12. Made this damaging comment

no other human being can be regarded as the source of absolute knowledge

But where does he think he gets his English Bible from? And why does he think there are so many different translations? Are they all absolutely true?


So little meat in that 2nd post, and so many errors. Because he didn't reveal his TAG cards, I would award this round to stratnerd.
My score so far 1-1. YMMV

[PureX]

Jim's second post is somewhat of a disappointment. He did not make his TAG case, only kept on asserting it. This may be a good thing for stratnerd, who can likewise assert it is false. It looks like Jim is waiting for the actual question "Science does not rely on the biblical worldview. prove it!" before he feels justified in presenting his underlying argument.

1. Christian Evolutionists - How predictable. Jim asserts they are all wrong. Not true scottsmen. The Bible can only be interpreted as he would like it to be. When he would like, the Bible is to be read literally . In cases where it hurts his case, it should be read metaphoricaly, "in context", or some such BS. There is nothing arbitrary about this, the reader assumes what he would like, and tries to twist the Bible's words to fit that.
2. Does a bit of semantic shuffling, equating Evolutionist with Atheist. Stratnerd should NOT concede this, as it would be a de facto admition that there are no Christian Evolutionists.
3. Natural vs Supernatural. 5 senses have nothing to do with our definiton of natural (I've never seen or smelled an atom. Ditto for gravity). A more useful term would be to equate natural to "testable, falsifiable". Therefore by definition, science must ignore these "supernatural" factors. Fun fact: There is no such thing as supernatural. Once something is found to exist, it is natural. That's not to say we know everything there is to know.
4.


So begins the double standard. In an atheist worldview, uniformity of nature (UoN) is an axiom, and requires no rational foundation, in an absolute sense. Assuming that one exists is begging the question. Another way to say this is that UoN is in the "nature of the universe". We can wrap all our axioms into one universe just as easily as you can into one god.
Now, can you explain the rational foundation for God? In your worldview, He is an axiom, and needs no foundation.


Big fat non sequitur! God could have chosen for the world to work in a way that is wholly different than his nature! To deny this, is to deny God's power.
This should be rammed to the ground quickly, as it is the basis for Jim's entire claim that God is the Christian God, and not a Deist god or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

5. HQ2b. I would be very careful here. They are as certain as the axioms they are built upon. The same can be said of Jim's worldview. I am as justifiably certain of these, as you are with your God in your worldview.
This can later be used as an analogy to Jim's main argument - Iff Stratnerd's axioms are absolutely true, then his worldview is true. If judging Jim's worldview externally - IE assuming Stratnerd's Worldview and axioms, then Jim's is irrational! It does not use rational means to extract God using Stratnerd's Axioms. Likewise any other worldview is Irrational because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. Therefore the axioms are absolutely true. Fun Fun Fun!

6. HQ3: Jim asks a silly question. Its not that ID can't make a internally justified "if-then" condition. It's that under ID, ALL predictions are justified! Which is just as useless as making no predictions at all.

7. Is Jim claiming that an ameba is sentient? That's what it looks like he is predicting. Again, anything can be predicted in a creationist worldview, so nothing is. Sound confusing? let me demonstrate:
According to some worldview, I can rationally deduce that it will rain tomorrow. According to that same worldview, I can also predict that it will not rain tomorrow. Whether it rains or not, I will say I had predicted it. In fact, my predictions are useless.

8. Makes multiple references to Abiogenesis, which should routinely be ignored for the purposes of this debate.

9. HQ7: same question as HQ3, same fallacy. ID predicts that we will find a fossil of an ape with wings, that shoots fire out its backend.

10. Creationist studies. Stratnerd could take the time to debunk a couple of these studies, if for nothing else to devalue Jim's assertions. Best case scenario Jim will say "well those studies were wrong, but that doesn't prove you are right". WCS he denies the rebuttal.

11. Top down vs Bottom up. Jim essentially rejects the scientific method. I wound pounce on that, as it would mean victory in the debate.

12. Made this damaging comment

But where does he think he gets his English Bible from? And why does he think there are so many different translations? Are they all absolutely true?


So little meat in that 2nd post, and so many errors. Because he didn't reveal his TAG cards, I would award this round to stratnerd.
My score so far 1-1. YMMVThis was a very entertaining and well thought out post. Thanks mighty_duck!

[sentientsynth]

This is shaping up to be a very lively debate. Great job, Hilston and Stratnerd.

[Metalking]

Yes, and like other matters of classical mechanics, it fails to work once the particles get small, so it is just a theory with a more limited range of application than previously believed.
Have you looked in to the recent research on Intelligent Design and do you feel as I do that it will be brought in to this battle? From what I have researched so far I find the argument for more powerfull then against.

[fool]

Have you looked in to the recent research on Intelligent Design and do you feel as I do that it will be brought in to this battle? From what I have researched so far I find the argument for more powerfull then against.
ID is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

[Metalking]

"The evolutionist idea is supposed to be driven by purely natural forces, the Bible does not support that."
I agree with this statement.

[Metalking]

I do not understand how anyone with any skill at mathematics would consider the exact size of the moon and it's distance between the earth and the sun can explain the eclipse as "coincedence".Just as math proves the population today can be explained by the time of the flood....many more things shrugged off as random or chance...I think not.

[fool]

Hi Eff (I really do hate calling you "fool").
You can call me fool, it's from 1Corinthians3:18

This is an excellent post you've made. It provides a wonderful opportunity to talk about an important point concerning how a resolution of the differences between the Creationist and Evolutionist should be addressed.
Why do we need to resolve only those two?
I see the possible theories regarding the origins of the universe to be infinite.
While there is only one correct answer. It seems to me the investigator would do himself a grave diservice by only examining two theories.

I would agree with you if there were such a thing as "brute facts," i.e. uninterpreted data.
So are you saying there is no correct answer?

The problem is, a worldview -- that is, a system of thought by which one regiments his reasoning and tries to make sense of the world -- is necessary to meaningfully make or comprehend any statement whatsoever. To say that "a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor" is NOT the same as saying "a statement can be comprehended or affirmed APART from a worldview." That is, apart from a working paradigm, even a true statement would be meaningless. While a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that statement can only be meaningful and make sense within a worldview, the Creationist/Theistic worldview in particular.

So you posit that there can be no such thing as an impartial observer?

My position is that all true predication makes sense only in terms of the Creationist/Theistic worldview. All other worldviews will fail at this point. Furthermore, any meaning and comprehension attained and held by anti-Creationist/anti-theistic worldviews are in spite of, not because of, their false view. Moreover, any meaning and comprehension that is held by the anti-Creationist/anti-Theist comes from tacitly and unwittingly borrowing the tools of the Creationist/Theist paradigm, even while attempting to discredit and debunk Creationist/Theist claims.

I'm still unclear on how you support the notion that Bible believers own the factory when it come to logic.

Thanks again for your post.

Thank you, this is the most civil conversation I have ever had with a creationist

[fool]

I do not understand how anyone with any skill at mathematics would consider the exact size of the moon and it's distance between the earth and the sun can explain the eclipse as "coincedence".Just as math proves the population today can be explained by the time of the flood....many more things shrugged off as random or chance...I think not.
There it is again!
Metalking please read this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance
Also, are you Metal King or Me talking?

[kmoney]

:noway: That was one LONG post by Hilston!

[Hilston]

The following post contains replies to:
mighty_duck
Balder
aharvey
SUTGmighty_duck
The other major quibble I have regards all this talk of absolute knowldge, when the basis for it is a presupposition that in itself is uncertain. There was also no mention of how Solipsism is refuted. ]Solipsism is self-refuting the moment someone other than me asserts it. If someone were to say to me, "I'm a solipsist," my response would be: "No I'm not." As legend has it (I can't find the quote), Bertrand Russell received a letter from a friend that said (paraphrasing): "I've become a solipsist and it's wonderful! I wonder why more people don't try it."

Balder:
Are you suggesting that Carver's question is without warrant? In Korea, does one often see numerical sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9? Does a child in Korea celebrate their 10th birthday after their 8th, followed by their 9th?No, not without warrant; just not requiring the existence of the Judeo-Christian God to ground it. As I stated, experience and convention are sufficient to explain his expectation of a particular order to things: "If these conditions pertain, we call it this; if these other conditions pertain, we call it that."Can you name a single culture or convention that understands the number line in this way or any variation? (i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9). Can you give an example where such a number would be useful?

I expect that you will point past this particular instance to the general, asking if experience and order themselves can be explained in the absence of God. And here I will agree that the atheist materialist worldview is hard-pressed to explain the emergence of sentience out of a wholly insentient universe. Where I disagree is with the assertion that no perspective but the Christian one is capable of accounting for this; but we've been down that road ...Yes, we have, but not to my satisfaction. I recall making some progress in my understanding, but it was slow-going (lots of unfamiliar terms) and things got incredibly busy in a hurry for me at that time. Perhaps in the future we can try again?

How is the Creationist view superior? It is superior, and in fact, exclusively rational, because God, the Creator of eyes, noses, taste buds, eardrums, nerve endings, the brain that processes the data, and the mind that cogitates it, assures the believer, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit in the experience of each believer, that our senses are generally reliable, barring obvious exclusions.To return closer to the discussion of evolution, do you have an explanation for why God gave human beings tail bones and human males nipples?If you'll pardon my momentary lapse into Socratic Irony, I'd like to ask: Why did you choose to ask this question about human tail bones and human male nipples in particular?

In another discussion, Clete talked about God being able to perceive his environment. Does God inhabit an environment, and if so, is it co-eternal with him?Clete and I differ on this point. In my view, God is infinite and transcends the Spatio-Temporal realm. Also, in my view, God is Immanent, and exists through and through the Spatio-temporal realm ("For in Him we live and move and have our existence"). The doctrines of transcendence and immanence jointly describe God's omnipresence.

Do you, or Clete, think that a "God with senses and an environment" is necessary to rationally explain the existence of creatures with senses and an environment?Speaking only for myself, if "senses" and "environment" are being defined in humanistic finite terms, the answer is no.

mighty_duck:
Again, a well defined SUTG may not be debunkable. We might find out that we just have different names for the same omniscient Being.a SUTG is very well defined. He is an ape-like creature that lives and breathes, and occasionally posts in this forum. He has a funny looking goatee artificially painted on his face. He may not have created all of existence, but he's Omniscient. How do I know? I presupposed it. I will also presuppose that everything in this post is inerrant. How do I know that logic is vald? Because SUTG says it is, and he's always right. To pursue this line of reasoning, at any point at which the attributes of your SUTG are contrary or contrast the nature of the God of the Bible, the SUTG will be seen as self-refuting, incoherent and irrational. For example, the SUTG cannot be omniscient unless he has also created all of existence. His knowledge cannot be ultimate whilst having only finite power, and vice versa.

Fun fact: while SUTG's morals are very different the God of the Blible (for example SUTG doesn't condone genocide, slavery, and other horrible things), ...When you have a chance, have a look at this (it's not long): The Difference Between God's Decrees and God's Will ( http://www.jameshilston.com/pages/philosophy/prescriptive_decretive.htm)

... he is nevertheless a perfect moral being. Morality is defined as being whatever SUTG says it is, and it is in his nature to be moral.Perhaps the SUTG is the God of the Bible, but you've just not made the connection yet?

In a rational debate that sets out to resolve a difference of opinion about the nature of reality or of the origins and diversity of life, the claim, "everything just is," is an admission of irrationality, and thus a concession to defeat. The person offering such a claim should not bother showing up for a debate.This just smacks of God of the gaps.Not at all. God does not merely "fill a gap." He is the very Glue that holds all of reality together, not just the gaps, providing the conditions necessary for rational thought, for the laws of logic, for the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge, for moral judgments and for human dignity.

While my worldview may not be able to "account" for logic (more on this later), that doesn't make it invalid.Without a basis for rationality, your view is reduced to absurdity. If you want to therefore claim the nature of reality is irrational, then perhaps you might have a "valid" point. But don't bother debating, if that's the case. The enterprise of debating assumes the validity of reason and rationality.

While your worldview does "account" for logic, it doesn't make it valid. A rational explanation for the tools we use to communicate and reason is validation. A failure to rationally explain the tools one uses to communicate and reason is an invalidation. On the non-Theistic Evolutionist view, the tools come by way of magic. On the Creationist view, they come by way of God.

A few thousand years ago someone with my worldview would not have been able to explain why the sun seems to go around the world. Someone with your worldview would have used the ever useful goddidt.
And how did God obtain this gift of logic? Oh, its in his nature. In other words, "it just is".That's not the Creationist argument. God did not "obtain" the gift of logic. Logic is a symbolic and finite way of describing His nature and attributes. "Where did God come from?" is a valid question. But it is ultimately unanswerable in human finite terms because God's very existence transcends humans, finitude, and terminology. The fact that the question is unanswerable does not invalidate the Creationist view, given the existence of a personal, sentient, logical and purposeful God. His existence and attributes satisfy the conditions needed justify our use of the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. Non-theistic assumptions do not. One must believe in magic in order for laws and diversity and regularity to arise out of chance and singularity and chaos.

If you can, please also define "account".Account for = rationally explain.

Lastly, why can't we define logic as a formal way of describing how humans reason? If this is true, then logic came in the same way we did, which is what this debate is really about.It happens to be my view that logic is a formal way of describing how humans reason. It is also my view that logic came in the same way that humans did. The difference is, you believe humans and logic came in by magic. I believe they came in by the purposeful and special creative work of a personal God.

Excellent questions m_d. Please keep up the good work.

aharvey:
As fascinating as a debate on whether evolution is science in which one side explicitly plans to avoid discussing the scientific evidence concerning evolution promises to be, I must limit myself to the occasional observation.This is true. Knowledge, that is true and certain knowledge, begins with the fear (reverence, respect) of the Lord. Apart from the existence of God, the laws and methods you use to navigate through life make no sense. You must blindly assume them to be magically trustworthy. All knowledge based on the blind application of these unverified laws and method will ever be suspect. Strangely, we find evolutionists who say this very thing: No knowledge is certain; everything is subject to revision, pending superior evidence to the contrary.That's all scientists, Jim, not just evolutionists, and if you think it's strange for scientists to think this way, you are going to have a difficult time making an intelligent statement about what qualifies as "science."aharvey, you may be missing the point. May I ask you a multiple choice question? Here it is:

What is your view of the following statement?: Two plus two equals four.
Certainly not
Not likely
Don't know
Very likely
Certainly

... your assumption is incorrect, evolutionists don't have blind faith in evolutionary theory.Really? I will be interested to know how they have they proven the theory, but only after you explain to me how they have proven the verity of the method(s) by which the evolutionary theory has been developed.

Ironically, the only people who claim to have true and certain knowledge about anything derive that certainty entirely from blind faith in _____ (you're welcome to fill in the blank). So you've got it exactly backwards.The Creationist faith is not blind at all. It is certain, unwavering, sure and unshakable. This certainty is communicated to the Creationist from God Himself, and repeatedly and reciprocally testified in the believer's experience through God's Word. So when the Creationist considers the question of origins, it is not with blind acceptance that he affirms the account provided by the Bible. It is rather with certitude and confidence, supported by the Creationist interpretation of evidence, understood according to the laws of logic and the principles of induction and the uniformity of nature, all of which make sense only on the Creationist paradigm.

