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

[Hilston]

Hi Bob b,

Please forgive the delay. Here is a link that provided on a previous page. It is a RealAudio file that you can stream and/or (?) download. This is a wonderful example (much better than I could ever give) of the presuppositional argument in action.

http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram

Other references are as follows (this, too, is from a previous page):

Books:

Bahnsen, Greg L. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. American Vision and Covenant Media Foundation, 1996.

______. Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. P&R Publishing, 1998.

Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. P&R Publishing, 1994.

______ Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. P&R Publishing, 1995.

Pratt, Richard L., Jr. Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979.

Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955.

Audio debates:

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? (This is the same as the download link above)
Writeup from CMF website: "This is the famous formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein held at the university of California (Irvine) in 1985. Hear how hard it is to deny God's existence and how intellectually rigorous the Christian position actually is."
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=9530

Does God Exist?: A Debate Between Greg Bahnsen and Edward Tabash
Writeup from CMF website: "This formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist lawyer (former ACLU) Edward Tabash at the University of California (Davis), is a great follow-up to the Bahnsen/Stein debate. Witness again how an atheist fails to wrestle with fundamental philosophical issues."
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=9532

Jim [/QUOTE]

 

[bob b]

Thank you James. I will check back with you later after I review what you posted.

Bob

 

[TreMor]

Re: Re: Re: Borrowing capital ...

Re: Re: Re: Borrowing capital ...

Originally posted by Hilston

It has been a while, hasn't it? Hey -- while you're here, if you get a chance to check out Zakath, let me know how you think he's doing, and what you would do differently. Not a lot of detail is required, just generally speaking -- if you have time.

Zak is, I think, proceeding apace, asking for clarification on specific theistic perceptions that tend to usually go asserted vaguely.

In scanning the forum itself I see it's very expertly populated, many eloquent posters (yourself included), and I doubt I'll be able to add much that hasn't already been said-- I know this sounds like it's about me but it's really about realizing that this is a debate with no end, and rarely is anyone convinced, and I've publically stated for over a year now that I end debate -- not concede, but just end it-- when I am confronted with the claim of regeneration-- there's nothing I can argue against when it comes to such a claim. So Zak is doing great, but if Bob were to claim regeneration, I'd think he'd stop.

For the record, the reason I would stop against the claim of regeneration is because it is an unsharable experience that is either:

Delusion of convenience ("It came to me in a dream")
Delusion of psychosis ("I am Napolean")
or it's true.

As for me not having experienced it, I cannot comment on its claimed veracity.

about this statement:

No it's not -- since you're so willing to accept the so-called atheists self-definition, ask Zakath. Ask Michael Shermer. Ask Douglas Krueger. Ask TreMor. They will flatly deny that atheism is a belief system. Now what?

I wouldn't deny atheism is a belief system except in that we are born sans theism, and the idea that you defend that we are all given direct knowledge of the Christian god's existence stands practically disproved by the evidence of such a wide range of competing beliefs-- but one can go from theism to atheism and that of course is substituting one belief system for another.

And I'll ask Shermer next time I see him-- but I think, having had a few discussions with him on the subject, that he would agree all worldviews are belief systems.

About the God Axiom: It's still in the works, but very near completion. I don't know if you're going to remember half the stuff you wrote. I know it was tough for me to remember exactly what brought us up to that point.

Initially, it was my frustration with you, lol. I wrote it to pinpoint for others that there was a feedback loop to your argument based upon --again-- regeneration of the Pauline gospels as infallable. As you say, all arguments are circuitous, but there are circles and there are viscious circles, and the GA was written to blueprint your particular viscious circle (which you would deny as not being vicious at all).

What Matrix discussion are you referring to? Apparently, I've got lots of cobwebs to dust off.

In my discussions with you, you -- inadvertantly -- actually were able to solidify numerous vague concepts that I had long grappled with as an theist become atheist. I know this will probably make you wince but in the challenges you represented, I was able to define those concepts far better and thus my atheism became stronger. And at the same time I agree with your contention that the theist must argue from the core of their theism (in this case, you'd cite it as biblical)-- which far too many theists don't do. So though this might seem to conflict, it really doesn't because if the theist does approach with the clarity of his "substantiated position" and the atheist still has stronger arguments, well, so be it.

The Matrix discussion was about this particular point-- in that only in the theist realm do we see the logic of reality break down, via miracles and the assertion of the supernatural. And that if there is this god, we are then by definition in a solipstic universe, the musings of a single entity, that nothing would exist without those musings.

Really great to see your handle in a forum again.

Jim

Thanks -- you too, but I am likely not going to stay.

^T^

 

[TreMor]

Originally posted by Knight
Hey your right - you didn't realize.

And by the way....Your avatar is disturbing.

You're right, it is disturbing. So's a heaven where people suffer.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by TreMor
You're right, it is disturbing. So's a heaven where people suffer.

I suppose such a heaven would be disturbing.

I don't know what heaven you are making reference to, but please consider the heaven God reveals:

Re 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

No suffering there!

 

[TreMor]

Originally posted by LightSon
I suppose such a heaven would be disturbing.

I don't know what heaven you are making reference to, but please consider the heaven God reveals:

Re 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

No suffering there!

You might wish to enlighten Knight then, as he believes differently:

========================
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
I"m crushed, Knight! You mean you wouldn't cheer me on????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude... its hot where your going, I plan to steer clear!

However, I will console your daughter when we are in heaven together... I am sure she will be devastated that she cannot spend eternity with her pop.
========================

I only made reference to the heaven he suggested.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by TreMor
I only made reference to the heaven he suggested.

Maybe you missed the point that was being made to Zakath????

 

[Scrimshaw]

Re: Eido vs. ginosko ...

Re: Eido vs. ginosko ...

Hi Jim,



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fool would think himself wise if he can get others to participate in his folly. So by responding to a fool according to his folly, the fool would have gotten you to participate in his folly, thus, making him feel wise, influential, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Hilston
So would you say then that the fool described in Prov. 26:4,5 recognizes his own folly and is just trying to get the other person to behave foolishly, too?

Yes, but let's cut to the chase on this point. You are using this passage to say that Bob is answering Zakath according to his folly. The biggest problem with your argument on this point is Romans 1 does not state there are no atheists. In fact, I quoted for you a verse in Psalms that outright states that there can be those who disbelieve in God. So your argument has been refuted.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Zakath's folly is his claim that there isn't sufficient evidence for belief in God. The only way that Bob could be responding WITH that same folly is if Bob's response ALSO stated that there "isn't sufficient evidence for belief in God".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Then the verse is really meaningless, because that isn't an answer. There's no point of contention there; it's mere agreement. Your manure bag example was much better.

