ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

heusdens

New member
Dear Lighson:

My condolances to you Lightson.
Yes, to loose a close relative is painfull. But it is part of the thing we call life, it comes with happiness and joy, but also with pain and deep sadnses. It is because life is only short, that we have to make something of our lives. That we should not engage in something meaningless, but something with a purpose.
So that even when we are gone, people still have memoires about us, and how we conducted our lives.

Life is not eternal. This fact is the same to any of us.
I have sometimes wondered what 'eternal' life would mean. But I think the fact that one would not never die, as in eternity, takes out the beauty and value of life. We would conduct our lives much different if life was eternal. In fact, since we would have eternal life, what would it care to us what we would do, or not do. Life would loose it's meaning in such cases.

The bitterness and sadness of us, when we face that a closed one has gone, sometimes takes form in that we would want that even after we are gone, life continues in an 'afterworld'.

It is the idea we form ourselves, to give ourselves some comfort and hope. It is because we want that, that the person who had died, would still be living and be with us. To reduce our pain and sadness.

Life and death belong together. There is no life without death. But even so, for us life continues. We need to take care of ourselves, and take decissions ourselves of how we conduct our lives. The knowledge that a person we have loved so much, will not be with us any more, and has gone forever will induce great pain. Irrefutable and undeniable.

After all we are just humans and don't live for eternity.

I wish you and your family good luck and strength for overcoming this great pain and sadness the death of your father cas caused you.

Sincerely,

Rob

PS.

Remember as long as you honor your fathers life and think about the beautifull memories you had together with him, he will not be completely gone.
 
Last edited:

Mr Jack

New member
Anyone who claims otherwise should be prepared to somehow provide, apart from the existence of God, the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. This must be done without committing logical fallacies and begging crucial questions. I haven't seen it done yet and, as a Christian defending the theistic worldview, I don't really expect the problem to ever be surmounted by the anti-theistic mind.

I'm sorry, Hilston, but I don't see how that follows. Anyone with a basic grounding in philosophy rapidly discovers that there are limits to knowledge, as Kant so uneloquently showed in 'A Critique of Pure Reason'.

The theist holds as their basis that 'there is god', and build their world view from there.

The atheist holds as their basis that 'there is a real world, and it corresponds to our senses', and buils their world view from there.

Both must inevitable accept a limit to their knowledge. I see no reason to view one as more incoherant than the other (on this basis alone).
 

heusdens

New member
Re: Re: Required theistic underpinning ...

Re: Re: Required theistic underpinning ...

Originally posted by flash
Flash is the creator of all things and the authority of all things.

THAT is not a worldview, but solipsism!
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by Mr Jack
I'm sorry, Hilston, but I don't see how that follows. Anyone with a basic grounding in philosophy rapidly discovers that there are limits to knowledge, as Kant so uneloquently showed in 'A Critique of Pure Reason'.

The theist holds as their basis that 'there is god', and build their world view from there.

The atheist holds as their basis that 'there is a real world, and it corresponds to our senses', and buils their world view from there.

Both must inevitable accept a limit to their knowledge. I see no reason to view one as more incoherant than the other (on this basis alone).

Even on this basis, I would think to refute or deny the existence of the material world, as something objective and primary to us, more incoherent then to refute some man made idea about a 'Creator' for which we don't have any objective evidence.
 

Mr Jack

New member
Even on this basis, I would think to refute or deny the existence of the material world, as something objective and primary to us, more incoherent then to refute some man made idea about a 'Creator' for which we don't have any objective evidence.

Unfortunately, Heusdens, I think your statement is already biased. Inserting the phrase 'some man made idea' is already presupposition. Further, objective evidence is a nonsense without one of the bases above (or perhaps a possible third option of which I am unaware?), so to use it as a means to chose between the two options is an absurdity.
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by Mr Jack
Unfortunately, Heusdens, I think your statement is already biased. Inserting the phrase 'some man made idea' is already presupposition. Further, objective evidence is a nonsense without one of the bases above (or perhaps a possible third option of which I am unaware?), so to use it as a means to chose between the two options is an absurdity.

Pre-biased or historic evidence?

Who wrote the Bible and other mythology? If you have evidence that someone/something other then man did it, you can place your OBJECTIVE evidence for that here.

We have evidence that there is a world, and the evidence for it is within all reason OBJECTIVE evidence.

No such OBJECTIVE evidence exists for any God.

But of course.

I am biased.

If that is what YOU call biased, then of course, I must be.
 

Mr Jack

New member
Ah, Heusdens, I think we have our wires crossed at some point. I certainly do not claim that one cannot take evidence from the world around us and derive a view as to whether god exists from it. But I was restricting my comments to an initial starting point.