However, I would find it most entertaining for someone to try to demonstrate how one could believe they had certain knowledge of absolute truths without having blind faith in anything.I should have asked this earlier. Better now than never. Please explain what you mean by "blind faith". Is it a redundant phrase in your view?

And I know you've said your faith isn't blind faith, but saying they're different ain't the same as showing us how. One could make the case that "faith" is to "blind faith" as "circle" is to "round circle."Biblically, and by experience, believers have faith, not because they have convinced themselves of believing something for which they have no proof. Rather, believers have faith because it was given to them as a gift from God. I'm not saying this proves anything; I'm just giving you some context for the Christian position. The Jewish patriarch Abraham knew he had a right standing before God, not because he convinced himself to believe in God, but rather because he was given the gift of faith by God, and "his faith was accounted as righteousness." (Romans 4:1ff) That is, the gift of faith that Abraham received from the Lord was the affirmation (the accounting) to Abraham that he was viewed as justified before God. Such a faith is not blind or tentative. It is sure, certain, unwavering, not because of any effort or merit on the part of the believer, but because it is communicated to them from God and affirmed in His Word.

SUTG:
If you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then yes, you must question everything, including the reason why you would expect 9 to follow 8, instead of 10. However, if you're satisfied with operating on blind assumption and magic, then no.It is best to go with the modern logicians on this one. That 2+2=4, or that P^Q implies P, and all of the other truths of logic, are true because we defined them that way.Question, SUTG: On your view, was modus ponens true before the existence of human minds to formalize it? If we defined 2+2=5, would two pairs of objects added together suddenly produce 5 objects?

They give us no information about the world, and are true in every possible world.So, in a world in which there were no one to define modus ponens, would modus ponens still be true?

What would your response be to Bertrand Russell's statement about the inductive principle that I cited in my Opening Statement in the BRIX?If I recall the quote correctly, it is simply another example of the Humean Thesis. This is one of the most popular areas in modern philosophy. It is always fun to introduce it to those who are unfamiliar with Hume's work. Of course, as humans, we have no choice but to use induction!We haven't? Sounds almost law-like, doesn't it?

And, to this date, no-one has been able to formalize a good way to determine whether inductive reasoning is appropriate in a given situation.Of course. Any way we could come up with would invariably beg the question, because the very effort to "determine" anything whatsoever already assumes the verity of inductive reasoning.

You are probably familiar with examles of inductive reasoning leading to false conclusions.Of course, but the false conclusions are not the result of a failure of induction, but rather a deficit of information.

Positing the Christian God adds nothing to the debate.Sure it does. It adds a rational foundation to one's reasoning and conclusions. The true "nothing" in the debate is the absence of a rational basis for discursive thought and logical inferences.

mighty_duck (again)
As I have said before, strategically, there are really only two ways he can win this debate:
1. Object to discussing "is Science valid?", and focus on "is evolution science?".But I don't dispute the validity of science. I dispute the unjustified use of it by the non-Theist/Evolutionist.

Such as the implied irreducable complexity of the eye, ear, etc. Refuting this line, while maintaining a strong line on definitions, would have meant victory.I reject the irreducible complexity thesis.

2. "Answer the fool according to his folly". There are any number of refutations to Jim's TAG argument. The problem is that stratnerd has been hoodwinked in to posting under the assumption that this is a debate on evolution. It is not.Are you aware of how often I use the term and make reference to Evolution in these debates?

My notes of stratnerd's 2nd post:
1. Others who could reconcile evolution with God. While a worthy attempt, every theist thinks he has a monopoly on the truth, which means that every other theists are wrong.This is false. Even the Bible warns against being unduly confident regarding the superiority of one's view. Furthermore, biblical theists affirm that the Bible, not individuals, has the monopoly on the truth.

And for any theist reading this that thinks I am wrong, think how wrong other denomination of your own faith got it. Take a look at posts here mocking Catholics/Baptists etc.I ridicule Catholics and Baptists, but I don't believe I have a monopoly on the truth. I don't ridicule them because "I have the truth and they don't;" rather, I ridicule them for believing irrational false doctrines despite having true doctrines staring them in the face.

The "no true scottsman" fallacy will rear its ugly head in Jim's rebuttal: Those guys were wrong, God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago.They're not wrong simply because they disagree with me. They're wrong because they disagree with what the Bible teaches.

From now on, all he can do is follow this needlessly complicated philosophical tail. We won't get any resolution on this matter.Sure we will!

5. Misunderstands Jim's stand on evidence. Evidence must be interpreted using your worldview, and if your worldview happens to say that the Bible is true (absolute truth, it's an axiom), then no competing evidence is going to change that.And if your worldview happens to say that ontological naturalism is true, then no competing evidence is going to change that.

If Jim is willing to throw away every scientific progress we've made, he would have lost the debate regardless of the success of his argument.Not only do I embrace every scientific progress we've made, I affirm that only those who adhere to the Creationist paradigm can embrace and affirm scientific progress and do so rationally. The non-Theist/Evolution can do so as well, but apart from acknowledging the existence and attributes of God, they will do so irrationally.

SUTG (again)
There are several ways of attacking the TAG, and all of them are fatal.I'm curious to see examples.

The "impossibility of the contrary" sounds nice to say, but since there are no presuppositionalists that can show this, the contrary is possible.You seem to miss the point of the IOTC claim. No presuppositionalist makes this claim on his own authority or experience. No finite person could know such a thing on his own authority or experience, for that would require universal knowledge and universal experience. The presuppositionalist makes the claim based on the testimony of the Bible. He then attempts to demonstrate the Biblical claim by applying biblical principles of argumentation to a particular debate.

Also, alternative worldviews can be proposed that stand up to scrutiny just as well as asserting the Christian God does. And so on...For example?

Finally, it has to be asked of what use logic and rationality are that you even want your worldview to 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place.Couldn't we also then ask of what use theoretical predictions are that you even require that one 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place?

Do you disagree with Stratnerd's requirement to justify theoretical predictions? Stratnerd wrote: What do we mean falsify? It means to build a test or make observations based on supposed mechanisms at work and if that mechanism is absent then the results or matching observation will not turn out as predicted . The way I build predictions is by means of “if-then” statements with justification. If you cannot justify it then you can’t make the “then” connection ... We can only include a particular hypothesis (model) if we can justify it ... It’s not enough to fill in the blank –that’s merely up to your imagination but you need to be able to justify what you put in there. ... So, in summary, my definition of science is: the pursuit of reliable knowledge (acknowledging that these are tentative explanations) via making justifiable hypotheses and testing such hypothesis is observation or experiment. ... So to determine if evolution is science then we should see if we can make “if-then” statements that are justifiable and that we can make observations or experiments. ... Justification: As time goes by animals are evolution and becoming part of the fossil record.End of page 5 (posts 61-75) replies.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in the Grandstands discussions.

Not redeemable for cash,
Jim

[Hilston]

Addenda:

I should have noted that I plan (but cannot promise) to respond to subsequent posts as time allows.

You're soaking in it,
Jim

[truthteller86]

BR_IX Vocabulary Link #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

BR_IX Vocabulary Link #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy.

For the recovering public school students. I found these links to be extremely helpful prior to reading the posts, particularly the list of types of fallacies, which includes the all too popular non-sequitur.

[jhodgeiii]

Knight, Hilston's 2nd post has:

* A problem with the QUOTE feature just before his HQ7. Was a tad bit confusing at first.

* A missing HQ8a

Both problems were identified using the inductive principle.

[truthteller86]

This hits on the biggest problem I have with creationism, specifically Biblical literalism, as an episteme. If you believe that revelation, not personal or even witnessed, but to another person is the source of knowledge and that knowledge is absolutely true then evidence has no importance - no relevance – no meaning. In that case, the creationist is immune to all contrary evidence.And this is the difference between the true Christian and the non-believer: That an internal, supernatural change (regeneration) takes place in the life of a new believer at the moment of conversion. See 2 Cor 5:17. This is why non-theistic Evolutionists can not begin to understand or relate to the Creationist worldview. Their pride stands in the way and will be their eternal demise.
4. Natural vs. Supernatural.
... In fact, the Creationist view is that God holds every atom together and supernaturally sustains them from obliterating....
...Our understanding of the natural depends upon and is sustained by the supernatural. Natural science should not pretend that the supernatural doesn't exist, or that God is not holding nature together....
May I clarify this for the theistic readers as follows: In fact, the Creationist (Settled) view is that God holds every atom together and supernaturally sustains them from obliterating....
Not all Creationists are Settled view proponents. I fully acknowledge this is not up for discussion in the debate, however since Hilston referenced God at work holding the universe together more than once in his round II post, I felt it was important to point out there a large number of Creationists (especially here on TOL) who will not agree with seemingly universal views proposed by "our guy" in this debate. (And Hilston, you are "our guy") Open view Creationists believe God rested after creation and like the man that builds a fence, God does not need to continually "hold" the fence up after He builds it, lest it fall.
My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator. :up: Likewise, we know many (non-purposeful) irregularities and disorderly observations in nature reflect a fallen world suffering from the physical effects of sin.
Carry on Jim…you’re doing awesome !

[mighty_duck]

Jim,

On behalf of all us skeptics, I would like to thank you for taking the time to answer all our questions. It has made this debate very interactive for us, and is very much appreciated!


Solipsism is self-refuting the moment someone other than me asserts it. If someone were to say to me, "I'm a solipsist," my response would be: "No I'm not." As legend has it (I can't find the quote), Bertrand Russell received a letter from a friend that said (paraphrasing): "I've become a solipsist and it's wonderful! I wonder why more people don't try it."

The question isn't stated quite that way though. It's : how can you rationally explain (account for) that Solipsism is false?
Since Solipsism is considered a bankrupt idea in philisophical circles, I'm willing to drop it if you don't bring it up in the debate :)


To pursue this line of reasoning, at any point at which the attributes of your SUTG are contrary or contrast the nature of the God of the Bible, the SUTG will be seen as self-refuting, incoherent and irrational. For example, the SUTG cannot be omniscient unless he has also created all of existence. His knowledge cannot be ultimate whilst having only finite power, and vice versa.

Perhaps the SUTG is the God of the Bible, but you've just not made the connection yet?


SUTG is not a god at all, he is just omniscient. He certainly didn't create all of existence. Why is this self refuting, incoherent or irrational? Please read below why this is perfectly rational


When you have a chance, have a look at this (it's not long): The Difference Between God's Decrees and God's Will ( http://www.jameshilston.com/pages/philosophy/prescriptive_decretive.htm)

Very interesting stuff, but it seems damaging to your case. I'll bring this up later when you further explain how you inferred that The Creator is actually the Christian God.


Without a basis for rationality, your view is reduced to absurdity. If you want to therefore claim the nature of reality is irrational, then perhaps you might have a "valid" point. But don't bother debating, if that's the case. The enterprise of debating assumes the validity of reason and rationality.

Rationality is an axiom. That is different from saying it is irrational, instead that it needs no rationalization to be considered true. If you want to argue that because we don't know "why" it is, true it is therefore false, then that is an argument from ignorance.


A rational explanation for the tools we use to communicate and reason is validation. A failure to rationally explain the tools one uses to communicate and reason is an invalidation. On the non-Theistic Evolutionist view, the tools come by way of magic. On the Creationist view, they come by way of God.

And God comes by way of magic. You just bring the problem one level further.


"Where did God come from?" is a valid question. But it is ultimately unanswerable in human finite terms because God's very existence transcends humans, finitude, and terminology. The fact that the question is unanswerable does not invalidate the Creationist view, given the existence of a personal, sentient, logical and purposeful God.


Account for = rationally explain.

Sorry, but that is a cop out, also known as special pleading. If you answer "where did God come from?" with "that is unanswerable", then you are being irrational (according to your own terms), and your worldview is incoherent.
Then you say that If god exists, then it is perfectly rational to say god exists. Tautology.

I think you misdefine rationality. In truth, both you, I and a SUTGist are ALL rational!

Asking one to explain the rationality of an axiom is a non-question, since axioms are defined as true without need for further rationalization. If I can infer something from my axioms using logic, then it is rational. My axioms include the validity of logic, while yours include God,
What you are doing is judging one logical system with axioms from another, and then claiming it is irrational. This works both ways, since using my axioms, your conclusions are irrational. We can't judge a system externally to determine if it is rational, rather we must determine if it internally rational.

Then the question becomes which axioms are "better". I can think of some criteria :devil:


And if your worldview happens to say that ontological naturalism is true, then no competing evidence is going to change that.

Agreed! Similar point to the one I made above.

Except Naturalism is nice and flexible, since anything we discover will become "natural".


This is false. Even the Bible warns against being unduly confident regarding the superiority of one's view. Furthermore, biblical theists affirm that the Bible, not individuals, has the monopoly on the truth.

I ridicule Catholics and Baptists, but I don't believe I have a monopoly on the truth. I don't ridicule them because "I have the truth and they don't;" rather, I ridicule them for believing irrational false doctrines despite having true doctrines staring them in the face.
They're not wrong simply because they disagree with me. They're wrong because they disagree with what the Bible teaches.


I suppose this is similar to the Argument from Confusion. Catholics and Baptists certainly think they are rational, and given their axioms, I suspect they are. This is more evidence for the self-refuting nature of your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, or perhaps just how errant mankind is at interpreting it. In logic terms:

P1 A is true.
P2 !A is true.

Assuming our axioms include both premises, we can prove ANYTHING.
Replace A with "Jesus's last words were "it is Finished" ", and you may see my point.
I don't want to go too far in to biblical critisism, for the plain fact the natural language is difficult to translate in to formal premises, and can be interpreted in many ways and "in context" is problematic. Saying that it is inerrant is a dangerous proposition.


Not only do I embrace every scientific progress we've made, I affirm that only those who adhere to the Creationist paradigm can embrace and affirm scientific progress and do so rationally. The non-Theist/Evolution can do so as well, but apart from acknowledging the existence and attributes of God, they will do so irrationally.


Even the scientific progress done based on evolution? You must realize that much of our biological research is based on or references Evolution. This may be remedied if we better define the grey area between (E)volution and (e)volution. Is a virus mutating Evolution or evolution? How much can a virus mutate and still be considered evolution?

[koban]

Have you looked in to the recent research on Intelligent Design and do you feel as I do that it will be brought in to this battle? From what I have researched so far I find the argument for more powerfull then against.


Welcome to TOL!

Gotta ask-

Me talking

or

Metal King ?

[koban]

There it is again!
Metalking please read this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance
Also, are you Metal King or Me talking?


:doh:

[fool]

Great minds think alike.

[truthteller86]

...Why do we need to resolve only those two?

I see the possible theories regarding the origins of the universe to be infinite.

While there is only one correct answer. It seems to me the investigator would do himself a grave diservice by only examining two theories.fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

1) Either it has always been here

2) Or it was created at some point

I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.

[fool]

fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

1) Either it has always been here

2) Or it was created at some point

I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.
I think that to agree to the above statement would be the same as positing a statement about that which I am investigating.
As a wise old man I once knew used to say "I don't have the answers, I just have the questions".

[truthteller86]

I think that to agree to the above statement would be the same as positing a statement about that which I am investigating.

As a wise old man I once knew used to say "I don't have the answers, I just have the questions".Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

[fool]

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

I believe the Hindu option includes it always being there and recreating itself on some sort of schedule.