Actually there is a point of contention here, because you think that Zakath's manure bag is also the fact that he claims to be an "atheist". The only way the claim of atheism can be considered a manure bag is if Romans 1 had stated that there is no such thing as atheists, or those who disbelieve in God. Romans 1 never said that.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But as we can see, that is NOT the case! Bob is arguing JUST THE OPPOSITE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize, after you've said it several times, that you think this. But it doesn't make sense.

I'll explain why it does make sense below.......

Let's say you and a colleague are both professors of economics. You've taught your class the evils of deficit spending. You've tested them on it, and they all passed with flying colors. You're an excellent instructor. Your colleague agrees, and often praises you at department meetings for your thoroughness and the sufficiency of your teaching. One of your students, who earned perfect score on the test, who answers questions intelligently in class, and who enjoys flaunting her knowledge about whatever subject you are teaching on, doesn't like you. She overhears your colleague speaking highly of you. She decides to complain that you did not teach it very well, and claims to not understand the subject at all. He asks her what she earned on the test, and she lies, saying that she flunked the test. Your friend checks the records, and sees that she actually got a perfect score on th test. Your friend later overhears the student giggling among her friends about how she was able to trash Mr. Scrimshaw to one of his colleagues. Given the above, what would you think of your colleague if you were to walk into a classroom and witness him trying to teach her everything you have already taught her? How meaningful are your colleague's words about your ability to sufficiently teach your students if he so readily tries to improve upon the job you know has already been sufficiently accomplished?

Here's why your analogy fails to apply to the atheism - all disbelievers in god are not necessarily deceiving, but have been DECIEVED into disbelieving. Deceived by false arguments. Deceived by the institutions of humanistic philosophy and naturalism, etc. Your analogy simply characterizes the student as being intentionally deceptive, when in reality, atheists are many times the product of deception.

But back to the main point......Bob has not conceded there isn't sufficient evidence for belief in God. He has only conceded that Zakath possesses a deluded perception of the evidence. Bob's goal is to dismantled Zakath's deluded perception of the evidence and expose the false arguments that Zakath is advocating to justify his disbelief in God. It's that simple.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the Bible does not say atheism doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, let's break this down. Do you believe that an atheist truly doesn't believe in God, Scrimshaw? If so, why, in your opinion, do they not believe in God?

I believe that many athests truly do not believe in God because they have been DECEIVED by false arguments, and false perceptions of the evidence in the universe. People can be deceived into believing any lie if the arguments are persuasive enough. And the lie of atheism is that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in God. Atheism is simply a belief system that is centered on that lie. Atheism does exist. It is real, and it is a lie, and our duty as Christians is to expose it for the lie that it is.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is only what Mr.Hilston says. Romans 1 only states that men are without EXCUSE for their disbelief/ungodliness/rebellion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are they without excuse?

There is never an *excuse* for believing in a lie. But that doesn't mean there isn't REASONS for why people believe in lies. An "excuse" implies a justification for the action. A reason, on the other hand, is simply an neutral fact that explains why something happens. There is a difference.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Jesus himself disproves your claim that everyone knows God. Here is Jesus' refutation to Mr.Hilston's claim:

John 17:25 - "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a perfect verse, Scrimshaw. Jesus gives a characteristic description of a collective order, namely that this collective rejects the experiential knowing (ginosko) of the Father of Israel, yet they experientially know (ginosko) that the Father sent Him. It shows both their knowledge that Jesus came from the Father (and by implication, knowledge of the Father) and of their deliberate rejection of the Father, i.e. a refusal to acknowledge their experiential knowledge of Him.

Actually, the verse says nothing about them "rejecting" the knowledge. That's a word you are adding to the text. It says the world does not KNOW (ginosko) the Father, who is God. That means that they do not possess "experiential knowledge" of God the Father. More on this later in the post.....


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Paul also agrees with Jesus, and says -

1 Corinthians 1:20, 21 - "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This verse is not stating the world did not know about God, Scrimshaw. It's saying that the world did not know Him experientially through their own wisdom.

If the world didn't know Him experientially through it's wisdom, how else could it have known Him?

When you say "Everyone in the world does not necessarily know about God," you've granted them an excuse. How can God hold them responsible for sinning against Him if they don't know about Him?

No, it isn't an "excuse". It is a FACT. Jesus plainly stated that the world does not have knowledge of God. And here are more verses that prove the knowledge of God is conditional, not all-encompassing:

Psalms 36:10 - "Continue your love to those who know you, your righteousness to the upright in heart."

Here, David reveals that "those" who know God are a select group.

John 17:3 - "Now this is eternal life: that they may know (ginosko) you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Here, Jesus states that the knowledge ("ginosko") of God is conditional to eternal life. Certainly you do not believe that everyone on the planet has eternal life, do you???

The point is, the Bible is very clear that there are many who do not have knowledge ("ginosko") or ("eido") of God, for whatever reason. So the Bible does not deny that atheism exists. It simply says there is no *excuse* for it.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in the world does not necessarily know about God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is their excuse, Scrimshaw?

They don't have one. They don't have anything that EXCUSES their lack of knowledge of God. But that doesn't mean they don't have REASONS. (such as deception)


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is incorrect because it falsely claims that there is not sufficient evidence for belief in God. That's it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. So how do go about disabusing Zakath of that false claim? Show him the evidence that should have been sufficient, but for some reason wasn't?

You handle it by debunking the false excuses he gives in his efforts to justify his claim that the evidence isn't sufficient. That is the appropriate logic. The problem with your logic is you are overlooking the power that deceptive arguments can have over the human mind. Atheism is a belief system based on deceptive arguments. It is our job to expose those deceptive arguments:

1 Cor 10:5 - "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

So then afterward, when he says, "Sorry, still not good enough." What do you do then?

You move on, and allow the Holy Spirit to act upon the seeds you planted in that individual's heart and mind.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the purpose is to REFUTE Zakath's LIE, which is his claim that the evidence isn't sufficient. That is Bob's purpose in the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, let me ask this: Do you believe that Zakath, prior to this debate, had been given sufficient evidence of God's existence and his accountability to Him? Perhaps we're not agreeing on the word "sufficient"? ("Adequate to accomplish a purpose or to meet a need").

The evidence itself is sufficient, but again, deception takes what has been made known and obfuscates it. Deception distorts truth. It's like Satan quoting the scriptures to Jesus during Christ's temptation. The scriptures themselves are sufficient and are true, yet, Satan twisted and obfuscated them in an attempt to deceptively get Jesus to come to false conclusions. The same thing is happening with the evidences in Creation. Satan has taken the evidences of Creation which are sufficient for belief, and twisted them around so that people come to false conclusions and disbelieve in a Creator. Just as Jesus responded to satan's misuse of scripture WITH the *correct* use of scripture, so too, we respond to the atheist's false logic WITH the *correct* use of logic. We lay bare the atheist's false excuses.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are using very poor logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do so many people say this, yet they cannot demonstrate the logical fallacy that's been committed. It's like crying wolf. After a while, nobody believes you.