Let me restate: Hilston claimed the atheism was incoherant because reason and science required theistic belief or there was no underpining on which to build these systems. I argued that both theism and atheism have unknowable underpinnings, but that each was equally coherant as a basis for belief.

So we are, or were, discussing the bases of knowledge, as it were. To discount, or discredit one these systems on an argument than pre-supposes one or other of these systems is absurd, do you not agree?

Your comparison also misrepresents the theist for, if they are right, then god is not some 'some man made idea' but a real entity external to any human. So by inserting the phrase you are actually distorting the question over which the argument rages.

I apologise that I did not explain this clearly enough in my earlier post, and led you to believe I thought you were biased. I did not. I merely believed your statement to be pre-judgemental. Do you see how the two are different?

I firmly believe that intelligent debate can only occur if we are willing to contemplate all sides of an argument with respect.

-edit- Oh, and I don't think we can claim truly objective knowledge of anything, only the continued convergance of subjective experience.
 

heusdens

New member
Mr Jack:

Is the fact: "We were born, we live, we die" objective enough for you?

If that is not objective, then what fact is objective in your sense of objectivity?

Ok, so let us explore the basis of our reasoning capacities and our fundaments for knowledge.

"Your comparison also misrepresents the theist for, if they are right, then god is not some 'some man made idea' but a real entity external to any human. So by inserting the phrase you are actually distorting the question over which the argument rages."

Let us start here. You state that "God is not a man made idea, but a real entity".

Ok. So what is a real entity. What are the attributes or properties of a real entity?

Is matter real? Is consciousness real? Is software real?

What is real if something (anything at all) is real?

Is there realy a world, outside, apart from and independend from the mind?

My anwers to these question, which is the fundament to our knowledge about the world, you can find here

It is a reasoned conclusion why I adapt to the (IMO) only possible conclusion that there must exist something independend, outside and apart from my mind, which is the objective and primary form of existence, which I call 'matter'.
 

Mr Jack

New member
Originally posted by heusdens
Is the fact: "We were born, we live, we die" objective enough for you?

The statement is indeed objective. However we cannot ever know this fact to be objectively true or false. I do not deny the existence of an objective real world, I simply maintain that we cannot know it's nature in any absolute sense.
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by Mr Jack
The statement is indeed objective. However we cannot ever know this fact to be objectively true or false. I do not deny the existence of an objective real world, I simply maintain that we cannot know it's nature in any absolute sense.

Who asks for absolutes?
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Fantastic claims ...

Fantastic claims ...

Reply to Flash's post #335:

Flash asks:
What would suffice as "necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience", ...
I can only think of one scenario that suffices to answer this question. All others I've encountered have failed. Do you have any suggestions?

Flash asks:
... and how are they provided in your worldview. If you answer me this, I can answer your question.
The existence of God and all of His attributes and characteristics account for Creation being the way it is, humans functioning the way they do, universal invariant laws applying and having the success that they have in regard to our varying, contingent experiences. The universe reflects the nature and character of its Creator, and we, being created in His image, can confidently trust in the general reliability of our senses, our reason, the laws of logic, mathematical principles and the scientific method. These no longer need to be blindly or irrationally trusted. God provides the necessary Archimedian pou sto on which we may ground our knowledge and experience, and by which we may have general certainty about the methods we use to evaluate and understand the world around us.

Jim wrote: Of course, Flash does not really believe he is the creator of all things....

Flash asks:
Why does this matter?
It matters because we ought to be rational beings, and respect the debate. If you're come here just to bandy about any old story that pops into your head, I'm not interested. If, instead, you actually want to defend and argue for a worldview that you actually believe, then I am interested.

Flash asks:
I am just illustrating how trivial it is to construct worldviews similar to those of the presuppositionalists (Van Til, etc.)
What are you talking about? Who is constructing worldviews? You're the one who lobbed "Flash is the creator of all things" jibba jabba.

Flash asks:
Can you refute the worldview I presented?
I have to understand it better. Why don't you elaborate? I shouldn't just dismiss a worldview without first understanding it. Just as you shouldn't invent worldviews that you're not prepared to defend.

Flash asks:
Does that put it on the same grounds as your Triune Christian God worldview?
How could it? How does it even come close?

Flash asks:
What criteria do you use to evalute worldviews? Whether or not I believe them to be true?
Of course not. I use the scriptures, logic, reason, science, history, etc. and determine whether or not there is internal coherence and whether or not the worldview in question undermines the intelligibility of human experience.

Flash asks:
You are making a pretty fantastic set of claims with your Triune god worldview. You are claiming to understand quite a bit. Can you support these claims?
A good understanding of the Bible is sufficient to adequately address competing worldviews and ideologies. I find my support in scripture, logically, scientifically and historically affirmed. For which claim would you like to hear my support?

Jim
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Yucky answers ...

Yucky answers ...