[Metalking]

Your link isn't working....Me talking.

[fool]

I'm far from an expert on Hinduism.

[fool]

Your link isn't working....Me talking.
It just worked for me and it worked for me where Koban quoted it.
Maybe you haven't spilled as much beer on your keyboard as I have.
Try clicking real hard.

[truthteller86]

I believe the Hindu option includes it always being there and recreating itself on some sort of schedule.Even if that's the case, that would still be option (1) It has always been here. I see you are resolved not to answer and that's okay. Hey, when you decide to clear out some of your unneeded PM mail, let me know. Jeez.

[fool]

Even if that's the case, that would still be option (1) It has always been here. I see you are resolved not to answer and that's okay. Hey, when you decide to clear out some of your unneeded PM mail, let me know. Jeez.
OK.
I just went in there and broomed out about a third of it, so fire away.

[koban]

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...



There's an obvious third option.

[fool]

There's an obvious third option.
I kinda like "I don't know"

[sentientsynth]

Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting. If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

SS

[mighty_duck]

fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

1) Either it has always been here

2) Or it was created at some point

I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.

Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.

[fool]

Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.
That seems to sum it up.

[truthteller86]

Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.Since this is supposed to be a critique thread for the BR_IX posts, I relocate my exchange with you and fool here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=962040#post962040). I know I brought it up.

[mighty_duck]

Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting. If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

SS

Good assesment SS. "where did god come from" is a wrong question, since He is defined as eternal. The only time it should ever come up is if a theist asserts "everything has a cause!". It then becomes a valid question to ask "what caused god?".

The more I think about it, Hilston actually has a point that using strict logic it is nearly impossible to refute God. Unfortunatly, the same can be said about Allah, Shiva, Zeus, The jolly green giant, Leprecauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws.
All you have to do is presuppose them, explain away internal contradictions, wave off external contradictions, and your entity of choice is logically valid. So much for the usefulness of being logically valid.

[sentientsynth]

Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...


The third option is solipsism, the idea that your mind creates the universe, that all perceptions are really perceptions of the Self, and that, in the final analysis, it is all an illusion.

The problem with this is that it is inherently contradictory.

1. The Self exists.
2. Nothing exists.

This is a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Eastern mystics try to skirt around this problem by claiming that there are two forms of logic: 1.either/or 2. both/and.

An example of each:

1. The universe either does exist or does not exist.
2. The universe both does exist and does not exist.

Hindu philosophers choose the both/and system of logic exclusively not realizing that by doing so they violate the very both/and system the operate under. For to be truly both/and, one must admit that both the either/or and the both/and systems of logic were true. But even if they won't admit this, they give themselves away when they cross the street. You see, they look both ways before crossing because ultimately they know that it's either the bus or them, not both!! (I have this on good authority from an Indian man.)


A weaker definition of solipsism may be "the self is all that you know to exist." This is akin to a strong form of agnosticism. It attempts to define the borders for the possibility of knowledge. But to make the claim "I can have no knowledge beyond the self" is to profess to know where "the self" ends and "beyond the self" begins. But to be able to know where "beyond the self" begins is to claim to know that "beyond the self" actually exists!

So while solipsism is the third option for the origins of the universe, no one takes it seriously. That's probably why you didn't include it in your list. But, for the sake of completeness, we should include solipsism as one possibility of the origin of the universe.

SS

[Balder]

Sentientsynth,

Are you familiar with Transdisciplinarianism, or of the "included middle" (both/and) logic that has been formalized by Stephane Lupasco?

There may have been some Hindu philosophers who stuck exclusively to the "logic" of both/and thinking, and thus became embroiled in self-contradiction, but this is not true of all of them. Besides strict monists, Indian spiritual/philosophical culture has also produced dualists and qualified non-dualists, the latter of which is quite aware of the subtleties you are describing.

Also, technically, I do not agree that the Hindu theory of the identity of atman and Brahman is solipsistic, at least when it is properly understood. I would agree, however, that it is vulnerable to solipsistic interpretation ... and unhealthy world-denial.

Peace,
Balder

[sentientsynth]

The only time it should ever come up is if a theist asserts "everything has a cause!". It then becomes a valid question to ask "what caused god?".

This is true. However, it is wrong for a theist to assert "everything has a cause." Correct is "for every effect there is a cause." And to claim that God is an effect would be a violation of God's necessary attributes, as we concluded earlier.

The more I think about it, Hilston actually has a point that using strict logic it is nearly impossible to refute God. Unfortunatly, the same can be said about Allah, Shiva, Zeus, The jolly green giant, Leprecauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws. Shiva, Zeus, the Jolly Green Gian, Leprechauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws are all finite beings. Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God. Allah could be considered from your list. But there are other reasons for dismissing the Koran as His word.

All you have to do is presuppose them, explain away internal contradictions, wave off external contradictions, and your entity of choice is logically valid. So much for the usefulness of being logically valid.I'm not self-delusional. I'm soundly convinced of the rational basis for my belief in the Lord. It is undeniabl.

SS

[sentientsynth]

Sentientsynth,

Are you familiar with Transdisciplinarianism, or of the "included middle" (both/and) logic that has been formalized by Stephane Lupasco?

No. Tell me more.

SS

[koban]

Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting.

Just playing with an idea here, but couldn't you turn that around and state that any attempt to prove God's existence through logic is also flawed?

If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

SS

Again, just spitballing, but of what utility in practical terms is the "security that logic reflects reality" that comes from knowing that God exists?

In other words, what practical difference is there between an atheist's use of logic and a theist's use of logic?

[Johnny]

Shiva, Zeus, the Jolly Green Gian, Leprechauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws are all finite beings. Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God. Allah could be considered from your list. But there are other reasons for dismissing the Koran as His word.What if I asserted that they're infinte? The whole point, which you seem to be missing, is that you can substitute anything in there. My digital camera of infinite omniscience told me his worldview, and he handed down mankind logic. Any attempt to prove otherwise is illogical and self-defeating. Because logic comes from my camera. And if you disprove my camera, then you disprove the very logic you used. You can also use soda can, if you please. Or God. Either way, it's a weak argument.

[sentientsynth]

Just playing with an idea here, but couldn't you turn that around and state that any attempt to prove God's existence through logic is also flawed?



Again, just spitballing, but of what utility in practical terms is the "security that logic reflects reality" that comes from knowing that God exists?

In other words, what practical difference is there between an atheist's use of logic and a theist's use of logic?

Koban,

Thanks for the reply. But I must say, all of these questions have been answered in the Battle.

SS

[sentientsynth]

What if I asserted that they're infinte?
Then you're one step closer to the view of God as portrayed in the Bible.

[Balder]

No. Tell me more.

SS
Here's an article you might find interesting:

Levels of Reality and the Sacred (http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Nicolescu.pdf)

[mighty_duck]

Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God.
SS

This is something I have been trying to get out of presuppositionists for some time now. What are the logically necessary attributes of being God?

[elected4ever]

This is something I have been trying to get out of presuppositionists for some time now. What are the logically necessary attributes of being God?Why don't you try asking God. He is the real authority. He is there regardless of whether you believe in Him or not.

[mighty_duck]

Just playing with an idea here, but couldn't you turn that around and state that any attempt to prove God's existence through logic is also flawed?


Not that Jim needs this atheist's help, but on this point he is on solid logic ground. He is not trying to prove God using logical arguments, but rather presupposing His existance, and then claiming that logic is impossible (to account for) without Him.


In other words, what practical difference is there between an atheist's use of logic and a theist's use of logic?

In practical terms, they are identical. But if his argument holds water, then an atheist doesn't have a rational reason to use logic without affirming both God and Bible.

[koban]

Koban,

Thanks for the reply. But I must say, all of these questions have been answered in the Battle.

SS


I've seen Hilston's meanderings and can't say I'm impressed.

I was wondering what you thought about them.

[koban]

Not that Jim needs this atheist's help, but on this point he is on solid logic ground. He is not trying to prove God using logical arguments, but rather presupposing His existance, and then claiming that logic is impossible (to account for) without Him.

That's just backing it up a step. If God is not logically proveable, then presupposing his existence isn't logical and his argument falls apart.

In practical terms, they are identical. But if his argument holds water, then an atheist doesn't have a rational reason to use logic without affirming both God and Bible.

Obviously I'm not impressed with his argument.

Regardless, a rational reason for an atheist to use logic would be it's utility regardless of it's source.

I don't have to be a Newtonian scholar to use an balance beam.

[sentientsynth]

I was wondering what you thought about them. I find them reasonable..

[sentientsynth]

This is something I have been trying to get out of presuppositionists for some time now. What are the logically necessary attributes of being God?
Just a couple off of the top of my head.

1. Powerful
2. Personal
3. Loving
4. Wise
5. Eternal

Other traits are argued. Things like the OMNI's are pretty heavily debated. But I think that those five are the essentials.

SS

[mighty_duck]

That's just backing it up a step. If God is not logically proveable, then presupposing his existence isn't logical and his argument falls apart.

Obviously I'm not impressed with his argument.

Regardless, a rational reason for an atheist to use logic would be it's utility regardless of it's source.

I don't have to be a Newtonian scholar to use an balance beam.

I agree on all points.

There is another part of the argument called "The impossibility of the contrary", which is asserted. Hopefully Jim will flesh this assertion out a bit.

This is an argument to make an uninitiated atheist uncomfortable, or look bad in a debate. Not convincing, difficult to follow, and intuitevly "feels" wrong to most people. But an interesting philosophical riddle nonetheless.

[koban]

This is something I have been trying to get out of presuppositionists for some time now. What are the logically necessary attributes of being God?


If you really want to dive into it, check out BRVII.

[mighty_duck]

Just a couple off of the top of my head.

1. Powerful
2. Personal
3. Loving
4. Wise
5. Eternal

Other traits are argued. Things like the OMNI's are pretty heavily debated. But I think that those five are the essentials.

SS

Why are any of these necessary to "ground" logic?

Johnny's camera can do the job just as easily, even if it wasn't infinite.

I'm not asking who "created" logic, I just need a validation that it is true.

[sentientsynth]

Why are any of these necessary to "ground" logic? . These are the necessary attributes of God, evidenced by what is universally apparent, out of Whom flows the nature of what is observed, the underlying principle of which is called logic. The existence of logic is unaccountable aside the existence of God.

m_d, I am enjoying this discussion. I hope to continue it as quickly as possible. I must be up early to pull a double tomorrow. Then it's finals on Monday. Once all that is past, perhaps we could continue.

Balder, it'll take me a few days to review this article of yours. It does seem interesting. I'll get back with you.


Peace,

SS

[Johnny]

The fat can be trimmed down to where all you really need is simply an entity--real or imagined--believed to have the authority to validate logic. That's all it takes. The entity need not be infinite, loving, or all-powerful, or even God-like in any manner. It does not even have to be the originator of the universe. The only requirement it needs is to have the authority to say "logic is valid". I can believe that about my digital camera. My digital camera has the authority to say logic is valid. If you do not believe my camera is the appointed authority on logic, then you have no basis on which to assume logic is valid. :yawn:

[mighty_duck]

These are the necessary attributes of God, evidenced by what is universally apparent, out of Whom flows the nature of what is observed, the underlying principle of which is called logic. The existence of logic is unaccountable aside the existence of God.


SS, I've enjoyed this as well, and look forward to your return.

Two things that bother me about this last post:

1 . Why do you assume that this world is evidence of God's nature? And how do you choose which parts? I'm sure you don't attribute man's evils, nature's careless killing, etc. to God. But why not?

2. What does unaccountable mean to you? Jim defined "account" as rationally explain. Is this an accpetable definition?

[Balder]

By "uniformity of nature" I am referring to the similarity between past experience and future experience, that is, the resemblance between past events we have experienced and future events we have not yet experienced. In the absence of this principle, one would ever be wary of trusting chairs. Every time someone desired to sit in a chair, he would need to test the chair to see if it will hold his weight -- this time. It would not matter that the chair held his weight just 5 minutes ago. One may attempt to justify or provide a foundation for their belief in the uniformity of nature by pointing to probability. That is to say that one infers from a sufficient number of past chair-sitting experiences that future chair-sitting experiences will be similar, i.e. the chair will hold one's weight and not collapse. However, the idea of probability itself presupposes the uniformity of nature, and therefore probability cannot be the foundation for belief in it.
I do not know Hilston's perspective on this, but Open Theists maintain that God is capable of changing at any point -- changing His mind, changing His will, changing His actions. Such a God could not be considered a reliable "ground" for presupposing the uniformity of nature or experience. God could change the way He does things, and organizes things, at any time, if He saw fit. You might have faith that He won't change the laws of nature -- even though He has apparently suspended them on occasion -- but this is not the absolute surety of which Hilston speaks, and which he demands is necessary to have any ground to stand on.

Second, nature is not strictly uniform. The universe appears to have settled more into grooves of cosmic habit, rather than strictly following fixed laws. These grooves are pretty deep, of course, and there is good probability that they won't drastically change without warning, but the regularity we experience is in an important sense a generalization of patterns rather than an absolute, lawlike regularity -- which is what you might expect from a perfect lawgiver.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"If we measure the value of an independent variable that we assume to depend on some given parameter, and if we let the parameter vary while we take successive measurements, the result will never be a smooth function (for example, a straight line or an ellipse); rather it will be a "jagged" result, to which we can at best fit a smooth function by using some clever method (for example, least-squares fitting). Moreover, the variation and inexactness of measurements become, Peirce maintained, the more pronounced and obtrusive the more refined and microscopic are our measurements. (Obviously, Peirce would not have been the least surprised by the results of measurements at the quantum level.)

What the facts of scientific practice tell us, then, is that, although the universe displays varying degrees of habit, that is to say of partial, varying, approximate, and statistical regularity, the universe does not display deterministic law, that is to say total, exact, non-statistical regularity. Moreover, the habits that nature displays appear in varying degrees of entrenchment: from the almost pure freedom and spontaneity of some processes of thought, at one end of the spectrum, to the nearly law-like behavior of large physical objects like planets, at the other end of the spectrum."

[mighty_duck]

I do not know Hilston's perspective on this, but Open Theists maintain that God is capable of changing at any point ...


Hilston's profile says he likes to drink the blood of open thiests. What do you think his stand on the matter is? ;)


Second, nature is not strictly uniform...

Interesting question, but I doubt it will be difficult to hand wave it away. For someone who claims he can reconcile all of modern science with a 6000 year old earth, your problem is peanuts,

[docrob57]

I have still not read much, but I do have to agree with one of Stratnerd's earlier comments to the effect that whether evolution is a science is not particularly interesting from either side of the argument. "Scientific knowledge" does not equal truth, it is simply "knowledge" at a given time that is developed via means of the scientific method. If the debate is following this line, then the only question should be that of fidelity to the scientific method.

If anyone would like to tell me if this is what is happening in the debate, I would appreciate it, as then I would not have to read it myself.

[Balder]

Hilston's profile says he likes to drink the blood of open thiests. What do you think his stand on the matter is? ;)
Oh, yes, I forgot about that! He likes to drink blood and is pretty mean with a whiffle bat too...

Interesting question, but I doubt it will be difficult to hand wave it away. For someone who claims he can reconcile all of modern science with a 6000 year old earth, your problem is peanuts.
Yep, you're probably right. But I think a cosmos governed more by habit than fixed law is more compatible with a worldview which admits evolution than one which dismisses it altogether.