I have been demonstrating how the wolves have been feasting on your lamb for quite sometime, you just refuse to believe me. Your illogic has been devoured and digested already, you just don't realize it.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... No where in Romans 1 does it say that no one possesses disbelief in God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean to "possess disbelief"? It says they hold the truth about God, they understand, and they suppress it. You disagree with that?

Paul was addressing the condition of mankind in general, and how man has apostasized since the creation of the world. You can't take sweeping generalities like this and think it applies to every individual case. We know that the text doesn't literally mean "ALL" men know God, for there are plenty of other scriptures that indicate that many men do NOT know God -

Jer 10:25 - Pour out Your fury on the nations who do not know You, and on the families who do not call on Your name;....



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the text implies that they have no LEGITIMATE excuse, but it doesn't say they don't make up excuses. Bob's arguments are exposing the illegitimacy of the atheist's excuses, and exposing them to be FALSE excuses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you grant that Zakath has made some OK defenses of his self-professed atheism at any point in the debate? I don't think he has, but I'm wondering if you think Zakath has scored any "hits"?

In some small semantical ways, yes. For example, Zakath correctly identified that Bob's definition for "absolute morality" needed to be clarified. He was also correct that the lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically functions as proof of God. Bob needs to elaborate more on exactly WHY those things Bob cited should be considered "evidence for a God" in particular. It is early in the debate yet, and I anticipate that Bob will provide all the elaborations in the posts to come.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct that there is no need of providing further EVIDENCE. However, there is a need to refute the false excuses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh -- I totally agree. How would you propose those be dealt with?

We deal with it the way Bob is - exposing WHY the excuses are false. By exposing that the excuses are false, the claim of atheism itself is laid bare and shown to be untenable.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... There is a need to clarify the evidence that the atheists distort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ack! Not at all! See, this is the error of evidentialism. The atheist has no grounds upon which to evaluate evidence. They must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make any sense of their experience, and this should be exposed. We cannot allow them to unwarrantedly borrow tools from the Christian worldview (logic, reason, science, sense data, etc.)

I don't think that is a very good argument because logic, reason, science, etc., predate Christianity by thousands of years. The Greecian, Eyptian, and Roman empires made massive inroads in all of those categories, and they certainly were not Christian. The Roman empire christianized, but not until near the very end of it's rule. Knowledge is accumulative, and to claim that all knowledge, logic, and reason is owned by a singular worldview is the epitome of ignorance. Sorry. Bad argument there.


Scrimshaw quotes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalms - 78:21 "When the LORD heard them, he was very angry; his fire broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was everyone in Israel, without exception, an atheist?

No, but there obviously were SOME atheists in Israel, or else the verse would make no sense.


Scrimshaw quotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gal 4:8 - "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the word for "know" here is not "ginosko" (to know based on personal experience -- the Romans 1 kind of "know"), but rather "eido", knowledge that is conceptualized, seen in one's mental perception. In other words, while possessing ginosko/experience-based knowledge of God, the anti-theist hates Him, holding the truth, understanding it, yet suppressing it.

No, your argument is terminally flawed because In John 17:25, Jesus uses the word ("ginosko") when he said the world does not know God the Father -

John 17:25 - "O righteous Father, indeed the world has not known (ginosko) You; but I have known You, and these have known that You have sent me."

Ginosko is also use in John 17:3 -

John 17:3 - "Now this is eternal life: that they may know (ginosko) you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

So your argument regarding the distinction between ("eido") and ("ginosko") is bunk.

Blessings,

 

[NATEDOG]

Scrimshaw,
Are you protestant or catholic?
I've been discussing Catholicism lately with some of my catholic friends, and I've noticed that we almost always end up somewhat stumped in our debates against each other because of our radically different views of what authority is true authority.
When they try to pass of something to me because it is catholic tradition or because a pope 500 years ago said it was true, they find me unimpressed.
When I try to make a point from scripture, it has little effect on them because they don't accept sola scriptura, and aren't willing to let the Bible interpret they Bible. That is an active church function for them.
So, we are left in a quandary here. If I accept that the pope's official decrees as infallible, and they can be used as acceptable proof, then as a protestant I'm bound to lose the debate because from the outset I've already denied sola scriptura and the protestant view. If I try to argue against them they will whip me up and down because I've relinqueshed the alleged truth of my beliefs.
The same goes for them. If they choose to argue only using the Bible I will destroy them in a debate because from the outset they are trying to argue against a theology they have already accepted as true.
We've both tried to argue against each others side theoretically accepting the opposing view of authority. It doesn't do much good.

If you accept the parameters of a worldview, they will almost always lead to the justification of that worldview.

(I'd love to spend more time on this post, but I really have to leave in a few minutes to go out of town for the weekend. I'll try to be as thorough as possible in the next couple of minutes.)

Scrimshaw, do you believe that Christianity is true? I believe you claim to. I know Bob Enyart claims to. The Bible says ,"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."

Zakath claims to believe that there is no God. He says that what may be known of God isn't manifest in him. He claims God has not shown it to him. He claims that he can approach this situation reasonably and neutrally, look at the evidence for God's existence, find it uncompelling and turn his back and walk away with his mind free.
If the Bible says he can't approach this neutrally why is Bob acting like he can. Bob can't approach this issue neutrally either, because in a Christian world reason isn't neutral. He's using Descartes arguments of I think therefore I am. Rationalism is a philosophy based on the neutrality of reason, but in my opinion it's been proven wrong by the dozens of people that have started with "I think therefore I am", and then proceeded to use reason to come to vastly differing philosophies.

If Zakath can approach this topic reasonably and neutrally, then I agree with him that the Bible is false and it's God isn't real.

Bob is arguing as if Zakath isn't suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. He's arguing as if this world isn't Christ's.
He's arguing on a philosophical level as if atheism were true.
That is why Bob Enyart has already lost the debate. If he continues to debate in this manner I think he's going to get slapped silly.

See you guys monday,
Nathan

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Scrimshaw, great stuff!

 

[TreMor]

Originally posted by Knight
Maybe you missed the point that was being made to Zakath????

I don't think so. You seem to be stating that you would need (or be willing) to console Zakath's daughter in heaven because she will be devastated in heaven by the fact that her atheist father will not be in heaven with her.

Am I correct?

If so, you are painting a picture of heaven where there will be some sadness of some kind.

Am I correct?

Please, if I'm missing what you are saying, feel free to correct me. I can take it.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
Scrimshaw,

Are you protestant or catholic?

Protestant.

We've both tried to argue against each others side theoretically accepting the opposing view of authority. It doesn't do much good.