Reply to Aussie Thinker's post #336

Hi Aussie,

Jim wrote:
"Anyone who claims otherwise should be prepared to somehow provide, apart from the existence of God, the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience."

Aussie writes:
I know I have asked this many time and NEVER got an answer yet but.. 1. Why are preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience NECESSARY ???
Why wouldn't they be necessary? It's a rational and legitimate question to ask. If you want to blindly assume everything that exists and all the characteristics thereof "just happened because they happened," that's fine, but don't come here and call yourself a rational and inquisitive freethinking "bright" when you conveniently dismiss perfectly legitimate and important questions.

Aussie writes:
How does the existence of a God provide preconditions any more than a does an accidental occurrence from the processes of the Universe ?
The idea of accidental occurrence from pre-existing processes begs the question. How do you get the processes themselves? How do you get intelligibilty of particulars without universals? Where do the universals come from, and whence the ability to bring the universals and the particulars together into intelligible experience? Only a Triune God, whose nature and character are reflected in the universe He created, could provide the necessary precondition for such a universe and the intelligibility of our experience within it.

Aussie writes:
3. If precondition ARE necessary then why do we not also require preconditions for a God ?
I've have never here presented a cosmological or teleological argument, so the standard rebuttal to that argument doesn't work here. The Bible says that God is the Creator. Period. He is eternal and infinite and He holds all things together.

Aussie writes:
You don’t answer these questions Jim because you CANNOT.
I just answered them, Aussie. You just don't like the answers. Not my problem.

Aussie writes:
... Sure you will go into a long diatribe and basically repeat the same mantra over and over.. preconditions are necessary.. God provides them.. without ever answering !
See what I mean?

Jim
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
An objective statement by the subjective consciousness about objective matter?

An objective statement by the subjective consciousness about objective matter?

Hi heusdens,

heusdens wrote in post #337:
Consciousness is the way in which the world exists in a subjective way. Matter is the way in which the world exists in an objective way.
Is that objectively true, heusdens? Did your subjective consciousness tell you that matter exists in an objective way?

Jim
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by Tye Porter

y'all are living in a fantasy world.
Bob Enyart one in the first round.
The rest has been for "sport".






:thumb: Exactly right! nothing else needs to be said!

I don't understand why you all are debating the debate. Anyone who doesn't see the truth in Bob's arguments isn't going to see the truth in anyone elses either!
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
He won? When? Where? How?

He won? When? Where? How?

Hi Tye,

I'm interested in exploring your statement.

Tye Porter wrote:
y'all are living in a fantasy world. Bob Enyart one in the first round. The rest has been for "sport".
How do you ascertain "winning" the debate? At what point, or with what argument, or whatever, did you declare Bob Enyart's victory?

The reason I ask is because, on biblical grounds, Bob Enyart has already lost.

Thanks,
Jim
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Hilston,

Do I understand correctly?

Are you saying that we can not biblically challenge an atheist to bring evidence to support his position, because to do so conflicts with the Bibles assertion that there is no such evidence?

What if asking him to present the evidence he doesn' t have is the whole point?

Does this apply only to atheists? What about Hindus or Mormons or Earth Worshipers or whatever? Can we ask them these questions about evidence or are we Christians the only ones allowed to present our case?!

Please forgive me if this question has already been aswered. This is my 1st day on TOL and I haven't had time to read the entire thread!
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Hi Jim,

I ask 1. Why are preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience NECESSARY ???

Jim answers

Why wouldn't they be necessary? It's a rational and legitimate question to ask. If you want to blindly assume everything that exists and all the characteristics thereof "just happened because they happened," that's fine, but don't come here and call yourself a rational and inquisitive freethinking "bright" when you conveniently dismiss perfectly legitimate and important questions.

The answer to why are they necessary is… why aren’t they ???? That is not an answer it is another question. You are the one claiming they are necessary so the onus is on you to show why. You are framing the question as though it is one of those fundamental ones we all want answered.. very few humans want to know WHY ? they want to know how, when and where. WHY automatically begs an opinion.. it immediately assumes a Purpose.. something that the Universe doesn’t have.

The idea of accidental occurrence from pre-existing processes begs the question. How do you get the processes themselves?

The processes occurred accidentally.

How do you get intelligibilty of particulars without universals?

You have a human concept of universals. It doesn’t mean they exist. Your concepts are products of the universe too.. therefore they reflect the universe as making sense and being ordered.

Where do the universals come from, and whence the ability to bring the universals and the particulars together into intelligible experience?

You (or other humans) invented them. All of our concepts stem from our intelligence which stemmed from our evolution which stemmed from accidental processes that happen in the universe.

Only a Triune God, whose nature and character are reflected in the universe He created, could provide the necessary precondition for such a universe and the intelligibility of our experience within it.