[SUTG]

The following post contains replies to:

Question, SUTG: On your view, was modus ponens true before the existence of human minds to formalize it? So, in a world in which there were no one to define modus ponens, would modus ponens still be true?

I don't think it make sense to talk about modus ponens being true or false any more than it make sense to ask whether the color blue is true or false. Perhaps you were asking something else?

If we defined 2+2=5, would two pairs of objects added together suddenly produce 5 objects?

It depends. :chuckle: If we are talking cardinality of sets, and by 'objects' we mean elements of sets, then yes. On other interpretations, no. But what are you getting at here?

(The positing of God) adds a rational foundation to one's reasoning and conclusions.

This seems to be the key to the presuppositionalist argument. I think it is safe to assume that if you show positing God makes any difference you will have convinced a bunch of us that you are correct.

I'm curious to see examples.

At this point, almost any hamfisted example will do as much for the problem of inductive skepticism as your positing of the Christian God has. Let's use my example of my coworker Klete. He has presupposed that I am omniscient.

You seem to miss the point of the IOTC claim. No presuppositionalist makes this claim on his own authority or experience. No finite person could know such a thing on his own authority or experience, for that would require universal knowledge and universal experience. The presuppositionalist makes the claim based on the testimony of the Bible. He then attempts to demonstrate the Biblical claim by applying biblical principles of argumentation to a particular debate.

Not sure if I follow all this. To what proposition is the contrary impossible, and who is claiming it? If the bible claims IOTC, then the contrary is still possible unless you claim IOTC in regards to the bible! Can you give a proposition P of which you are claiming the contrary is impossible?

Couldn't we also then ask of what use theoretical predictions are that you even require that one 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place?

Sure, this is another way to phrase the question. What is you answer? Why do you think induction or theoretical predictions are of any use whatsoever?

Not redeemable for cash

:down:

[mighty_duck]

Stratnerd has finally hit his stride with that 3rd post, by far his best so far.

He makes many great points, and steers the argument back to the topic at hand. It's time for Jim to put up or shut up. Asserting the Bible is inerrant is not enough to say that accepting its conclusions before scientific research is valid science.

The only comment I have regards SQ1 and it's sub questions. Jim doesn't claim that Uniformaity of Nature proves God or Genesis. He claims that God accounts for UoN, while in Stratnerd's worldview UoN must be accepted without any account. I'm sure Jim will clarify this point in his 3rd post.

[aharvey]

aharvey:
aharvey, you may be missing the point. May I ask you a multiple choice question? Here it is:

What is your view of the following statement?: Two plus two equals four.
Certainly not
Not likely
Don't know
Very likely
Certainly

Interesting. Into the word “statement,” I would bet you are lumping the concepts of observations, phenomena, data, definitions, equations, evidence, assumptions, predictions, hypotheses, theories, and “beliefs,” right? How certain am I about anything? Well let me ask you this? Would you, regardless of the specific statement, always answer either “a” or “e” (in other words, why are you including options b-d above?)? If not, then you already have the response to your supposed argument. Scientists consider nothing to be 100.000000000% certain, but some things are more certain than others (and please don’t bother to complain about this unless you do always assess every statement with either “certainly” or “certainly not”!).

For example, there are several competing explanations for why leaves turn red in the fall, none of which has been thoroughly investigated as yet. Although some make more sense to me than others, I’m not at all certain which one is correct. Thus, a couple of good experiments would probably be enough to change my mind. Ordinary evidence suffices for ordinary claims. On the other hand, I’m much more certain that, under most conditions, two plus two equals four. By which I mean that it would require a great deal more, and more compelling, evidence (compared to the leaf color story) to change my mind about that equation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Is this really that hard to understand? Operationally, yes, we equate 99.9% certainty with 100% certainty, but we also know they are not the same. History is dripping with demonstrations of this. If you had lived a thousand years ago, how so you think you would have responded to the following question (in appropriate 11th century vernacular, of course!):

What is your view of the following statement?: The sun orbits around the earth.
a Certainly not
b Not likely
c Don't know
d Very likely
e Certainly

My guess is that you would have thought the questioner an idiot for even asking such an obvious question. And yet, you would have been wrong, based upon our current understanding. Which, yes, I am pretty certain about. Which, again, simply means that you’d need some pretty extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise.

This, Jim, is science. All scientific disciplines – all biology, all physics, all chemistry, all geology, all astronomy, all -– view “certainty” in this fashion. So to the extent that your arguments here are part of your debate arguments, you’re really changing the topic to “SCIENCE: Science or Science Fiction?” And I’m afraid your arguments place you on the wrong side of this one. Of that I’m certain!

Your faith-based worldview differs precisely in this respect: your “certain, unwavering sure and unshakable” views are impervious to evidence, something that you are obviously very proud of. You may be right, but it ain't science!


Really? I will be interested to know how they have they proven the theory, but only after you explain to me how they have proven the verity of the method(s) by which the evolutionary theory has been developed.
Um, Jim, do you really want to step into this hole? If one hasn’t “proven”, not only an idea, but also the “verity” of the methods by which the idea was developed, then that means that one must therefore have blind faith in it?!? Let’s make sure this is really what you want to say. If not, then you’ll have to try a different tactic to refute my observation that evolutionists don’t have blind faith in evolutionary theory. Because I don’t want to lose track of this central point: scientists do not have blind faith in their theories.

Perhaps a related point: scientists have assumptions, but these are operational, and we do try to test them whenever we can. We tend to think of them as “working assumptions.” We do not reject out of hand anything that would seem to contradict our assumptions; indeed, if you actually read the primary scientific literature you would know that scientists routinely recognize that their hypotheses are only as good as their assumptions, and that vast numbers of hypotheses have been shown to fail because they were based on faulty assumptions. Just because creationists refer to their certain, inviolate, absolute truths as assumptions (or presuppositions) does not mean that scientists therefore view their working assumptions as dogmatically!


The Creationist faith is not blind at all. It is certain, unwavering, sure and unshakable. This certainty is communicated to the Creationist from God Himself, and repeatedly and reciprocally testified in the believer's experience through God's Word. So when the Creationist considers the question of origins, it is not with blind acceptance that he affirms the account provided by the Bible. It is rather with certitude and confidence, supported by the Creationist interpretation of evidence, understood according to the laws of logic and the principles of induction and the uniformity of nature, all of which make sense only on the Creationist paradigm.
This is such a tiresome assertion (my emphasis above) that is utterly unsupportable. You assume your conclusions; that’s begging the question / circular logic.

But let’s spell it out for you yet again.

As I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, the core presupposition is not of God Himself (lots of people believe in God but don’t arrive at the conclusions you do), it is in the completeness, literalness, and inerrancy of the Bible. All else, including your views on the existence, nature, and prior actions of God, follow directly from that presupposition. Your faith in the completeness, literalness, and inerrancy of the Bible is “certain, unwavering, sure and unshakable.” “This certainty is communicated to [you] from God Himself” – how? Through God’s Word, perchance? You know, the Bible? Your faith is then “repeatedly and reciprocally testified in the believer's experience through God's Word” – you know, the Bible!

Your impervious faith in the Bible came from reading the Bible and is reinforced by reading the Bible, all based on the presupposition that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant. Circular, circular, circular. Perhaps you will claim that God somehow revealed himself to you, Jim, personally, in other non-Biblical ways that you can neither describe, communicate, nor replicate. That of course doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, but that does mean they fall squarely outside of a discussion of science. Why? Well, because we all have no choice but to take your word for it; accept it in good faith, as it were. Blind faith, no less, as we have to assume that you observed correctly, interpreted correctly, and are reporting accurately.


I should have asked this earlier. Better now than never. Please explain what you mean by "blind faith". Is it a redundant phrase in your view?
I believe I answered that in my next couple of sentences. But here, let’s make it as explicit as possible: blind faith: a belief whose strength is independent of evidence. That sounds an awful lot like your”certain, unwavering, sure and unshakable” version of faith. Two clear symptoms: an inability to articulate supporting evidence, and the imperviousness of the belief to contradictory evidence. Let me emphasize here that “evidence” is more than just “assertion;” there at the minimum needs to be a visible and viable chain of logic. A simple example “the fossil record is evidence for Creationism” asserts that the fossil record supports Creationism, but does not demonstrate the rational basis for that support, and therefore would not suffice as articulated supporting evidence. This distinction is unbelievably difficult for creationists to understand.

I should also note that since scientists are in the business of articulating evidence and constantly on the lookout for contradictory evidence, it’s going to be a rough road to back up your assertion that scientists rely on blind faith.


Biblically, and by experience, believers have faith, not because they have convinced themselves of believing something for which they have no proof. Rather, believers have faith because it was given to them as a gift from God. I'm not saying this proves anything;
This a complete non sequitur (Consider a similar statement: “This earthworm is not blind, it’s a gift from my parents!”). It’s also a rather explicitly unsupported assertion (see my emphases above!)


I'm just giving you some context for the Christian position. The Jewish patriarch Abraham knew he had a right standing before God, not because he convinced himself to believe in God, but rather because he was given the gift of faith by God, and "his faith was accounted as righteousness." (Romans 4:1ff) That is, the gift of faith that Abraham received from the Lord was the affirmation (the accounting) to Abraham that he was viewed as justified before God. Such a faith is not blind or tentative. It is sure, certain, unwavering, not because of any effort or merit on the part of the believer, but because it is communicated to them from God and affirmed in His Word.
Repeatedly here you reject the idea that believers have faith because they have convinced themselves in something in favor of the idea that believers have faith because God gave it to them. But there’s an obvious hypothesis you haven’t considered: “he convinced himself to believe” that “he was given the gift of faith by God.” How would you ever evaluate the correctness of these three hypotheses?

None of this really has much bearing on the topic, which is too bad since it seems to constitute the core of your argumentation. In other words, bad idea to attack the “evolutionary worldview” as being non-scientific and the “creationist worldview” as being scientific. The evolutionary worldview is the same worldview as the “scientific worldview.” As I mentioned above, all other scientific disciplines treat certainty the same way as evolutionists (and in a manner apparently different from the way Creationists do). Furthermore, no other scientific theory invokes the supernatural any more than does evolutionary theory. So all of science fails you: “Natural science should not pretend that the supernatural doesn't exist, or that God is not holding nature together. Rather, natural science should recognize that the only way the scientific enterprise could proceed and advance, and indeed make any sense, is due to the fact that the Supernatural that is back of it.” Which brings us back to the real topic you're addressing: “SCIENCE: Science or Science Fiction?” And your arguments indicate that science is in fact not science because it fails to unquestioningly assume that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant, nor does it restrict its inquiries and theories to those that are incompatible with (your interpretation of) that set of documents. If this were a formal debate, it would be over simply because you haven't begun to assemble a prima facie case.

And I want to make sure that everyone here understands that the core presupposition, the source of all this circularity, the entire basis for the creationist attack on evolution, is NOT that God exists. It is the presupposition that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant.

[Balder]

Great post, AHarvey.

This a complete non sequitur (Consider a similar statement: “This earthworm is not blind, it’s a gift from my parents!”). It’s also a rather explicitly unsupported assertion (see my emphases above!)
In Hilston's worldview, it's not really a non-sequitur. He is talking about regeneration -- a supernatural or divine event in which one is give "a priori" belief in the Bible. If a person believes in the Bible unwaveringly, Jim asserts, it is God's doing.

This is one of those "just is" areas. Jim won't use it to "prove" anything, but he will say that he couldn't have a priori, unshakeable confidence in the Bible without this "gift" of regeneration.

[Balder]

Darn it, can't edit on this thread -- "a supernatural or divine event in which one is given "a priori" belief in the Bible.

[aharvey]

Great post, AHarvey.


In Hilston's worldview, it's not really a non-sequitur. He is talking about regeneration -- a supernatural or divine event in which one is give "a priori" belief in the Bible. If a person believes in the Bible unwaveringly, Jim asserts, it is God's doing.

This is one of those "just is" areas. Jim won't use it to "prove" anything, but he will say that he couldn't have a priori, unshakeable confidence in the Bible without this "gift" of regeneration.
This is of course why none of this belongs in a debate about science!

What do you think about the notion that Jim merely believes with sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant?

And now, consider a second, separate notion: the basis for his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him this gift is in fact his his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant.

Or is there another basis for his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him this gift?

[Metalking]

Fascinating to see the critique of the theory that the flood caused the current view of the world's erosion pattern, but the deeper one digs the more fossils show the only explanation is the flood.Carbon dating also is based on half/life theory of the dissapation of the radiation seepage.I also must point out the population of the Earth can only be explained by the time of the flood.I am enjoying this debate.

[aharvey]

Fascinating to see the critique of the theory that the flood caused the current view of the world's erosion pattern, but the deeper one digs the more fossils show the only explanation is the flood.Carbon dating also is based on half/life theory of the dissapation of the radiation seepage.I also must point out the population of the Earth can only be explained by the time of the flood.I am enjoying this debate.
See, this is exactly what I was referring to when I said: "Let me emphasize here that “evidence” is more than just “assertion;” there at the minimum needs to be a visible and viable chain of logic. A simple example “the fossil record is evidence for Creationism” asserts that the fossil record supports Creationism, but does not demonstrate the rational basis for that support, and therefore would not suffice as articulated supporting evidence. This distinction is unbelievably difficult for creationists to understand."

I am unaware of any fossil evidence for which "the only explanation is the flood," and though I don't expect it, I welcome any specific examples. In contrast, I am aware of a great deal of fossil data that are very difficult to reconcile with the flood. For example, why are non-didelphoid fossil marsupials only found in those parts of the world where non-didelphoid marsupials occur today? (Didelphoids are possums, and are found outside of Australia, both fossils and modern species) The fossil species, incidentally, are all different from the modern representatives.

For that matter, here's a typical representation of recent global human population growth: http://www.agen.ufl.edu/~chyn/age2062/lect/lect_29/39_11.GIF. What about this "can only be explained by the time of the flood"?

[Balder]

This is of course why none of this belongs in a debate about science!

What do you think about the notion that Jim merely believes with sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant?

And now, consider a second, separate notion: the basis for his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him this gift is in fact his his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant.

Or is there another basis for his sure, unshakable, unwavering certainty that God gave him this gift?
Yes, it strikes me as quite circular as well, and I've talked to him about that.

Interestingly, he admits that some people have believed they were regenerate, when actually they were mistaken. In his case, however, he is certain that he is not wrong (about being regenerate himself, and thus about the "surety" of his "a priori" belief in the "verity" of the Bible...)

[Jerry Shugart]

Jim,

In your initial post you stated:
I view the standard ID arguments, such as irreducible complexity, as specious and based on an incoherent and indefensible "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" (IDOG) thesis.
If you can find the time could you explain in more detail what you are saying?

I am really enjoying your comments.

In His grace,--Jerry

[Metalking]

Example : Sediment level on the entire Earth's surface due to the flood,there is not once square inch on the planet not covered in hundreds of feet, and in places kilometers of sediment...the fossils found here show they were instantly smothered by the flood..the fact that, marine fossils are found throughout the geological column points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil formation. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors arguing against million of years separating their fossils from today.