You never had to accept the Catholic view of authority in the first place. They're view of authority *contradicts* the Bible, for the Bible declares itself to be the all-sufficient authority for life and godliness:

2 Tim 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That verse says that the scriptures are sufficent to THOROUGHLY equip the man of God for EVERY good work. When the Catholic states that we need oral tradition in addition to scripture, they are saying that 2 Tim 3:16 is WRONG, and that the Scriptures are somehow insufficient. Even though the Catholics believe in the authority of oral tradition, they still believe the Bible is the Word of God. They want to have their cake and eat it too. But since their institution of oral tradiction contradicts the Scriptures, THEY are the only ones in a quandry because God cannot contradict himself. Either the Bible is correct and of God, or their oral tradition is correct and of God - but it cannot be both, because one contradicts the other, and God cannot contradict Himself.

If you accept the parameters of a worldview, they will almost always lead to the justification of that worldview.

There is a difference between acknowledging and accepting a worldview. To acknowledge that a worldview exists does not mean accepting that it is TRUE. I can acknowledge that a lie exists without endorsing it or accepting it as true. In fact, how can you expose a lie unless you first acknowledge that it exists? Living in denial is the most useless tactic one can possibly make when engaging someone in a debate. Denying that your opponent holds the position that claim they hold is an utter waste of time and one of the surest ways to get that person to ignore everything you say thereafter, and discontinue communication. So your approach is not only illogical, it is extremely ineffective tool for reaching atheists.

Scrimshaw, do you believe that Christianity is true?

Yep.

If the Bible says he can't approach this neutrally why is Bob acting like he can.

Because the Bible says no such thing. What you are doing is misinterpreting Romans. Paul never said that there are no atheists. He simple said that the ungodly/wicked/unbelievers are without EXCUSE. In my last post to Jim, I thoroughly explained this and provided numerous scriptures that state many men do NOT have knowledge of God.

Bob can't approach this issue neutrally either, because in a Christian world reason isn't neutral.

There is nothing neutral about Bob's position. From the very first post he has been building a case. By the time he reaches his last post, his case will be complete and there will be absolutely NOTHING "neutral" about it.

Bob is arguing as if Zakath isn't suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. He's arguing as if this world isn't Christ's.

Wrong. Bob is exposing the false excuses that Zakath is giving to justify his unbelief. When those false excuses are refuted, the very atheism that Zakath claims to hold is laid bare and proven irrational.

He's arguing on a philosophical level as if atheism were true.

Absolutely false. If Bob agreed atheism was TRUE, he wouldn't be debating the issue. You can only debate against things that you believe to be UNTRUE.

That is why Bob Enyart has already lost the debate.

There is no possible way Bob can "lose" a debate that isn't even halfway over. Furthermore, if the debate topic was - "Does atheism exist?", and Bob's purpose was to argue that atheism does not exist, THEN and only then would Bob have already lost the debate. But in case you didn't notice, the topic of the debate is "Does GOD exist?". You win or lose a debate based on what the topic of the debate actually is, and whether or not you can adequately support your position. It is completely asinine for you to suggest that Bob has already lost the debate based on criteria that isn't considered in the debate topic. You might as well say that Bob has already lost the debate because he didn't prove that there are invisible martians on the moon.

 

[TreMor]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
There is no possible way Bob can "lose" a debate that isn't even halfway over. Furthermore, if the debate topic was - "Does atheism exist?", and Bob's purpose was to argue that atheism does not exist, THEN and only then would Bob have already lost the debate. But in case you didn't notice, the topic of the debate is "Does GOD exist?". You win or lose a debate based on what the topic of the debate actually is, and whether or not you can adequately support your position. It is completely asinine for you to suggest that Bob has already lost the debate based on criteria that isn't considered in the debate topic. You might as well say that Bob has already lost the debate because he didn't prove that there are invisible martians on the moon.

I find this last paragraph pretty interesting.

I would say the debate is lost because ultimate issues such as this are non-debatable anyway. Bob can no more prove god than Zakarth can prove logic, thus they're actually at best at a tie. But we assume the ultimate as unprovable, both theist and atheist, and we then skate on the penultimate level.

I opt for atheism as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive (an unprovable belief at its core, I admit, but not within our expereince), there is nothing more to assume in the atheist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), the theist is just as shackled to that reality as is the atheist.

The theist has to assume a lot more than just his logical frame of reference. He has to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and he also has to assume a written text (in this case the bible, but it could be the Qu'ran, or Bhagavad gita, etc) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else. The theist is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts, seas part, dead men rise and "ascend to heaven" and so on. And to do this he must assume the a priori nature of logic as well.

Furthermore, the theist is defining a solipsistic universe in which the only "real" element is god, who then creates a populated universe-- should the "real" god die or decide differently, existence is wiped away.

But then, argues the theist, don't we have faith that logic is in fact a "bottom plank"? This is where the debate really should begin: The diffence between the atheist and the theist lies in the difference between empirical trust, self-assumed, and faith, self-assumed.

Until we figure out a way past the "self-assumed" part, both sides begin by losing.

I think it's really interesting that Scrimshaw relates Bob's not losing analogous to his not proving invisible martians on the moon. Proving god and proving invisible martians on the moon are pretty much equally difficult to do (actually, it's easier to prove there are no invisible martians on the moon, though it would be costly).

 

[heusdens]

The debate


The topic of the debate is "Does God exist". That is, it is not wether or not one should, or should not believe in a God. One can believe in something, wether or not that something exists or not.
If I have a glass of fluid in front of me, that contains some unknown fluid, then I can believe this fluis is poisened, and I would not drink it.
This believe is of course irrelevant to the fact wether or not the fluid is a toxc or not.
If I know the fluid is just drinable water, then it could be said my belief is false, cause the water isn't toxic. But in lack of that knowledge, one can not argue wether or not the belief is false or true.

Human cognition throughout history has always faces the dilemma, that our knowledge isn't absolute and complete. So there always remain things we do not know about. These issues are then open to believe.

The point of the debate is however not wether or not one should believe in a God. The topic debate is wether or not God exists.
The argument that, since many people believe in a God, therefore a God must exist, is invalid.
Neither there is any argument in arguing that, since the opposing side can not disproof God, therefore God exists.
The only way in which one can claim that God exists, is to provide positve and objective evidence for the existence of God.

At the time prior to the invasdion and war against Iraq, the world was confronted with a dilemma: wether or not Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction in their posession.
The atacking party (the colaition of US, UK and Spain) argued like this: The other side must provide "proof" for the non-existence of such weapons of mass-destruction.
This position is of course a dilusive position, cause even if Sadam Hussein or the regime of Iraq were the most honest persons in the world, you can not provide evidence for the non-existence of something.

Any argument for the existence of God based on the fact that there is a lack of disproof of God's existence, are in a way dishonest and false.
If one claims God exists, then the proof must be given by those who claim the existence of God.