Without him being held to your own rules ? Can’t you see how easy it is to invent something that is a solve all. First you take normally evolved human intelligence and the concepts it spawns and then invent a creature for being responsible for them. All in spite of their being no evidence for it.. in fact all evidence EVER has provided NATURAL answers to questions.

I've have never here presented a cosmological or teleological argument, so the standard rebuttal to that argument doesn't work here. The Bible says that God is the Creator. Period. He is eternal and infinite and He holds all things together.

Now for NON-ANSWER # 3.. how do we know God is the Creator ? The Bible says so.. why do we believe the Bible ? It is the word of God… What is God ? He is the Creator .. how do we know he is the creator.. the Bible says so… round and round and round !

I just answered them, Aussie. You just don't like the answers. Not my problem.

Well you did answer then I guess.. just nonsensically.. so of course I don’t like the answers. If you ask me what is 2+2 and I answer 1,000 .. is that an answer… yep and its as close as yours are.

See what I mean?

Well your diatribe wasn’t terribly long this time (for which I thank you). But the shorter your answers are the clearer they are and the clearer they are the clearer it is they are not even close to being sensible.

Steve
 

Michael12

BANNED
Banned
Re: Pretended neutrality ...

Re: Pretended neutrality ...

Originally posted by Hilston
“The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of a statement which claims to be factual.”_ That’s the end of the quote.
_
One must eventually ask Dr. Stein then how he proves this statement itself._ That is, how does he prove that logic or reason is the only way to prove factual statements?_ He is now on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma._ If he says that the statement is proven by logic or reason, then he is engaging in circular reasoning and he is begging the question, which he staunchly forbids._ If he says that the statement is proven in some other fashion, then he refutes the statement itself!_ That logic or reasoning is the only way to prove things.
This is an excellent argument. I have given it a fair amount of thought since you originally posted it. Here is my paultry solution:

The author is correct at the ultimate level. The veracity of logic is a presupposition that can not be redeemed without circular arguments. However, if a comparison of paradigms is to take place, then the participants must strive to begin with the least common denomenator (presupposition). Clearly one side will not accept "faith" as evidence. But the theist is forced to introduce logic if he strives to make assertions that fall outside of faith. Meaning anything short of "God did it" requires logic. So the theist is forced to accept logic as a presupposition as well as faith.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Universal apologetic principle ...

Universal apologetic principle ...

Hi Clete,

You write:
Hilston ...
Please call me Jim.

Clete writes:
Are you saying that we can not biblically challenge an atheist to bring evidence to support his position, because to do so conflicts with the Bibles assertion that there is no such evidence?
No. I'm saying that one does not adequately (biblically) challenge the so-called "atheist" (there really is no such thing) by debating evidences. The anti-theist has wrong presuppositions by which he ascertains evidence. There's a reason why two intelligent educated and seeming well-meaning men have such a huge disagreement over the question of God's existence. It is not based on evidentiary arguments. It is based on a difference worldviews. So how is the difference of opinion to be resolved? Not by evidence, by rather by a comparison and critique of worldviews. If you attack the root of the problem (false presuppositions), then you kill the whole tree. If you attack the leaves and branches, you essentially merely prune, and therefore strengthen the tree.

Clete writes:
What if asking him to present the evidence he doesn' t have is the whole point?
Because he will produce evidence, and you'll disagree about the interpretation of it. How do you resolve who has the correct interpretation? By ascertaining the underlying presuppositions according to which the atheist regiments his thinking and evaluates evidence.

Clete writes:
Does this apply only to atheists? What about Hindus or Mormons or Earth Worshipers or whatever?
All anti-biblical worldviews are approached the same way. Parenting is approached the same way. Politics are approached the same way. The biblical principles of apologetics can be universally applied.

Clete writes:
Can we ask them these questions about evidence or are we Christians the only ones allowed to present our case?!
Questions can be asked about evidence, but they are ultimately futile unless used as a means to get at their anti-theistic reasoning. No one has said that only Christian are allowed to present their case. But when the anti-theist presents his case, the underpinnings of his worldview should be attacked, not the evidences he presents.

At least read the first post. That will give you a pretty good start. Then read the first post on the top of page 23. It's an excellent summary of the case.

Thanks for your question.

Jim
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Jim,

Further to the point about WHY ?

If ask you why you have a hand.. you could say it is because God knew it would be a good tool to use (or God had a hand and we are made in his image).

So as a theist it is something you can answer.

Now I would say.. we have it because it evolved as a useful tool.

But that does not answer WHY we have it. To answer that I have to assume something decided to give it to us or that some “intelligence” decided it was needed.

So you see the question of WHY is ALWAYS loaded (in philosophical arguments) towards creation because it begs a hidden or (unhidden) purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top