[Jukia]

Example : Sediment level on the entire Earth's surface due to the flood,there is not once square inch on the planet not covered in hundreds of feet, and in places kilometers of sediment...the fossils found here show they were instantly smothered by the flood..the fact that, marine fossils are found throughout the geological column points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil formation. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors arguing against million of years separating their fossils from today.
It should be noted that most fossilized animals and plants are not represented by current species.
And the first part of that post, is I think, simply incorrect.
I think most fossils are marine fossils cause they are already in water and more likely to be then covered by sediment. So the relationship you cite does not seem to be cause and effect.
Further, do we find large mammal species with the earliest marine fossils? I think not, and why not?

[Metalking]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.

[fool]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.
:noway:
Things don't rot in your world?

[fool]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.
Who's "we"?

[Johnny]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.Rofl. Thanks for the specifics and calculations you provide. I'm not even going to bother with this one, others may take the time.

[fool]

Example 2 :Assuming that man has been on the earth for a million years or so, as the evolutionist adamantly insists, we calculate that the entire universe would now be filled full of dead bodies. If you use math to calculate the population from the time of Noah's flood you come up with a much closer to correct answer.
Calculate How?

[fool]

We need ThePhy to write a massive refutation on why the universe isn't full of dead bodies.

[fool]

NEWS FLASH
by Metalking
The Universe is not full of dead bodies, yet more evidence that it was created 6000 yrs. ago by a spirit being named Yaweh, more to follow............................................ .

[Jukia]

We need ThePhy to write a massive refutation on why the universe isn't full of dead bodies.
Well, we can start with fungi, bacteria, flies, maggots, little critters, bigger critters. What an absurd statement. "A universe full of dead bodies"
And, who, Kemo sabe, is "we"?

[Metalking]

Population formula = http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

[sentientsynth]

m_d,

I found a few moments between finals to answer your questions.

2. What does unaccountable mean to you? Jim defined "account" as rationally explain. Is this an accpetable definition?

That definition is somewhat anemic. And used in this context, that definition seems question begging to my mind. I would say that, used in this context, "account" means "to provide an ontological basis."

1 . Why do you assume that this world is evidence of God's nature? And how do you choose which parts? I'm sure you don't attribute man's evils, nature's careless killing, etc. to God. But why not?
Of course this entails scurrying down the rabbit-hole of the cosmological argument. If you reject the cosmological argument for the existence of God, then there's no need to follow this course.

Looking forward,

SS

[Metalking]

Two paleontologists from the Museum of Natural History in Paris reported in Scientific American (September, 1988, p.70) that the evidence 'tells a contradictory story. They say this because some of the fossils are of marine (saltwater) creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers (e.g. amphibious), and some are definitely land creatures (e.g. spiders, scorpions, millipedes and certain insects and reptiles).

The massive worldwide coal deposits also lend further proof to sudden destruction of immense primordial forests. Coal is formed when trees, plants, roots, bark, or any vegetation (peat) are buried by water and sediment. The burial of this vegetation by sediment causes compaction, which squeezes out the water and over time through the chemical processes of decay coal is formed. Coal is actually fossilized decayed vegetation or peat.

The random order of the fossils. The fossils within the sediments do not exhibit strong evidence of a record of evolution with simple animals at the bottom, progressing type by type up to more and more complex animals. The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for evolution. But this would be expected in a global flood catastrophe. Fossils from the supposed different 'ages' are often found mixed together. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.

Example of random mixing of fossils. In excess of 3,000,000 fossils, representing more than 565 different species have been discovered in the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California.

. Difficult evidence to explain. In addition, in many sedimentary rock layers geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

[RobE]

NEWS FLASH
by Metalking
The Universe is not full of dead bodies, yet more evidence that it was created 6000 yrs. ago by a spirit being named Yaweh, more to follow............................................ .


NEWS FLASH
by Fool
The Universe is not full of dead bodies, yet more evidence that it was created 4 billion years ago by an accident at a yogurt plant, more to follow............................................ .

Limiting factors and assorted other logical proofs are nonsense to yogurt gurus, like fool.

:LoJo:

[sentientsynth]

It seems that being crunched for time has brought out the best in Stratnerd. Some fold, others flair. I hope he keeps this up. And just to let you know, Stratnerd, some of the things that you're saying are sinking in. Apologetics is key in today's age. [not expecting a reply. just a friendly fireside.]

I repeat my prediction of Stratnerd laying on the mat, counting the lights by the end of Round 4.

SS

[mighty_duck]

[QUOTE=sentientsynth]
That definition is somewhat anemic. And used in this context, that definition seems question begging to my mind. I would say that, used in this context, "account" means "to provide an ontological basis."
/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if the problem is ontology or epistology. Either way, we can't "account" for God. The standard theist reply is that God does not need to be accounted for, or that it beyond our understanding. Both of which could equally apply to logic.

The TAG argument makes an interesting assertion, that God exists because of the "Impossibility of the Contrary". I've yet to see that backed up.

If the issue is "Is Logic Valid?", then our basis need not be God, but simply an omniscient soda can.

If the issue is "Where did Logic come from?" (begging the question) or "Why does Logic work?", then we are just as justified in asking "Why does God exist?" or "Why is God Logical?". Almost any answer you give can be equally applied to Logic being a part of this universe.

An axiom need not have any basis. The only question is how do we choose our axioms. It is my contention that the Christian axioms are arbitrary, and can easily be replaced.

[QUOTE=sentientsynth]
Of course this entails scurrying down the rabbit-hole of the cosmological argument. If you reject the cosmological argument for the existence of God, then there's no need to follow this course.
/QUOTE]

Being an atheist, you might have guessed that I reject all arguments for God, including the cosmological :) And being a human, you might have guessed I dislike scurrying down rabbit holes.

Instead of working that way, lets see where a similar argument breaks down, in your opinion. If I were to presuppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator, and that She can account for everything your God can, then that would be an equally valid solution. The FSM is nothing like the Christian God, Her moral code is mostly concerned with which pasta you can eat on what day. She certainly did not send her son down here to be crucified, and did not approve of the Bible. So how is the case made that FSM = Christian God?

[sentientsynth]

I'm not sure if the problem is ontology or epist[emo]logy. The problem for the atheist is ontological. From what I gather, though, most atheists aren't bothered by not being able to provide an ontological basis for things like morals, personality, love, logic, etc. These things, if I understand correctly, exist as an "emergent property" of matter.

If I were to presuppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator, and that She can account for everything your God can, then that would be an equally valid solution. The FSM is nothing like the Christian God, Her moral code is mostly concerned with which pasta you can eat on what day. I would then conclude that your FSM is amoral and foolish. (Morality having absolutely nothing to do with the consumption of penne pasta versus fettuccine.) "She" cannot provide an ontological basis for the existence of wisdom, love, morality, and other immaterial aspects of existence. On this basis, your FSM is falsified. If you want to be taken seriously, then please don't bring up this nonsense anymore.

On another note you brought up earlier [about the universe and God's attributes]. I accept every aspect of the universe, including evil and "nature's amorality," as a testimony to the power, wisdom, and love of God.

SS

[sentientsynth]

Reflecting, I do recall one atheist admitting that atheism cannot provide the basis for morality. I think it was the editor of Skeptic magazine, perhaps, in a live forum in which Dr. Ravi Zacharias was present. I was astounded, and I could tell from Ravi's later addressal that he was very shocked as well.

[fool]

You can't falsify the FSM SS.
Quit pretending you have.

[fool]

Reflecting, I do recall one atheist admitting that atheism cannot provide the basis for morality. I think it was the editor of Skeptic magazine, perhaps, in a live forum in which Dr. Ravi Zacharias was present. I was astounded, and I could tell from Ravi's later addressal that he was very shocked as well.
Theism can't provide a basis for morality.
The theist has no absolutes.

[truthteller86]

Theism can't provide a basis for morality.
The theist has no absolutes.Are you absolutely sure about that?

[fool]

Are you absolutely sure about that?
Yep.

[truthteller86]

Yep.I knew there was a reason I liked you....unlike the dishonest atheists.

[fool]

I knew there was a reason I liked you....unlike the dishonest atheists.
I think alot of people are real mixed up over questions like that.

[fool]

I knew there was a reason I liked you....unlike the dishonest atheists.
My Atheism is an expression of Honesty.

[kmoney]

So, on Family Guy last sunday they found out Peter had the intelligence level of a mentally retarded person. At one point in the show they showed a chart of intelligence levels. It went..

Average
Retards
Creationists

:rotfl: hopefully you'll get a kick out of that too....I know the evolutionists will at least....:devil:

[mighty_duck]

[QUOTE=sentientsynth]I would then conclude that your FSM is amoral and foolish. (Morality having absolutely nothing to do with the consumption of penne pasta versus fettuccine.) "She" cannot provide an ontological basis for the existence of wisdom, love, morality, and other immaterial aspects of existence. On this basis, your FSM is falsified. If you want to be taken seriously, then please don't bring up this nonsense anymore.
/QUOTE]

FSM sounds foolish? then how are we supposed to react when someone tries to sell us a religion that has:

Talking donkeys
Talking burning bushes
Talking snakes
A God who sends a Bear to tear up boys for their having insulted a balding man.
A woman created out of a rib
A big fish eating a guy, who escapes unscathed
The sun "stopping" in the sky
A god of love who drowns almost all of humanity
Someone who walks on water and rises from the dead
A poor nude guy who had to name every creature on earth for God
A 900 year old man who built a giant boat and floated over a flooded earth with two of every creature on board
That the human race suffers from a type of ancient curse because a woman ate an apple
A God who gets so pissed off at his own handiwork that he decides to sacrifice himself to himself to make up for it.
A parting sea to let people walk through
Water changing into wine
Exorcisms
An idylic world where no animals kill each other
A woman turns into salt
The existance of giant people on ancient earth
That there was light before the sun was made
That plants grew before there was light
That an omnipotent God would give naive, erroneous advice on how leprosy can be contracted.
That "revelation" from an all-knowing Being would imply the earth is flat
That men deserved to die for collecting sticks on a sabbath
etc etc.

Her Noodly Goodness doesn't sound so bad anymore..

[kmoney]

So, on Family Guy last sunday they found out Peter had the intelligence level of a mentally retarded person. At one point in the show they showed a chart of intelligence levels. It went..

Average
Retards
Creationists

:rotfl: hopefully you'll get a kick out of that too....I know the evolutionists will at least....:devil:
:think: and "homeschoolers" would probably be just ahead of "Creationists"

:devil:

[fool]

I will admit that in order to bootstrap any sort of conversation with myself I have to presupose that I exist.
In order to talk to you I have to presupose that you exist.
The foundational logic of You or I is moot.
Due to the fact that we agree that the other exists.

[Zimfan]

:think: and "homeschoolers" would probably be just ahead of "Creationists"

:devil:

So you think that the list should read:
Average
Retards
Home-schoolers
Creationists?

[kmoney]

So you think that the list should read:
Average
Retards
Home-schoolers
Creationists?
:think: looks good to me! :cool:

[Eowyn]

:think: and "homeschoolers" would probably be just ahead of "Creationists"

:devil:



Say's the guy pulling for a C in "Nutrition" :freak:


:chuckle:

[kmoney]

Say's the guy pulling for a C in "Nutrition" :freak:


:chuckle:
:sozo2:

well done :chuckle:

I see you've been reading the shoutbox :noid:

[Zimfan]

Say's the guy pulling for a C in "Nutrition" :freak:


:chuckle:

:think: Would it be better if it came from the guy pulling for an A in Mexican Politics?

[Eowyn]

:sozo2:

well done :chuckle:

I see you've been reading the shoutbox :noid:


Well, I'm just so bored having finished all my finals today. There's simply nothing to do :yawn: You guys are so lucky to have finals still to do to keep you busy :chuckle:

But really, good luck on finals for y'all :)

[kmoney]

Well, I'm just so bored having finished all my finals today. There's simply nothing to do :yawn: You guys are so lucky to have finals still to do to keep you busy :chuckle:

But really, good luck on finals for y'all :)
Yes, so lucky... :chuckle:

Thanks! and enjoy your time off.

[Zimfan]

Well, I'm just so bored having finished all my finals today. There's simply nothing to do :yawn: You guys are so lucky to have finals still to do to keep you busy :chuckle:

But really, good luck on finals for y'all :)

Thanks, I know I'll need it!

[fool]

I will admit that in order to bootstrap any sort of conversation with myself I have to presupose that I exist.
In order to talk to you I have to presupose that you exist.
The foundational logic of You or I is moot.
Due to the fact that we agree that the other exists.
That's interesting.
I have to presupose myself before there is a "Me" to presupose God with.

[Hilston]

Average
Retards
CreationistsI LOVE that!

Thanks for sharing.

Severe tire damage,
Jim

[sentientsynth]

FSM sounds foolish? then how are we supposed to react when someone tries to sell us a religion that has...

m_d,

We react understandingly, as we too had these same questions once.

God, as Creator, must be separate from His creation. This conclusion is necessary from observation. Aren't there evidences that the universe will eventually die of a "heat death (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm) "? The Living God must be beyond the universe as similarly the Sun is beyond the earth, adding energy and performing work upon it per His want.

If the universe is slowly emptying, what does that say of it? That it was once full! It is apparent to my mind that the natural realm cannot adequately explain its own existence. On this basis a supernatural realm may be posited. Even further, we have already agreed that eternality is a fundamental component of the idea of God. Implicit in God's eternality is His supernaturality. He must be this way. Else He wouldn't be God. Thus another a priori is dispelled.

Revelation 19:6 And I heard ... the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

m_d, I think you are very honest, though. Listing such a thing as "That men deserved to die for collecting sticks on the [S]abbath" represents a widening of the basis for your rejection of God from a purely intellectual foundation to a moral one as well. But, assuredly, if were are to judge by the moral law, we must accept the very Giver of the moral law.

Is there arbitrariness within the moral law of the Bible? Absolutely not. A primae fasce case may be made against the symbolic law of Moses. Upon further inquiry, however, the accusation is easily dismissed.


Her Noodly Goodness doesn't sound so bad anymore.. It was that "Her Noodly Goodness" was bad even. She was simply, absolutely amoral and unloving . By your own words, "She" is experientially irrelevant and emperically unverifiable. "She" obviously does not possess [else you would not raise issue with the Living God's supernaturality] the supernaturality required to qualify as an eternal being and thereby validate your claim of the FSM. "She" is internally incoherent.

Again, your FSM is falsified.

Think about this. The Bible is the best selling book of all time. In a few short years, it will be the first universally translated text ever. The true Living YHWH of the universe has made a clear mark upon the collective consciousness of man since the dawn of history. Your fallacious FSM has been strangled within a blog.

Only the Bible completely portrays God fulfilling all of the characteristics that are demanded by the nature of what is universally apparent. Greatest of all of these characteristics is His love, which He demonstrated upon the cross. These things may be difficult to understand, but that's no indication of falsehood. On the contrary, doesn't the nature of God demand that the depths of His ways be wrapped within a riddle?


With Love,

the Sentient Synthesizer

[sentientsynth]

thous fools, pull yourselves together. One's own existence must be true. Only that which exists can inquire at all. By the very process of doubting one's existence, one verified it!

Isn't philosophy fun!?!

SS

[Mr Jack]

thous fools, pull yourselves together. One's own existence must be true. Only that which exists can inquire at all. By the very process of doubting one's existence, one verified it!