The problem with this is however that the way in which the existence of God is defined, it is impossible to either give proof of it's existence, neither give proof of it's non-existence.
Most arguments for the existence of God are based on "We can not explain X, therefore God exists", and this position is holdable, untill all posible instances of X (all existing phenomena) are satisfactory explained. That is, the proponents of the existence of God claim that only if we have reached absolute knowledge and wisdom about all phenomena in nature, we can satisfactory claim that God does not exist.

This makes any debate about the existence of God rather fruitless, because we can not expect to acquire absolute knowledge about all the material processes that went on throughout all of space in all of eternity, since such absolute knowledge is never achievable.

A more fuitfull debate would be to provide arguments why it would be good, or necessary to assume the existence of God or not assuming it.

My argument would be that to not assume the existence of God would be good, because that would leave us humans with the task to find out for ourselves how this universe works, and try to find explenations for natural phenomena.

The issue of wether or not to believe in a God is I think relative, cause such a thing can only be judged on a personal basis. If someone thinks it's right to believe in a God, who should deny this.
A strong believe in a God does not provide evidence however for the existence of a God, but only shows that in that person's value system, this belief is required to uphold some personal values and outlooks on the world. One can not and should not deny that for that person such is the case, even if one self is upholding personal values without a belief in God.

As for my personal knowledge and conviction all I can say, to the best of my ability and knowledge and truth finding, I can only say that apeart and outside my thinking, there is no existing God.
And if one asks me the question, how I can be so sure, I can answer: God told me!

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by TreMor
I opt for atheism as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported.

But the existence of natural realties is not what is in question. What is in question is it's ORIGIN. To say that natural reality "always was" contradicts the laws of physics. To say that natural realties "created themselves" also contradicts the laws of physics. A supernaturalistic conclusion is the only viable option for the origin of the universe.

While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point,

But you can't claim that; if the questions are "unanswered". To claim that the questions do not "leap" into the metaphysical is the same as acting as if the question has already been answered. If you don't know the answer to a question, you can't claim what the answer ISN'T. To rule out a possible answer implies that you already know the answer. But as long as the question is truely "unanswered", you have no basis for ruling out metaphysical/supernaturalistic possibilities. For doing so would be a case of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

He has to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and he also has to assume a written text (in this case the bible, but it could be the Qu'ran, or Bhagavad gita, etc) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical.

Actually, those are two separate issues. Theism does not have to be based on a religious text or any holy book. Consider deists. They generally do not hold their form of theism based on holy texts.

The theist is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts,

If theism is true, miracles would make perfect sense in terms of a "cohesive reality". I'll explain why below...

seas part

In a theistic universe, such events would be perfectly logical. If God could create the seas in the first place, it would be a rather small task for him to make them part, don't ya think?

dead men rise and "ascend to heaven" and so on.

In a theistic universe, such miracles would be perfectly cohesive with reality. If God could create man out of molecules in the first place, re-creating him out the same molecules would not be much of a challenge.

I think it's really interesting that Scrimshaw relates Bob's not losing analogous to his not proving invisible martians on the moon. Proving god and proving invisible martians on the moon are pretty much equally difficult to do (actually, it's easier to prove there are no invisible martians on the moon, though it would be costly).

Actually, the analogy was not in relation to Bob's not losing, but in relation to Mr. Hilston's claim that Bob had already lost the debate because he (Bob) acknowledged atheism exists. The analogy's purpose was to illustrate that it's silly to propose that someone has lost a debate based on criteria that isn't even the subject of the debate.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
But the existence of natural realties is not what is in question. What is in question is it's ORIGIN. To say that natural reality "always was" contradicts the laws of physics. To say that natural realties "created themselves" also contradicts the laws of physics. A supernaturalistic conclusion is the only viable option for the origin of the universe.

The "laws of physics" are the way human cognition best describes how the material world operates. To our best of our abilities we describe the natural world in terms of physical expressions and mathematical formulas.
However, we don't have the knowledge wether our laws of physics describe reality in all it's entirity.

This however does not mean that we have to assume, when we encounter new phenomena, not previously explained by physics laws, that there is some "supernatural" force. Instead we just found a new physics law.

But what then about the "origin of the universe" issue in relation to physics laws. Well our best guess and approach to this is to say that we can not make physics from nothing.
So, physics laws can only describe how one material reality transforms into another one. But it can never describe how a non-existing physical reality "causes" a physical reality.

In my opinion, there are no physics laws that forbid the universe to not having been there all the time.
Probably you are referring to the fact that acc. to modern cosmology and physics laws the origin of the observable universe must be brough back to a small point in space and time, which form us a observational horizon and beyond which we can not directly observe anything.
The history of the universe before that point is therefore unknown. That is all what physics and cosmology can tell us.

But this does not mean that the universe has no history beyond that point. Neither does the fact that we can not see further away then a finite distance (some 14 Giga lighyears) mean that the universe would be not bigger then this. Instead we assume the universe could be much larger, but the observational horizon (light not yet having reached us) does not permit us to see beyond that point.

A universe emerging out of nothing, is not a meaningfull concept, and can not be based on any laws (known or unknown) of physics. The fact that up to now, we do not understand the history of the universe prior to the Big bang, is in no way in conflict with the fact that the universe had a prior history.
And partly we can know this past history, based on new physical theories, which are more then wild guesses, cause these models can make predictions about the current observable universe which we can test for.

In summary, there is nothing within physics itself that would tell that the history of the universe would have to be finite, in contrary, we are dead sure, that the physical reality could not have emerged out of nothing, and no physical theory can ever sustain such a case.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
But you can't claim that; if the questions are "unanswered". To claim that the questions do not "leap" into the metaphysical is the same as acting as if the question has already been answered. If you don't know the answer to a question, you can't claim what the answer ISN'T. To rule out a possible answer implies that you already know the answer. But as long as the question is truely "unanswered", you have no basis for ruling out metaphysical/supernaturalistic possibilities. For doing so would be a case of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Your logic is invalid here. Let me give an example.

Suppose I ask you to take the square root of an incredibly large number. Now this would take you days and days to find the exact answer. So, you do not know the exact answer.
Nevertheless, when using some numeric heuristics, you might find that the answer must be a number in between some other two numbers. That is: we may exclude a whole range of numbers, as not being the answer.

Similary, even when not knowing what was the history of for example the universe prior to a specific point of time, it does not mean we have to include answers like the universe emerging out of nothing or creation acts by deities acting outside of time,space and matter into account.

 

[TreMor]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
But the existence of natural realties is not what is in question. What is in question is it's ORIGIN. To say that natural reality "always was" contradicts the laws of physics. To say that natural realties "created themselves" also contradicts the laws of physics. A supernaturalistic conclusion is the only viable option for the origin of the universe.

