Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[SUTG]

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

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

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

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


You heard it here first, folks!

 

[mighty_duck]

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

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

Your inerrant Bible is falsified a hundred times over.

All science ... except creation science.

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

Non-sequitur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SS

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

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

Question. Do animals have morals?

 

[mighty_duck]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is your ticket out of grounding your God axiom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metalking]

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

 

[sentientsynth]

This is what I am looking for, confirmation from an unbiased source. Care to share?

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

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

Aren't all the gospels eye witness sources?

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

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

As soon as the individual showed any sign of congenital defect or sickness, yes. Over generations the members of such a society would become extra-ordinarily strong. Furthermore, murdering those members of the society who could not contribute would free up things such as food and water for those members who are strong and healthy. You should read Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, or Nietzsche, who took Evolution to their logical conclusions, something today's atheists are far too timid to pull off.

Question. Do animals have morals?

Any answer to this question would be an anthropomorphication.


SS

 

[sentientsynth]

Anthony Flew's Conversion

Anthony Flew's Conversion

Gary Habermas interviewed Anthony Flew about his conversion. It's a very interesting read. Requires Adobe Reader.

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

Gary Habermas interviewed Anthony Flew about his conversion. It's a very interesting read. Requires Adobe Reader.

SS

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

 

[mighty_duck]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sentientsynth]

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

As I've already said, the accounts are divergent (not faulty), yet non-contradictory. Exactly what we should expect from noncollusive eye-witness reports. Such speaks to their veracity. The greater difficulty the student has with completely harmonizing the accounts, the more we are assured that these documents haven't been tampered with. One source remembers one thing one way, another source in another way, like you find in any modern day trial. The main points are in every account though. 1. Jesus was crucified. 2. Jesus arose the third day. 3. Jesus was seen by many people for a forty day period after his resurrection. The supporting details are given in divergent, yet noncontradicting manner.

Why are the attributes of The Biblical God NECESSARY?

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

How does the FSM fail in grounding reality?

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

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sentientsynth]

Only a God that sent [H]is on to be sacrificed to himself can be the ontological foundation for [m]orality because...

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

SS

 

[truthteller86]

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

SS

:BRAVO:

 

[mighty_duck]

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

SS

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

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

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

 

[sentientsynth]

I asked why the Christian God is necessary.

To provide ontological bases for the axioms of knowledge and the aspects of existence..

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

Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)

And I am guessing you don't have a reason to object to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possible foundation for all axioms.

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

If you are just going by what feels right, or makes the most sense, that's fine. The FSM does sound silly, and I am all for selecting the most reasonable option.

True, I value both intuition and reasonability. Your presentation of the nature of FSM has been protean, making it up as you go along. The true Living God has testified for all mankind and his Book is the world's bestseller ever. Bringing up silliness such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes people not take you seriously. As a fallible human being, you ought not think you are clever enough to make up a god that will pass the test.

TAG and Hilston just make a stronger claim, and I was hoping someone would be able to back it up.

I still have yet to find out what TAG means, but if you carefully read what I've written thus far, I too have supported that the inexistence of God is impossible to defend rationally, as reason itself must have an ontological basis, the only possibility of which is a rational God. If you deny a rational God then you have no basis for assuming the uniformity of nature, just as Bertrand Russell correctly pointed out. I'm sorry if you've become disinterested. It is the advantage of the Christian that he knows he is fighting for a worthy cause, even if he must put up with such nonsense as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)

So God was not moral before He sent his Son here?

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

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

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

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

 

[sentientsynth]

So God was not moral before He sent his Son here?

Right when sin entered the world, God had this plan. He is eternally righteous.

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

He would either be completely just and thereby unloving or completely loving and thereby unjust. The problem of man's evil must be resolved without a violation of either of these. The true Living God is perfectly balanced in His justice and His love.

Why must Her character be the same as what She created?

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

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

The problem is that you don't believe this. Also, from the info you've provided about your FSM, she is internally incoherent. If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love. (And of course any being the indiscriminately murders isn't love.) Either that or love does not truly exist, but is an illusion.

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

SS

 

[Johnny]

Bringing up silliness such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes people not take you seriously. As a fallible human being, you ought not think you are clever enough to make up a god that will pass the test.

No, bringing up the such silliness as the flying spaghetti monster reveals just how silly your entire argument is. Frankly, I'm disappointed Hilston is still pushing this crap.

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

 

[Johnny]

Also, from the info you've provided about your FSM, she is internally incoherent. If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love. (And of course any being the indiscriminately murders isn't love.) Either that or love does not truly exist, but is an illusion.

FSM says you're using the Christian defintion of love. If you would read her book and use it as your foundation for love, as you do the Bible, then you would find that she is internally coherent and is qualified as the ontological basis for love.

 

[sentientsynth]

FSM says you're using the Christian defintion of love. If you would read her book and use it as your foundation for love, as you do the Bible, then you would find that she is internally coherent and is qualified as the ontological basis for love.

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

 

[Mr Jack]

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

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

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

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

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

Again, so what?