Descarte's Cogito, in other words? The trouble with Descarte's work is that he lacks the courage of his convictions. Both Hume and Kant deal with this at length, the whole Cogito argument makes assumptions you can't have from first principles (that the I you believe in is real and not illusionary; that logic works).

[Jukia]

Population formula = http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html
Almost, but not quite as funny as Walt Brown's hydroplate theory.
Again, you need to learn some science. Get yourself a real science background and stop taking the nonsense AiG and the other creationist site put out as gospel.

[aharvey]

Example : Sediment level on the entire Earth's surface due to the flood,there is not once square inch on the planet not covered in hundreds of feet, and in places kilometers of sediment
Curiously, other creationists make the exact opposite claim – that the entire Earth's surface is NOT covered by at least hundreds of feet of sediment, as they claim would be expected if the Earth were billions of years old, – as evidence for a global flood!

Furthermore, there are in fact lots of places on Earth where non-sedimentary rock is exposed (that is, not covered by so much as an inch of sediment, much less hundreds of feet).

...the fossils found here show they were instantly smothered by the flood
Hmm, I wasn't aware that cause of death was so readily apparent in fossils. How does one distinguish a flood-smothered trilobite fossil from a mud-smothered trilobite fossil from a disease-extinguished trilobite fossil?

..the fact that, marine fossils are found throughout the geological column points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil formation.
Your wording is a bit unclear. Do you mean that marine fossils can be found at most geographic locations worldwide if you dig in the right horizon, or do you mean that marine fossils can be found mixed in any fossil dig (e.g., with T. rex bones, giant sloth bones, fossil pine trees, etc.)? The first case, closer to reality, does not at all provide support for a single instantaneous global flood, and the second case is just plain incorrect.
It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors arguing against million of years separating their fossils from today.
"Many"? But the vast majority are not "virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors." And you forgot to note that in most of your many cases, the nearly-identical fossils are not millions of years old, they are thousands of years old. That is, recent fossils are often extremely similar to modern taxa, but the older the fossils, the smaller the chance that they are very similar. Evolutionary theory has an explanation for this; does Creationism?

Why didn't you show how the geographic distribution of fossil and recent marsupials can only be explained by a global Flood?

And why didn't you answer my question about human population growth and the flood? Do the farcical calculations you linked us to generate a human population growth curve that in any way resembles the actual data? About the only thing they have in common is a general J-shape. But the actual data shows very little change until very recently, then it's almost a vertical line. A flat line followed by a vertical line is NOT what's predicted by the simplistic population equations cited in this article. Look at the difference in the shape of the pre-flood J-curve and the post-flood "L-curve."

My point here is simple. In case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of plants and animals around us are not increasing at the exponential rate suggested by these equations, even though most have far greater potential for it than do humans (consider; your guy's models assume less than 3 kids per couple, and a 20-year wait until they can start; most insects can produce hundreds to thousands of kids per couple and can get started within a few weeks of age!). So why isn't the world buried under a 10-mile high pile of bugs? Indeed, why do most populations not change much from one year to the next? Is it because the earth is so young? Or is it because the model that makes such predictions is incomplete?

It's not enough to say that the models merely show that the Earth's human population COULD reach its present levels in 4000 years, especially when what you said was that the models show that the only reasonable explanation is that the Earth's human population DID reach its present levels in 4000 years! You will run into some serious problems the moment you try to incorporate what is known about ancient cultures and their development and accomplishments worldwide in the years following the Flood. How many people, for example, do you think were needed to build the pyramids of Giza?

[Mr Jack]

How many people, for example, do you think were needed to build the pyramids of Giza?

Or, just for fun, compare the predicted number of people alive at the time of Moses with the numbers given in Exodus and the populations given for the lands invaded by the Israelites in the following years.

[mighty_duck]

m_d,
God, as Creator, must be separate from His creation. This conclusion is necessary from observation. Aren't there evidences that the universe will eventually die of a "heat death (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm) "? The Living God must be beyond the universe as similarly the Sun is beyond the earth, adding energy and performing work upon it per His want.

If the universe is slowly emptying, what does that say of it? That it was once full! It is apparent to my mind that the natural realm cannot adequately explain its own existence. On this basis a supernatural realm may be posited. Even further, we have already agreed that eternality is a fundamental component of the idea of God. Implicit in God's eternality is His supernaturality. He must be this way. Else He wouldn't be God. Thus another a priori is dispelled.


Hi SS,
You skip from argument to argument, and it is difficult to keep up. The argument I was dispelling was:
"There is no ontological basis for logic"

For which I gave two possible answers. One is just as good as your God answer, the other is much better.

1. The FSM is the ontological basis for everything. She is "supernatural", eternal, and very powerful. She created everything you see. She likes to take the form of a large spaghetti monster, and hover in the night sky, but only those who truely believe can see her. She, like your god, is unfalsifiable. Claiming She is foolish (beyond the blasphemy and eternal punishment it brings) is not an argument at all. Prove She does not exist, or doesn't provide a basis for everything you need.

Because we see something in our lives, there is no need to posit that it is also a part of the creator's character. The FSM could have created morality as a fun little experiment. Saying that is foolish is not proof or evidence that it is false.

Remember, denying her gifts of pasta given to humanity freely, will lead to an afterlife in rice hell, and eternal constipation.

2. As much as I love the FSM, I'm not a big believer. My real claim is that not having an account for logic is fine, because it is axiomatic. In the same way, you don't have an account for God. He is axiomatic. Our next course of action is to decide which axioms are "better". Would you like to try to define some standards?

[SUTG]

NEWSFLASH!This just in:

One percent of Americans are absolutely certain that God does not exist. (source) (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292) Clete, among others, is absolutely certain that God does exist.

Another illustration that claiming absolute certainty does not entail absolute certainty.

[sentientsynth]

Descarte's Cogito, in other words? The trouble with Descarte's work is that he lacks the courage of his convictions. Both Hume and Kant deal with this at length, the whole Cogito argument makes assumptions you can't have from first principles (that the I you believe in is real and not illusionary; that logic works).
Mr. Jack,

I'm not referring to "Cogito ergo sum" at all, but the fact that one's inexistence is unverifiable. One must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.

SS

[sentientsynth]

1. The FSM is the ontological basis for everything. She is "supernatural", eternal, and very powerful. She created everything you see. Your definition of FSM is moving closer and closer to that of the true God. Eventually, if I decide to keep entertaining your silliness, "She" will possess all of the traits logically necessary, all of the traits possessed by the true Living God of the Bible.
She, like your god, is unfalsifiable. You're misinformed. The God of the Bible is absolutely falsifiable. This is the distinguishing mark of Christianity: that God has manifested himself throughout history, and that this history is recorded in the Bible. Prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise on the third day. Then you will have falsified "my" God.

Falsifiability is very important in a world-view. Falsifiability is indeed a test for truth. If a person trusts in a position that is unfalsifiable, then they're guilty of intellectual dishonesty. From N. Geisler,Likewise, a God who does not make a verifiable or falsifiable difference is no God at all. Unless the believer can indicate how the world would be different if there were no God at all, he cannot use conditions in the world as evidence that there is a God. In short, unless the theist can answer the challenge head-on, then it would appear that he must have ...an unfalsifiable belief in God despite all facts or states of affairs. Christian Apologetics Unless there is a basis on which to test a truth, its claim to truth is meaningless. So here we have yet another aspect in which the FSM is insupportable. But, like you said, you're not a "big believer."


Because we see something in our lives, there is no need to posit that it is also a part of the creator's character. Those apects of existence which supersede matter demand an immaterial ontological basis, else they cannot be said to trutly exist, but are illusory. The FSM could have created morality as a fun little experiment.Then she is morally relativistic. She cannot provide the ontological basis for moral absolutes, and therefore provides neither emperical adequacy nor experiential relevance to the observable creation. Thus she is falsified.


Our next course of action is to decide which axioms are "better". Would you like to try to define some standards?
1. Logical consistency
2. Emperical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance

SS

[mighty_duck]

Notes for Hilston's 3rd post:

While Stratnerd seems to pick up steam with every round, Jim's arguments get increasingly worse. This last one was again filled with more assertions, attempts to redefine what Evolution entails, and redefine what science is.
Science assumes Methodological Naturalism (MN), and Uniformity of Nature (UoN). If you want to claim that these are unwarranted, go ahead, but do it in a different debate.
Evolution uses the tools of science, and its basic assumptions. Just like every other field of science. Case closed.
Jim continually tries to obfuscate this, and claims that science should look for absolute truth, or justify its assumptions (axiom). This is not important in this debate.

Its like a debate on whether Basketball is a ball game, where one opponent claims that we can't really understand ball games without god. Immaterial! We can still see that Basketball is in fact a ball game. We can also throw away things like "stoning is the only real ball game, since its in the bible"


Regularities exist, not because God created them (as if to reify "regularities" as "things"), but because He determined to create a universe that reflected His own nature and character.

1. Blank assertion. Will he back this thing up? Why couldn't God have created a universe that is different from his nature?

2. Even given the assertion, Jim fails to show that the creationist "theory" can explain all our data. Even if there are no "brute facts", he must show that all our interpretations of geology, radiology, paleontology, biology etc. all have it wrong. The fact that they conflict with one of his presuppositions is not reason enough.

3. two-phase refutation.
a. MN and Falsifiability can't be warranted. BS. They don't need to be warranted, this is what science IS. If he thinks science is not a valid method to obtain truth, then he should claim that in a different debate.
b. MN can't account for UoN. Who cares. Science assumes this as an axiom. All of science
c. MN can't account for induction, which assumes UoN which is the same as case b.

4. Hypothesis #1: The Evolutionary hypothesis. Every single claim there is a strawman! Shame on Jim.
Hypothesis #2: The Creationist hypothesis. Assumes the existence of an unseen and unfalsifiable entity, working in inconceivable ways, producing things that we haven't agreed exist (like universal morality).

There is no way you can call hypothesis #2 a scientific hypothesis! At least hypothesis #1 starts with something we know exists (matter, a living cell), gives falsifiable methods, explains the real world data etc.

5. Again multiple appeals to abiogenesis. This is not the topic of discussion.
Evolution is a theory to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Not how non-living matter came to life (abiogenesis). Not how logic, morality, or onion rings came in to existence. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
Evolution has very specific explanations for the diversity of life on this planet, all falsifiable. goddidit doesn't. That's good enough reason to prefer it right there.

6. Evolution is not a worldview. Period. Full stop. No quacking, duck walking etc. It is a scientific theory. Metaphysical Naturalism is a worldview. Methodological naturalism is not a worldview.STICK TO THE SUBJECT!

7. Biblical literalism as a worldview. This may give a better overall explanation to the world, but IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

8. Here is the fun part: Jim has not said the axioms of MN and science are wrong (just unjustified to an atheist). In fact, he thinks they are true. So the scientific method actually produces true results according to his own worldview! The fact that they don't use ALL of Jim's axioms doesn't change that fact.
If the Bible claims were all true, then everything science finds should collaborate that, no matter what.

9. Changes happen, but only to a certain degree. Of course Jim didn't back this up, and never said to what degree. Standard Creationist drivvel.

This debate is starting to get long winded, and way off topic. It would be good if the debaters would focus on simply evaluting what science is, how evolution fits in that mold, and compare and contrast it to other forms of science.
My score so far: Stratnerd leads 2-1. YMMV

[sentientsynth]

m_d,

I agree that I wasn't expecting this sort of debate from Hilston. In my opinion, even if Evolutionists were to admit that their assumption of the uniformity of nature is unwarranted, that does mean that Evolution isn't true. The atheist may always revert back to the theoretical "emergent properties of matter" to explain nature's uniformity. Now this is rightly an argument from ignorance to my mind. But humans have a way of comforting themselves with the fact hope that maybe...just maybe...my ideas will hold together without God. People are capable of endless self-delusion.

SS

[SUTG]

Eventually, if I decide to keep entertaining your silliness, "She" will possess all of the traits logically necessary, all of the traits possessed by the true Living God of the Bible.
I must be reading this wrong. Certainly you're not saying that all of the traits of the God of the Bible are logically necessary?!?


Prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise on the third day.

Prove that the FSM didn't create a giant blob of linguini ex nihilo in the year 1342.

Those apects of existence which supersede matter demand an immaterial ontological basis, else they cannot be said to trutly exist, but are illusory.

Why on Earth do you demand an "immaterial ontological basis" for anything? Only so you can assert that God must fill the void? What is the immaterial ontological basis for the number 4.3?

[SUTG]

:think: and "homeschoolers" would probably be just ahead of "Creationists"

:devil:

Here is the full list:

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic

[sentientsynth]

I must be reading this wrong. Certainly you're not saying that all of the traits of the God of the Bible are logically necessary?!? Oh but I am.




Prove that the FSM didn't create a giant blob of linguini ex nihilo in the year 1342. No record of such exists. Compare that to the world best seller, the Bible.



What is the immaterial ontological basis for the number 4.3? It is the same ontological basis for logic, of which mathematics is an extension, namely, God.

SS

[mighty_duck]

Doh! I had a big response destroyed with one wrong button. Lets try it again:

Your definition of FSM is moving closer and closer to that of the true God.
I doubt that you will ever confuse the FSM with the biblical God. They do share a few basic traits though.

You're misinformed. The God of the Bible is absolutely falsifiable.

The Bible does make some falsifiable statements, most of which have been falsified! See
6 Day creation
Age of the earth is 6000 years
Global Flood
The sun stopping in the sky.

The only way to make sense of these, is to use Hilston's method, and presuppose the truth of all of these. But then, they cease to be flasifiable. Catch 22.

Prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise on the third day. Then you will have falsified "my" God.
It usually works the other way, where you have to prove your baseless assertion. But since you brought it up:
1. Please show some extra-biblical confirmation that this amazing event took place.
2. Even the Biblical account itself is self refuting. If you disagree, please solve the "Easter Challange".

Falsifiability is very important in a world-view..[The FSM is not]

I'm glad we agree on this. The problem with falsifying god, is that whenever we do have an inconsistency, we can just appeal to the unknown. For example, the well worn Problem of Evil:
P1. God is all loving
P2. God is all powerful.
P3. Thousands of innocents died in a recent tsunami.

This is of course not a falsification, because God works in mysterious ways. There is nothing that could be pointed to and said "if god exists, then this COULD not happen". If you disagree, please find a real world example.

By contrast, the FSM likes to kill people indiscriminantly from time to time, so she accounts for this much better. She also implanted the knowledge of how to make the first noodle strand, thus changing human history forever. The existence of pasta is evidence of the macaroni mama, and is accounted for much better in this worldview than a ridiculous theory that mankind invented them.

Those aspects of existence which supersede matter demand an immaterial ontological basis, else they cannot be said to truly exist, but are illusory.

Lets replace the word "matter" with the more appropriate word "nature", and we can see how you are begging the question. Nature must have a basis that is supernatural. Thanks, but no thanks.

Then she is morally relativistic. She cannot provide the ontological basis for moral absolutes, and therefore provides neither emperical adequacy nor experiential relevance to the observable creation. Thus she is falsified.
You assume too much!
1. You assume that moral absolutes exist.
2. You assume they are observable. If this were the case, then all societies and all individuals would be able to agree on them.
3. You assume that the Creator's nature must be reflected in our world.
4. You assume that you can know how She could have implanted the morals in our world.