But you can't claim that; if the questions are "unanswered". To claim that the questions do not "leap" into the metaphysical is the same as acting as if the question has already been answered. If you don't know the answer to a question, you can't claim what the answer ISN'T. To rule out a possible answer implies that you already know the answer. But as long as the question is truely "unanswered", you have no basis for ruling out metaphysical/supernaturalistic possibilities. For doing so would be a case of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Unless one is omniscient, one cannot rule the supernatural out as a possible answer. However, by a simple excercise we can show that asserting a supernatural explanation plunges us into a world of nihilism. Consider:

In the theist worldview, what accounts for the existence of all is a Supreme Being whose mind we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, the theist claims, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to hold water. Well, what has the theist "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

Why bother with science at all then? Let's just accept the theistic, "God did it" and go back to hewing arks from cubits of gopherwood.

Actually, those are two separate issues. Theism does not have to be based on a religious text or any holy book. Consider deists. They generally do not hold their form of theism based on holy texts.

Deism is no more or less unsupported than any other form of theism but the difference is of course noted-- I am not one who confuses religion with theism (which is why I'll usually address theism, not a specific religion). However, exceptions are when the theist specifically heralds a specific religious dogma as a specific answer to an issue. You're a Christian, so when it gets down to that level, that's the playing field your theism is on.

If theism is true, miracles would make perfect sense in terms of a "cohesive reality". I'll explain why below...

In a theistic universe, such events would be perfectly logical. If God could create the seas in the first place, it would be a rather small task for him to make them part, don't ya think?

In a theistic universe, such miracles would be perfectly cohesive with reality. If God could create man out of molecules in the first place, re-creating him out the same molecules would not be much of a challenge.

Sure, these would be a small thing for him to do but you're missing the point. What is being addressed is the analogous worldviews with the empirical reality we all reside within in this existence. The theistic one purposely purports an absurd one, an existence where events counter logic and reason, something we do not see extant in any meaningful way.

If you were an extraterrestrial with no concept of theistic ideology and you met up with (and could understand) two humans, one an atheist who proffers a totally naturalistic universe, the other a theist who purports a supernatural one, which worldview would fit with empirical, day-to-day events of existence? Here on one side, a human saying, "The natural universe is real and self-induced, via laws and processes we can understand. Basic laws are never violated: a living entity dies, it stays dead. (Etc)"

On the other hand, a theist who says, "The core of existence is a supreme being who creates laws and then violates them per his whim. The dead don't necessarily stay dead, in fact, they will conclusively all rise again (Etc.)".

I do not know of any bona fide miracle. I do not see bars of solid iron floating on water, I see no one ascending to heaven, and nothing ever happens that isn't firmly within the real world. I submit that no one else has either, though the odd coincindence or lucky moment is often defined as "a miracle!" I further submit that my friend Hilston will back me up 100% by agreeing that miracles no longer occur (sic). Where he and I would differ is, I would say so it has been from the beginning, whereas he would say miracles have been suspended since Jesus.

That ET, wholly objective, has the choice of accepting one perception which complements his empirical experiences, or accepting one that violates the very reality he finds himself in.

====================

Finally, the theist worldview embraces one that has a deeply fatal flaw to it-- if one accepts that a god violates the very laws he himself put into place to make the universe a rational abode, then the theist is placed in the very precarious position of never knowing whether or not reality is what it is from moment to moment.

Consider Pharoah in the Exodus. Here is a man who may have released the slaves, but whose heart was purposely hardened by god time and again! Clearly Pharoah is just a pawn, whose reality is purposely being rigged by a supreme being, without Pharoah being made aware of it. So here we have a precedent wherein the theist can never be sure of his purported reality. Perhaps the bible says this or that today, but perhaps it says something completely different tomorrow...

And you are completely unaware that it has changed-- on an ongoing basis, it is completely different but you cannot ever tell that, nor can anyone else, because all are unable to discern the impact of the god's interference.

This is what, at the core, the theistic worldview offers as the origins of existence.

 

[jeremiah]

To Jim Hilston:

I think that Scrimshaw has understood your reasons for quoting Proverbs, and that he has refuted the reasoning that you give for continuing in your initial statement. I do not know if you realize this yet, or if you are just being stubborn. Obviously only you can know this for sure.
Let me give you a different perspective, that might help. Zakath is not an ordinary atheist. I don't remember his exact bio, but he used to pastor a couple of churches, and I think he started a Church and a Christian school. When I first came to TOL, he immediately challenged me on my beliefs in Christ and in the Word of God. He went on what, I consider, tirades against God and against His Book, and also against His people. I told him that he was sinning by doing so. He said that it didn"t matter to him, since he was sure that there was no God. I then told him that I would not discuss the Bible with him again, because I did not want him to sin by the words that he wrote. I would be partly responsible for his sin, even though Zakath is doing it willfully, and "perhaps" unknowingly.
I am actually very glad that, so far, Bob is simply arguing for the existence of God on a philosophic and scientific basis. The exact opposite of your view.
If Bob mentions Christ or the Bible, Zakath will probably harangue against the one true God, and it will be a sin. Yes, he does this every day on TOL anyway. BUT that is what I would call, "answering a fool according to his folly." I will probably have fewer people agree with me, than you have agreeing with you, but that is how I feel about dealing with someone like Zakath. He has rejected the blood of Christ, and there is no other sacrifice for sin. He has left Christ "to open shame"!
Would you quote the Bible to Bill Clinton, "thou shalt not commit adultery", and then leave him alone in a room with someone's wife?
Would you quote the commandment "thou shalt not murder" to a suicide bomber, and then allow him to cross into Israel, if you were a border guard?
Would you leave a child alone in the presence of a man who has a reputation as a pedophile, and quote him a Bible verse as you leave?
Atheism is, according to the Bible, a fool's belief. Yet the way that some atheists talk about Christ, his Word, and His Spirit is every bit as sinful, and perhaps even worse, if done willfully, then all the sins that I have just mentioned.
You can all disagree with me, but that is how I feel.
The only really good outcome for this debate is if Zakath repents, or a looker on comes to faith in God. That is what I am hoping for, as are many others, I believe!

 

[Hilston]

A house divided ...

A house divided ...

Hi Aussie,

I've been busy, but eager to return to this discussion. I hope my window of opportunity hasn't shut.

Aussie Thinker writes:

As far as justification.. why does [logic] need to be justified?

Because we are discussing matters that are ultimate in nature. In a debate between worldviews, we want to ascertain whose worldview is not correct and whose is correct, if either. To do that we must question, not the evidence itself because we will disagree based on our competing worldviews, but rather the underlying presuppositions that govern our assessment of evidence. You have admitted to putting your faith in logic and reason. I want to know if you can justify your reliance upon them, or if you blindly assume them.