If you disagree, make sure to explain why this statement is false as well. Lets see anyone but the FSM account for it:
Love of pasta is absolute!


1. Logical consistency
2. Emperical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance

SS

1 + 2 look good to me. 3 looks suspicious and vague, what does it mean to you?

[avatar382]

Great posts. I regret that I haven't had the time to participate as much in this thread as I had hoped, due to my workload :(

I am happy to see that our Noodly Master has made a prominent impact on this thread. Pastafarians unite!

[mighty_duck]

Great posts. I regret that I haven't had the time to participate as much in this thread as I had hoped, due to my workload :(

I am happy to see that our Noodly Master has made a prominent impact on this thread. Pastafarians unite!

The FSM has risen to great power ever since the Invisible Pink Unicorn choked on some alfredo sauce. News at eleven.

[koban]

Here is the full list:

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic


Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic
Squeaky
Letsargue

[sentientsynth]

The Bible does make some falsifiable statements, most of which have been falsified! See
6 Day creation
Age of the earth is 6000 years
Global Flood
The sun stopping in the sky. m_d,
It's good that we agree that the Bible is falsifiable. I won't go down the road of arguing point for point on these things. I'll only say that they aren't logically precluded from being true and I have yet to encounter irrefutable evidence which plainly falsifies them. I wrote to ThePhy concerning why this is my default position in this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=956953&postcount=31). In a nutshell, Jesus Christ answers the central questions of existence in such a way as to authoritatively authenticate His answers to the peripheral questions of existence. On this basis, we "presuppose the truth of all of these" until they are falsified. And as far as what is sufficient grounds for falsification when the evidences are shaky, see the link I provided above.

Please show some extra-biblical confirmation that this amazing event took place. Why isn't biblical confirmation credible?

Even the Biblical account itself is self refuting. If you disagree, please solve the "Easter Challange".Spell it out.


For example, the well worn Problem of Evil:
P1. God is all loving
P2. God is all powerful.
P3. Thousands of innocents died in a recent tsunami.

This is of course not a falsification, because God works in mysterious ways.As I said before, the problem of evil proves God's existence. Of those who died in the tsunami, those who were innocent went to be with Him, a far better fate. There is nothing that could be pointed to and said "if god exists, then this COULD not happen". If you disagree, please find a real world example. 2+2=5 If God exists, this could not happen. And it doesn't, and it never will.

By contrast, the FSM likes to kill people indiscriminantly from time to time, so she accounts for this much better.I'm sure this'll go unnoticed--again--but I'll repeat for the sake of the audience (if there is any audience.) On this basis your FSM cannot account for the observed objective morality that this present in existence. Therefore she is falsfied.

And if you disagree that objective morality exists on the basis that cultures don't agree, do this simple experiment. Enter the house of the leader of the culture and brutally slay his children. What do you think will be the universal reaction? Or steal from him, or bear false witness against him. Moral beliefs aren't found in actions, but in reactions. Children have an especially keen sense of what is fair. This is a testimony to the loving justice of the true Living God, the Creator. She also implanted the knowledge of how to make the first noodle strand, thus changing human history forever.Foolishness.

If you disagree, make sure to explain why this statement is false as well. Lets see anyone but the FSM account for it:
Love of pasta is absolute! Two words: Atkin's diet. That must really upset the FSM. Too bad she is so foolish as to never have revealed her word, unlike the Living God.

[Experiential relevance] looks suspicious and vague, what does it mean to you? Of the three, this one may be the hardest to precisely define. Basically it means that a particular worldview is relevant to my life and accomodates for the varieties of experiences that are common to all people. For instance, I used to work in the surgery department at a local medical center. From time to time, a very badly wounded patient would be rushed to us in the hopes that we could save them. Everyone is frantic to help this person, to save their life. When we are successful, everyone is glad. When we aren't, people are mopey. They're sad that someone died. Our emotions testify that life is valuable and that each individual life is worth fighting for. Any worldview, therefore, that does not account for the value of human life is experientially irrelevant and fails as a world-view.

SS

[Zimfan]

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic
Squeaky
Letsargue

:thumb: I think that we've got the official list now!

[koban]

Dare I say the "B" word? :noid:

[mighty_duck]

m_d,
It's good that we agree that the Bible is falsifiable. I won't go down the road of arguing point for point on these things. I'll only say that they aren't logically precluded from being true and I have yet to encounter irrefutable evidence which plainly falsifies them. I wrote to ThePhy concerning why this is my default position in this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=956953&postcount=31). In a nutshell, Jesus Christ answers the central questions of existence in such a way as to authoritatively authenticate His answers to the peripheral questions of existence. On this basis, we "presuppose the truth of all of these" until they are falsified. And as far as what is sufficient grounds for falsification when the evidences are shaky, see the link I provided above.


I'll read up there when I have more time. But from what I understand from you, God in general seems to answer a lot of things, so you have given him a blank check that everything in the Bible is also true.
There's no such thing as irrefutable evidence, but all of science agrees to these points, most of what is written in Genesis is falsified. But that blank check precludes you from ever falsifying anything.


Why isn't biblical confirmation credible?


Because the Bible is an interested party. It is trying to spread christianity, therefore its integrity is at question. That is why we like multiple confirmations for things, preferably from unbiased sources.


Spell it out.


The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?


As I said before, the problem of evil proves God's existence. Of those who died in the tsunami, those who were innocent went to be with Him, a far better fate.


That is one sick diety you have there. But let me get this straight:
If your child is dying from cancer and you pray for a miracle:
1. If he is miraculously healed, it is proof of god.
2. If he dies, it is also proof of god.

Do you see what I mean by unfalsifiable?


2+2=5 If God exists, this could not happen. And it doesn't, and it never will.

This is just a symbolic language. There is no real world 2. I asked for a real world example.
If you claim that because four apples are still four apples, that is proof of God, then He has no predictive power.


I'm sure this'll go unnoticed--again--but I'll repeat for the sake of the audience (if there is any audience.) On this basis your FSM cannot account for the observed objective morality that this present in existence. Therefore she is falsfied.

And if you disagree that objective morality exists on the basis that cultures don't agree, do this simple experiment. Enter the house of the leader of the culture and brutally slay his children. What do you think will be the universal reaction? Or steal from him, or bear false witness against him. Moral beliefs aren't found in actions, but in reactions. Children have an especially keen sense of what is fair. This is a testimony to the loving justice of the true Living God, the Creator.

A. Since the FSM created morality, she can easily account for it.
B. The same behavior can be observed in animals. Try to take some meat from a wolf pack, or harm a bear's cub, they will react the same way. So either the animals are moral, or man's behavior can be better explained by instinct and evolution
C. Many cultures would sacrifice innocents. Slavery is seen as one of the worst evils ever, but was once very accpetable, even in the eyes of you God. Morality is relative, get used to it.


Foolishness.


Try to disprove it then. And again, foolish is not a response. Most of your religion sounds foolish to those who don't believe.

Of the three, this one may be the hardest to precisely define. Basically it means that a particular worldview is relevant to my life and accomodates for the varieties of experiences that are common to all people. For instance, I used to work in the surgery department at a local medical center. From time to time, a very badly wounded patient would be rushed to us in the hopes that we could save them. Everyone is frantic to help this person, to save their life. When we are successful, everyone is glad. When we aren't, people are mopey. They're sad that someone died. Our emotions testify that life is valuable and that each individual life is worth fighting for. Any worldview, therefore, that does not account for the value of human life is experientially irrelevant and fails as a world-view.


This sounds like we should choose the ones that give us the best explanitory power for the world, and our experience.

The problem with this approach, is that we can't distinguish between good explanations and bad explanations, as long as they offer any explanation. This is why so many Gods have been posited throughout history, and even today.
Axioms become arbitrary. The FSM can account for those feelings just as well as God.

It is my contention that axioms should be self evident, and undeniable. Only the Atheist axioms are accepted universally. From humanity's experience, adding to these axioms has not improved our useful explanatory power.

Regarding the example you stated. Empathy gives a species a distinct survival advantage, so it is explained by evolution as well.

[Hilston]

The following contains replies to various posts by: PureX
aharvey
mighty_duck
fool

PureX:

Hilston's argument looks like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."I agree with you. That is a meaningless tautology.

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists.On the contrary, the objective proof of God's existence is everywhere. But your subjective presuppositions preclude your consideration or acceptance of it.

It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.No one can evaluate one's own worldview without begging the question. This is why we must be behind the worldview in order to evaluate it. The only way to do that is to ask the question: Given what we understand (or think we understand) about human experience, what would have to be true in order for our experience to make sense and to be intelligible? The objective proof is seen in the argument of the necessity of God's existence. You can disregard that as objective proof if you choose, but not without sacrificing rationality. The Evolutionist believes in the intelligibility of his experience as axiom, without proof, mythically. So unless you're willing to believe in magic and superstition, everything in your experience, from your cognitive abilities, to your sensory faculties, your very existence are all objective proof of the necessity of God's existence and attributes.

aharvey:

In the context of this Battle Royale (which so far looks to be avoiding the supposed topic altogether), ...Please see my latest post for my apologetic concerning the topics of discussion in the Battle Royale.

Evolution does not pose a conflict with God, or with a logical God.Evolution (capital "E") poses a significant conflict with the God of the Bible, the description of Whom is the only coherent and non-self-refuting conception of God possible. Any conception of God that accommodates Evolution is incoherent and self-refuting.

Evolution is a logical concept, indeed, it is an extraordinarily logical concept, to the point of inevitability.Your paradigm is showing, aharvey. The concept of things changing all by themselves into other things is not only illogical, but it goes against the very principle that proponents of Evolution rely upon (albeit blindly), i.e., the uniformity of nature.

Evolutionary theory does pose a conflict with the specific story told in a specific document (collection of documents, actually).Interestingly, it happens to tell a "story" so necessary that the rejection of it renders all science, knowledge and human experience meaningless and absurd.

And yet lots of people who believe in God, and take the Bible very seriously, have no problems with evolutionary theory. How is that possible?It is possible, indeed pervasive, because people have a proclivity for holding and affirming contradictory opinions and views about their world.

It is because the creationist's fundamental presupposition is not that a logical God exists, but that the series of documents we call the Bible is in fact a single, complete, and inerrant account of the history of the universe. From that presupposition one infers the existence of a particular logical God. One does not assume/presuppose that God exists, and therefore believes what the Bible says.This is inaccurate. Everyone already knows the God of the Bible exists, but most suppress this knowledge. Also, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is not assumed or presupposed. The Book itself attests to this claim and the believer affirms that claim based on personal experience with it. I'm not saying that proves anything or that you have to believe in the Book itself. But it is important to understand the nature of the Creationist position. The Creationist does not arbitrarily decide the Bible is God's Word. The Book makes the claim. The believer reads the Book and concludes, via various means, that it is indeed God's Word.

One assumes/presupposes that the Bible is inerrant and complete, and therefore believes that whatever it says about the existence, nature, and actions of God is unquestionably correct. Circular logic at its finest.Please show the circularity. If the Bible is inerrant and complete, as it claims to be, then it follows that everything it says is correct. What is circular about that? If the Magic Eight Ball were inerrant in all it affirms, then it follows that all decisions based on the Magic Eight Ball would be correct decisions. There is no circularity there. Whether it is true or not is a different matter.

Circular reasoning does not necessarily undermine truth, but it is necessarily incapable of establishing or demonstrating said truth.There is no way around circular reasoning (pun intended). All views involve circularity, especially when it comes to epistemic questions concerning the foundations of what we claim to know. In your case, aharvey, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible, you not only argue in a circle (which we all do, ultimately), but you must necessarily appeal to a question-begging fallacy. Specifically, you must assume the uniformity of nature, which you would attempt to justify on the basis of the inductive principle. However, you would be begging the very question since the inductive principle relies upon the uniformity of nature. You can claim that it's axiomatic, but that doesn't get you off the merry-go-round; it merely relegates your circularity to magic and superstition.

The Bible may in fact be complete and inerrant, but one can't establish or demonstrate that fact by assuming it in advance.What? Is that exactly how the process must go, aharvey? It's called starting with a hypothesis. Scientists do this all the time. So do non-scientists. I just did this with the starter on my car. The car wouldn't start. I assumed the starter was bad. I tested the starter. It didn't work. It could have been the ignition. It could have been a relay. It could have been any number of things, but my assumption was correct. So who says "one can't establish or demonstrate [a] fact by assuming it in advance"? Besides, isn't that exactly what Evolutionists do with Evolution? They assume it in advance and then seek to establish or demonstrate it.

All this says is that Hilton's meaningless tautology is based on his own understanding of the bible, and on the God he believes to be depicted, there.Who else's understanding of the Bible would you prefer that I use?

Adding the 'inerrent bible theory' to the tautology does nothing whatever to verify it, objectify it, or to give it meaning to anyone but himself.It isn't a theory, aharvey. It is the documented claim of the Bible that you could read for yourself.

To the non-theists the fact that existence follows some rules is a mystery that he has learned to trust, because it has proven itself consistent.Note the tight question-begging. Non-theists have "learned to trust" the rules of existence, among which are the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. What reason have you given for trusting these rules? "because it has proven itself consistent." Consistent? According to what, aharvey? According to the uniformity of nature! Wasn't it you who complained earlier about tautologies? All you've said here is: Non-theists have learned to trust in the uniformity of nature because nature is uniform. Non-Theists prefer a religious, blind faith commitment to "mysteries" because they refuse to acknowledge the only rational basis for induction and the uniformity of nature, namely the existence and attributes of God.

The same applies to the theist, except that the theist has given this mystery a name, and a mythical story, so that he can "interact" with it as if it were a personage.On the contrary. God has revealed Himself to man via history, via human experience and via the testimony of the Bible. The theist doesn't just make this stuff up. Despite the effort to try to equate the "mystery of induction" with God, there is no rational comparison that can be made. The assumption of the existence and attributes of God make sense of all of human experience, from the laws of logic to human dignity to moral standards, etc. The assumption of the uniformity of nature, even though there is no rational basis upon which to ground such an assumption, still makes little sense of reality even if granted, let alone giving a rational basis for the intelligibility of human experience. It becomes superstition, magic and myth-making.

Both, however, have come to trust in this mystery because it has proven itself consistent, and neither can explain it.You're in denial, aharvey, or you're just not paying attention. I'll repeat this again: the Creationist does not view the laws of existence as mysterious at all. They make perfect sense, and they can be explained, given the nature of God's character and attributes. The Creationist does not have to merely "trust in this mystery" based on an egregious logical fallacy (question-begging), as the non-Theist does.

So the differences here are basically irrelevant, except that they tend to cause human beings to view the universe through somewhat different paradigms. ...You're in denial, aharvey. You want so badly for there to be little difference, but, as you and everyone can now see, the differences are vast, and the implications devastating for the question-begging faith-in-mystery camp (i.e., you, aharvey).

The added idea that viewing the universe through a theist's paradigm is inherently accurate while viewing it through a non-theist's paradigm is inherently inaccurate, is not borne out.It's not a question of accuracy, aharvey. It is a question of intellectual integrity. The non-theist is guilty of special pleading at best.

Hilston's argument has nothing to do with believing in God per se; it has everything to do with believing in a complete and inerrant Bible.Belief in God is inseparable from belief in the verity of the Bible. Non- or anti-bibical conceptions of God collapse to absurdity and incoherence, or they undermine human experience. Only the God of the Bible is logically and existentially tenable.

... Cell theory, germ theory, the heliocentric theory, in fact all other scientific theories do not explictly invoke God any more than does evolutionary theory, ...On the contrary, without invoking God as the foundation of science, all of one's reasoning and scientific inquiry is reduced to absurdity. That's not to say that math stops working or induction stops working for the non-Theist, rather, it is to say that the non-Theist loses any solid footing upon which to use the tools of science. In fact, in order to have success with the tools of science, the non-Theist must presume upon the Theistic paradigm in order to trust and apply those tools.

... What's the difference? None of these other theories deal with topics discussed in that series of documents collectively referred to as the Bible.On the contrary, no sense could be made of those theories if the Bible were not true. Reject that Bible and all of your reasoning becomes futile and inane.

* Presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify a logical theory, nor does it falsify a theory that does not specifically invoke godly intervention.This isn't my argument. I never deny the verity of logic. What I do deny is the non-Theists ability to cogently justify his use of logic.

Thus, presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify evolutionary theory.Sure it does. For reasons I've already stated.

* Presupposing/assuming a logical God neither falsifies nor corroborates the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible.It certainly does corroborate the Bible.

* Presupposing/assuming the Biblical account is true does require presupposing/assuming the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life is false.Not sure where you're getting this stuff, aharvey. Presupposing the Bible does not require presupposing the falsity of Evolution. Rather, presupposing the Bible requires the conclusion that Evolution is false. Also, presupposing the existence and attributes of God requires the conclusion that Evolution is false.

While you're of course free to leave it at this in your personal belief system, it kinda violates first principles in a debate to claim your opponent is wrong because you assume he is wrong!My opponent is wrong because the core tenets of Evolution are contrary to rationality and human experience, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Now perhaps Hilston is way ahead of me, and is next planning to somehow validate his assumptions.They're not mere assumptions. I've demonstrated above how your view reduces to logical absurdity, namely, your blind trust in the mystery of induction, which you establish by induction.

might_duck:

He did not make his TAG case, only kept on asserting it.TAG is an assertion, m_d. There's not much to stating it. But there's a lot it implies.

This may be a good thing for stratnerd, who can likewise assert it is false.He can't do so without question-begging, m_d.

It looks like Jim is waiting for the actual question "Science does not rely on the biblical worldview. prove it!" before he feels justified in presenting his underlying argument.I've proven it over and over again. The biblical worldview is the only view that can ground logic and mathematics. The Evolutionary view not only admits of the inability to justify its use of logic and math, but relegates them to magical axioms, a "mystery of existence." In the absence of any cogent justification for it use of logic and math, the Evolutionary view presumes upon the Biblical view in order to pretend that it has justification for its use of logic and math.

1. Christian Evolutionists - How predictable. Jim asserts they are all wrong.It's not merely an assertion, m_d. It is a conclusion based on the testimony of the Bible.

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

3. Natural vs Supernatural. 5 senses have nothing to do with our definiton of natural (I've never seen or smelled an atom. Ditto for gravity).Strange. I would think you would include inference as relying upon our 5 senses.

A more useful term would be to equate natural to "testable, falsifiable". Therefore by definition, science must ignore these "supernatural" factors.m_d, how have you tested the concept of falsifiability in order to justify your use of that premise? Remember, science must ignore "supernatural" factors, which of course include "axioms" and "mysteries."

Fun fact: There is no such thing as supernatural. Once something is found to exist, it is natural.Where did you find falsifiability, m_d? In a dumpster, maybe? Stuck under your shoe, perhaps?

4. The concept of the uniformity of nature needs a rational foundation. It should not be blindly assumed.So begins the double standard. In an atheist worldview, uniformity of nature (UoN) is an axiom, and requires no rational foundation, in an absolute sense.That means then, according to Stratnerd's criteria, you have no justification for using UoN. You're not allowed, according to Stratnerd, to invoke explanations or theories or axioms without justification. In the absence of justification, your system is reduced to myth-making, mystery religion, science fiction and magic.

Assuming that one exists is begging the question.Now you're doing, it, m_d. aharvey seemed to have his record stuck on this and couldn't get past it. Now you're doing it. How does assuming the existence of an explanation beg the question? And if you're willing to make such a bald assertion, how do you get around the egregious special pleading exposed by the fact that every hypothesis posited by every scientist in history has assumed the existence of an explanation in advance? Were they all begging the question?

Another way to say this is that UoN is in the "nature of the universe". We can wrap all our axioms into one universe just as easily as you can into one god.The difference, m_d, is that the existence of God explains such things as uniformity, law-like entities, moral standards, etc. An impersonal, mindless "nature of the universe" does not and cannot.

Now, can you explain the rational foundation for God? In your worldview, He is an axiom, and needs no foundation.In my worldview, God is infinite and transcendent. To "explain the rational foundation for God" would be a violation of rationality, which says that the infinite and the transcendent are beyond and transcend all things without exception, which includes "rational explanations."

My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator.Big fat non sequitur!It follows perfectly, m_d. Here, have a syllogism:

Major premise: The Creator is logical and orderly in His nature and character.
Minor premise: The Creator created nature analogous to His nature and character.
Conclusion: Nature is therefore logical and orderly.

Given the claims of the premises of the syllogism, the conclusion follows. I realize you do not personally affirm the premises, nor was that my intent. The point is to show the logical congruity if one were to grant the major and minor premises. Thus, your "non sequitur" was non sequitur.

God could have chosen for the world to work in a way that is wholly different than his nature! To deny this, is to deny God's power.I agree with you. How is this relevant?

This should be rammed to the ground quickly, as it is the basis for Jim's entire claim that God is the Christian God, and not a Deist god or Flying Spaghetti Monster.Please elaborate.

5. HQ2b. I would be very careful here. They are as certain as the axioms they are built upon. The same can be said of Jim's worldview. I am as justifiably certain of these, as you are with your God in your worldview.How do you know this?
If judging Jim's worldview externally - IE assuming Stratnerd's Worldview and axioms, then Jim's is irrational!First, according to Stratnerd's own criterion, he must justify his so-called axioms before he can say word one about my worldview.

Likewise any other worldview is Irrational because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. Therefore the axioms are absolutely true.Now you're claiming it is impossible for the inductive principle to have justification? Now I've seen it all!

6. HQ3: Jim asks a silly question. Its not that ID can't make a internally justified "if-then" condition. It's that under ID, ALL predictions are justified!Please give me an example of what you're talking about. I am not an I.D. proponent or advocate, so I need a little help in grasping what you mean. An example would be useful.

8. Makes multiple references to Abiogenesis, which should routinely be ignored for the purposes of this debate.Why? It seems to me that this is part of the "larger picture" that others are wont to address.

9. HQ7: same question as HQ3, same fallacy. ID predicts that we will find a fossil of an ape with wings, that shoots fire out its backend.Please elaborate. I don't follow this at all. I've never met or heard of an I.D. devotee who would make such a claim.

0. Creationist studies. Stratnerd could take the time to debunk a couple of these studies, if for nothing else to devalue Jim's assertions. Best case scenario Jim will say "well those studies were wrong, but that doesn't prove you are right". WCS he denies the rebuttal.You've missed the point entirely.

11. Top down vs Bottom up. Jim essentially rejects the scientific method. I wound pounce on that, as it would mean victory in the debate.Please explain, m_d. You're being too cryptic, and I'm not that smart.

12. Made this damaging comment

... no other human being can be regarded as the source of absolute knowledgeBut where does he think he gets his English Bible from? And why does he think there are so many different translations? Are they all absolutely true?With all due respect to you, m_d (and I'm not just blowing smoke -- I really do like you and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt), but these statements are embarrassingly ill-informed. No rational Bible-adherent claims the English Bible comprises or is the source of 'absolute knowledge.' The reason there are so many translations is because the English has difficulty conveying the nuanced languages it is trying to translate. I use several translations, and they all manage to get it mostly right. It helps to know the original languages, but it's not essential.

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

fool:

ID is nothing but an argument from ignorance.I fully agree. Or should I say, "I foolly agree"?

Quote:
This is an excellent post you've made. It provides a wonderful opportunity to talk about an important point concerning how a resolution of the differences between the Creationist and Evolutionist should be addressed. Why do we need to resolve only those two?Because these are the two that are competing in this debate. Others are not disallowed, but that's another debate.

It seems to me the investigator would do himself a grave diservice by only examining two theories.What an interesting comment. Note that your statement implies neutrality on the part of the investigator, when the fact is, no one is neutral. The investigator in your scenario has a view and he must pit it against competing views, whether he does it one at a time or multi-tasks. He still has his own view and he thinks it is right.

I would agree with you if there were such a thing as "brute facts," i.e. uninterpreted data.So are you saying there is no correct answer?No, you seem to be assuming that only "brute facts" are "correct facts." All facts are interpreted. Some are interpreted correctly; some incorrectly. The correct interpretation of facts come from the fear of the Lord, thinking God's thoughts after Him, assessing all things, all reality, all truth claims, according to God's standards and judgment and authority.

The problem is, a worldview -- that is, a system of thought by which one regiments his reasoning and tries to make sense of the world -- is necessary to meaningfully make or comprehend any statement whatsoever. To say that "a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor" is NOT the same as saying "a statement can be comprehended or affirmed APART from a worldview." That is, apart from a working paradigm, even a true statement would be meaningless. While a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that statement can only be meaningful and make sense within a worldview, the Creationist/Theistic worldview in particular.So you posit that there can be no such thing as an impartial observer?EXACTLY!

My position is that all true predication makes sense only in terms of the Creationist/Theistic worldview. All other worldviews will fail at this point. Furthermore, any meaning and comprehension attained and held by anti-Creationist/anti-theistic worldviews are in spite of, not because of, their false view. Moreover, any meaning and comprehension that is held by the anti-Creationist/anti-Theist comes from tacitly and unwittingly borrowing the tools of the Creationist/Theist paradigm, even while attempting to discredit and debunk Creationist/Theist claims.I'm still unclear on how you support the notion that Bible believers own the factory when it come to logic.Not individuals; not a collective of believers; but rather God Himself. He owns the tools and provides a rational foundation for their use. That rational foundation is the acknowledgement of His existence and attributes. Those who reject or deny Him also reject the only justification that exists for using the tools and methods of science. Believers are fully capable of using the tools of science incorrectly. But non-Theists, even in their correct use of God's tools, cannot do so justifiably, and thus relegate them to "axiom" and "maxim", which are fancy ways of saying "magic" and "myth."

Thank you for your excellent questions and comments. A delightful post, Eff!

Quantities and selection may vary,
Jim

[sentientsynth]

But from what I understand from you, God in general seems to answer a lot of things, so you have given him a blank check that everything in the Bible is also true. Yeah, in a nutshell. If you're waiting for infinite knowledge on any subject so that you can believe, don't hold your breath.

There's no such thing as irrefutable evidence,

Sure there is. Take two apples. Add two more apples. You've got four apples. Irrefutable.

but all of science agrees ... . All science ... except creation science.


Because the Bible is an interested party. It is trying to spread christianity, therefore its integrity is at question.Non-sequitur.


Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Of course, I'm very familiar with this difficulty. This sort of thing is expected with multiple eye-witness sources. If they were perfectly synthesizable you'd yell "Collusion!" and justly so.

If you claim that because four apples are still four apples, that is proof of God, then He has no predictive power.God's existence predicts that 2 + 2 will always forever and ever equal 4. Apart from God there is no ontological basis for the uniformity of nature.


This sounds like we should choose the ones that give us the best explanitory power for the world, and our experience.

The problem with this approach, is that we can't distinguish between good explanations and bad explanations, as long as they offer any explanation. This is why experiential relevance is but one of three tests, the other two being logical consistency and emperical adequacy. All three of these must be applied. Very important. . The FSM can account for those feelings just as well as God.
You realize, of course, that your FSM is approaching the very identity of the Living God. This is because you realize that these attributes are necessary. Eventually, perhaps, you will see that.

It is my contention that axioms should be self evident, and undeniable. Only the Atheist axioms are accepted universally. It's primary axiom, the inexistence of God, is rejected by most of the people who have ever walked the face of the earth. Don't delude yourself still further.

Empathy gives a species a distinct survival advantage, so it is explained by evolution as well. Incorrect. Empathy represents sorrow for those who are weaker, who lag behind the evolution of the forefront of the species. On the basis of evolution, we should murder the diseased, the lame, the blind, the retarded, the unintelligent, the elderly, just as Margaret Sanger logically concluded from her wicked atheist axioms decades ago. They are the dead weight of the gene pool, and need to be eliminated. Digging deeper, evolution demands that races in the human species have come about by survival of the fittest. On this basis, we may conclude that there is, in fact, one master race, just as Hitler did.

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

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

SS

[Mr Jack]

I'm not referring to "Cogito ergo sum" at all, but the fact that one's inexistence is unverifiable. One must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.


That is cogito ergo sum.

[Mr Jack]

I really wish you guys would keep your terms seperate: you're really talking about Atheism and Evolution are seperate concepts (although I agree with Dawkins that Evolution makes being an intellectually satisfied Atheist possible).

I agree that I wasn't expecting this sort of debate from Hilston. In my opinion, even if Evolutionists were to admit that their assumption of the uniformity of nature is unwarranted, that does mean that Evolution isn't true.
Unwarranted? That's a strong term. I freely admit that I cannot be certain of the uniformity of nature; that I cannot prove the existence of the real world and that I cannot be truly certain of anything. That's just the way things are; Kant showed conclusively that certainity is not logically acheivable. But UoN is hardly an unwarranted assumption: throughout human experience it has proven reliable. Experiments performed in Hong Kong are reliably repeated in London; experiments performed in 1724 are reliably repeated in 2005; continuous records through time (ice core samples, tree rings, mud core samples, etc.) show no discontinuity or mismatch through the time they cover; astronomical observations show a universe that appears to operate in the same way as far as our instruments will reach and every direction. As much as it is possible for us to verify it being so, the Universe does exhibit uniformity of nature.

I believe we need two things taken, if wish to use that term, as axioms: there is a real world; it is as it appears to be. I don't think logic is axiomatic, nor do I consider it primary to inductive reasoning.

[sentientsynth]

That is cogito ergo sum.
Not quite, I don't think. Similar but not quite. Cogito ergo sum puts the cart before the horse. The crux of this argument is that it is by definition impossible to verify one's inexistence. My statement that "doubting verifies one's existence" is in fact cogito ergo sum, however, and it is flawed. Thanks for reminding me of this.

SS

[sentientsynth]

I freely admit that I cannot be certain of the uniformity of nature; that I cannot prove the existence of the real world and that I cannot be truly certain of anything. That's just the way things are; Kant showed conclusively that certainity is not logically acheivable. This statement fails its own test for truth. Kant was wrong. We can have absolute knowledge. In fact, we must arrive at this conclusion. If I were to say, "I do not know anything," then I would be contradicting myself. Implicit in this statement is "I know that I do not know anything." Therefore I know at least one thing, and my first statement is clearly falsified. One cannot verify one's inability to verify. Simple logic.


SS