Aussie Thinker writes:

As far as borrowing tools from the Christian Theistic worldview.. sorry but that is just nonsense. Man used reason and logic long before Christians came along.

Christ is eternal. By using logic and reason, one is benefitting from the realities of the Christian (Christ-created) world and its worldview.

Aussie Thinker writes:

You still have a problem with mysticising our intelligence !

That's the second time you've said this, and I would say that it is you who have the problem with naively (or disingenuously) de-mystifying it. You might get away with these specious claims about how everything has been figured out, but it's simply not true. Cognitive scientists and theorists continual to wrestle with this. Now, I'm not saying they couldn't all suddenly agree tomorrow and then the whole atheist world would be elated. But to suggest that this is a done deal is either dishonest or naive.

Aussie Thinker writes:

LOGIC therefore dictates we look for a natural explanation for everything.

How does logic dictate that? Are you a materialist, Aussie? Do you believe in the existence of anything non-material? From what you write below, it seems you are a materialist.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Logic is a non-material thing about material things.

But would you say that logic exists?

Aussie Thinker writes:

You seem very hung up on the idea that the existence of logic requires a creator. You are struggling to demonstrate why

How do orderly invariant universal laws spring out of chaos?

Aussie Thinker writes:

.. just saying it does doesn’t mean it is so. The NATURAL order of things from which logic stems is just that a NATURAL order.. the things we see are ordered because chaos would not last in a Natural world.

Why would chaos not last? Is order some kind of natural imperative?

Jim previously asked: Take a step back. By what method have you determined the reliability of these criteria to establish facts?

Aussie Thinker writes:

The same method we all use. Logic reason, likelihood, independent corroboration scientific study in fact all our human evolved senses for gleaning the truth.

You didn't answer the question. By what method have you determined the reliability of logic, reason, likelihood, independent corroboration of scientific study? What meta-method establishes the veracity of these methods?

Jim previously wrote: As I indicated above, the tools I use to assess truth claims come from God Himself. Given God's existence, I have assurance that my faculties are generally reliable and that my assessments actually comport with reality. Where does your assurance come from, given your Godless view, materialist view?

Aussie Thinker writes:

My own assurance comes from by knowledge that (matrix situations aside) I exist and I can think and reason.

How do you know you can think and reason in accordance with actual reality?

Aussie Thinker writes:

Jim it is pointless to go into the argument about our own perceived reality. We just accept the fact that we are here and most of us are sane. Otherwise it is pointless to continue.. more Matrix stuff.

We just accept it? But that's not a justification. And in a discussion between competing worldviews, that's not a sufficient answer.

Aussie Thinker writes:

You keep referring to Faith.. people whose lives revolve around faith have this strange notion that EVERYONE therefore has a life philosophy that relies on faith.

You just admitted to not only having faith, but a blind faith, in your own sanity and ability to reason in accordance with actual reality.

Aussie Thinker writes:

If I have anything like faith it is in a Natural answer to everything..

Do you recognize that you then deliberately preclude even the possibility that there is more than the so-called natural in the universe? For someone who claims to be a freethinker, that seems a bit prejudiced, doesn't it?

Aussie Thinker writes:

But this is hardly faith.. Faith is something which you believe in regardless of physical evidence or knowledge.. that is something for theists.

By limiting yourself to physical evidence, you are blindly precluding the possibility of any super-natural, or transcending so-called nature. You have committed the very thing you condemn, and that by stipulating a limit which you cannot justify.

Aussie Thinker writes:

The sort of circuitous argument I am talking about is where you believe something to be so and this therefore justifies everything else.

That's exactly what you are doing by limiting what you will accept as evidence and blindly believing that only what is material is real. You believe that materialism is true and this therefore justifies everything else you believe. But you haven't given a cogent justification for why you limit reality to what is material, let alone your blind acceptance of immaterial laws such as logic.

Jim previously wrote: Are you then saying that logical laws are contingent and not universal? On your view, was modus ponens true before humans existed to think about it?

Aussie Thinker writes:

No.. they are.. therefore making the likelihood of a deity even LESS. Natural order.

You've just violated your own tenets. You believe in the existence of immaterial universal and invariant laws, but you cannot justify your reliance upon them. Then you stipulate that only physical evidence is acceptable and only the material is real, but that somehow doesn't apply to the immaterial laws of logic or to the scientific method? Isn't that hypocritical?

Aussie Thinker writes:

... aberrant behaviour like masochism aside..

What determines what is "aberrant behaviour"? The majority?

Jim previously asked: How have you tested the verity of human intelligence? By using human intelligence? You realize that is circuitous, right?

Aussie Thinker writes:

Well it is necessarily circuitous as our intelligence is our only means of communicating any ideas at all.

There goes your blind faith again. You blindly assume this, with no means of proving or justifying it.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Well I am disallowing circuitous arguments that stem from opinion.

Your circuituous argument doesn't stem from opinion?

Aussie Thinker writes:

It will always beg the question of who made God or what proceeded God or if he always existed why couldn’t the Universe. Does God use logic.. it seems so if he made an ordered universe.. if so (by your reasoning) it implies he had a creator.. etc etc.

I'm glad you mentioned this so we can disabuse you of it for future reference. It is pointless to try to argue infinite regresses where God is concerned if indeed the existence of the God of the Bible is true. You might view it as some point of logic, but it is certainly, by no means, a logical imperative.

Aussie Thinker writes:

He is a God that ordered death and destruction and yet claims to be loving..

On your view, why does it matter? If morality is not absolute, then what justified complaint can you have?

Aussie Thinker writes:

He is a God that killed the almost entire population of humans on the planet including Children..

Again, why is that bad on your view? How do you justify that value assessment?

Aussie Thinker writes:

... he is a God that commands worship.. a trait that would seem petty in of humans..

For the record, He commands worship, but He doesn't need it. In the Creator-creature relationship, worship is necessary for the well-being of the creature, namely man. It is not merely that God demands (He does, and justifiably so), but it is also what man was created to do, and man is only fulfilled and in proper relation to reality when properly ascribes worth to God.

Aussie Thinker writes:

he is a God that banishes people to Hell for the sin of not knowing him yet he gives no real evidence for his existence.. etc etc.

Aussie, you have yet to cogently justify what you call "real evidence," let alone lobbing a complaint against God on the basis of some willy-nilly blindly assumed criterion that you so conveniently stipulate.

Aussie Thinker writes:

[The Bible] calls me a fool for using logic.

More specifically, the Bible calls you a fool for using logic AND blindly assuming that these immaterial universal and invariant logical laws just sprung up out of chaos and the void into existence.

Aussie Thinker writes:

I have a completely rational basis for all the tools in my worldview I have explained it above.

Do you forget that you admitted to "accepting" them without justification?

Aussie Thinker writes:

You know if he really existed he would make and obvious appearance and not all this “Well look at the beauty around you stuff”.. stuff that.. why don’t you just put in a simple appearance.. that would clear things up.

He has given you more than enough, yet you still reject it. That is why the Bible calls you a fool. You blindly assume that the material universe disallows the existence of immaterial entities, yet you claim that logical laws (immaterial entities) are you standard for determining what is true and what is false. It's irrational, Aussie.

Jim previously wrote: On your own anti-theistic worldview, you cannot make consistent and rational sense out of these things in your daily experience. If we're all molecules in motion and electrical pulses in the brain organ and the result of undirected natural processes, such things as logic and science make no sense. You must somehow believe that things can become their opposites. That disorder and chaos can generate order, that non-living matter can become a living organism, that non-conciousness can become consciousness and self-awareness, and that an undirected and random universe can generate logical laws.

Aussie Thinker writes:

And you go one step further than me and make a creature that can come from nothing or always was.

Correction: God is not a creature. He is the eternal Creator.

Aussie Thinker writes:

I much prefer to stop at a simpler version of it always was thanks. That is LOGICAL.

You have no trouble assuming that the immaterial laws of logic have always existed and presume to use them to ascertain reality. But you refuse to accept God, who is back of those very things you blindly assume and employ, and why? Why do you blindly accept one (the invariance and eternality of logical laws) yet you flatly reject the other (the existence of God)? Is it just because it is one additional step? It's a step that is rational. Without that "additional step" you have an incoherent, inconsistent, and self-refuting worldview. By taking the additional step, everything makes perfect sense.

Jim previously wrote: God has been making Himself known to me my entire life, ...

Aussie Thinker writes:

No he hasn’t, you are just adding in a fantasy explanation for everything you see.

Not at all. It is a rational explanation that exclusively unifies my experience with reality. It grounds my assumptions and validates everything I see, sense, think and experience. On your view, you must blindly and irrationally try to make sense of conflicting standards that you cannot justify and makes your worldview irrational.

Aussie Thinker writes:

... Have you ever noticed you can’t give me ONE real and obvious way in which he makes himself known.. it is always.. through his creation.. through our own amazing abilities.. etc.. why is it this God NEVER makes himself known in some obvious verifiable way.. logic again would dictate he hasn’t because he doesn’t exist.

When Jesus was on earth, performing miracles, doing the impossible, did more people believe in Him? No. Because when you put it in people's faces, the way you're demanding, people do not believe -- they resent. Jesus said that even if a man were to rise from the dead, people would still not believe. It's not for a lack of evidence. It's a hatred of God and of His demands upon people's lives. He calls you to account, Aussie, and you're found wanting. He has given sufficient evidence, and while you suppress it and deny it today, you will someday be reminded why you have no excuse, no defense, no alibli before God.

Aussie Thinker writes:

As I said above.. nothing of normal evidence just your feelings.

Until you can justify your criteria and cogently define and account for what you call "normal evidence," you should probably stop using the term. Just say instead: "[God provides] no evidence that meet my blindly assumed criteria."

Aussie Thinker writes:

Why is that our emotions and ability to reason have to make sense ? They evolved like everything else. Cats and Dogs seem to have love and hate too.. they just evolved it. It is your own personal NEED to have them make sense that makes you think their must be a higher purpose or a God.

If this were a formal debate, Aussie, I would declare you the loser based on your previous paragraph. You've basically admitted that coherence and intelligibility are not important to your worldview, and this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. You admit to embracing a worldview in which not everything makes sense and somehow that's OK for you. You are confronted every day with God's existence, and secondarily by this very discussion, and you reject that which would make all of your experience, your logic, your perceptions, and your understanding of reality itself make sense. Again, this is why the Bible calls you a fool. And again, I'm not name-calling. You seem to be a nice guy, and I'm willing to bet we could be good friends given the right circumstances. But this is how the Bible characterizes you.

Since you mentioned several times your opinion that Christianity derives from pagan religions, I should point out to you that (a) if the Bible is true, then (b) true religion has been around longer than pagan religion, and (c) mankind would have perverted and distorted true religious practices and beliefs and thereby developed what became pagan religions and practices. Thus, logically, (d) any similarities between pagan religions and true religion should be expected, and (e) it is therefore merely your erroneous assumption based on your unjustified worldview that pagan religion predates true religion.

Jim previously asked: Prove to me that you haven't done this very thing regarding your reliance upon the laws of logic, the precepts of science, and the verity of your rational faculties.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Because arguing outside these laws etc is pointless.

Au contraire, as demonstrated above. On your view, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense. Of course, you know that just doesn't satisfy and flies in the face of everything we experience in reality.

Aussie Thinker writes:

... I could just say God created us all Yesterday with our memories and everything else..

Sure you could. I've said this very thing myself in debates with people like yourself. How would you know otherwise? How would you go about testing it? Could you? How?

Aussie Thinker writes:

... we have to accept that laws of logic and science are out only way of examining our universe without being hamstrung by pre conceived notions of God.

And there's the bottom line on your view. It's ok to blindly accept logic and science as being valid methods of inquiry, even though you can neither test them nor validate them. Yet, when presented with God and His existence and attributes, you reject Him because you claim you can neither test Him nor validate Him. It's irrational to accept former and reject the Latter, especially when the existence and attributes of the Latter solves the problem of the former.

Aussie Thinker writes:

You trouble is your God is already the answer to everything .. so why bother studying anything else at all.

Why bother? Because we're created to have knowledge. To investigate and learn about our environments and our world. We're designed to be creative, to solve problems, to better our lives and that of those around us. This is how God is worshipped when He is acknowledged as the Creator of all this. I know many scientists who are Christians. When they do their work in the field, in their laboratories, in the libraries, they are worshipping God.

Jim previously wrote: You didn't answer my request, Aussie. Please, if you can, prove to me that you haven't, in head-in-sand fashion, blindly accepted the uniformity of the laws of logic, the requirments and reliability of the scientific method, and the veracity of your senses and reason.

Aussie Thinker writes:

We have to have some basis for argument and the scientific, logic method at least starts with an even playing field.

That's not the case. It's not a level field because you come to the table using tools which you cannot justify, espousing a worldview does not cohere and does not align with reality. I use the tools justifiably, because my Creator is back of them, and my worldview coheres and aligns with reality.

Aussie Thinker writes:

[the logic, scientific method] neither includes or excludes a deity.

Without God, logic and science could not exist.

Aussie Thinker writes:

If you say Black is White and stick to it I can’t convince you otherwise.

On my worldview, the differences between Black and White make sense. On yours, you must merely blindly accept the tools by which you evaluate those differences, and so, as you said above, why must it make sense at all? Why not say black is white? On your worldview, as you admit above, it really doesn't have to make sense. It's irrational, Aussie.

Jim