Battle Talk ~ BR IX
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
mighty_duck
New member
SUTG said:
Of course not. It was probably an act of god.
I dare you to prove me wrong
Hi m_d,
I appreciate your concern regarding the level of heat in our discussion. When exchanges begin to multiply, I try to say things more tersely and I can come off as abrupt. I am often miscontrued as being abrasive, annoying and other a-words. It is rarely my intent to offend; and when I do want to offend, I make sure it is obvious. It's not difficult to get caught up in the excitement of the exchange and to forget that there is a human being with feelings and sensibilities at the other end. I am enjoying our exchange and I do not want to give the impression that I'm trying to disparage you in any way.
I appreciate your concern regarding the level of heat in our discussion. When exchanges begin to multiply, I try to say things more tersely and I can come off as abrupt. I am often miscontrued as being abrasive, annoying and other a-words. It is rarely my intent to offend; and when I do want to offend, I make sure it is obvious. It's not difficult to get caught up in the excitement of the exchange and to forget that there is a human being with feelings and sensibilities at the other end. I am enjoying our exchange and I do not want to give the impression that I'm trying to disparage you in any way.
Hilston said:
They're not the same. A presupposition is nothing like an axiom, m_d.mighty_duck said:
Not at all. There are plenty of untrue and unjustified presuppositions that people hold. I would agree with Greg L. Bahnsen's definition of a presupposition:mighty_duck said:
"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]
I don't have axioms, m_d. For the Creationist, the use and application of the laws of logic, the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature are justified because of the existence and attributes of God. The laws of logic and the principle of induction can be relied upon as universal and invariant because they reflect the nature of God. The uniformity of nature is assured because of the sovereign control of God upon His creation. The Methodological Naturalist has no justifiable grounds on which to take these laws as reliable, let alone proceeding on the assumption that they will continue to work. That is not to say that they don't work. That is not to say that their use is not reliable. That IS to say that the Methdological Naturalist must pretend to be a Creationist in order to use them at all.mighty_duck said:
I reject the conflation of presupposition and axiom. As presuppositions, those are correct.mighty_duck said:
No, my worldview comes pre-built. It's not "mine," per se. It's what the Bible teaches.mighty_duck said:
No. When a competing worldview comes along, I look at its claims and I ask: Does this view provide a way of making human experience intelligible and can it account for the things we all take for granted, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, moral standards, etc.? One way of approaching this assessment is to ask what the competing view has to offer as necessary and sufficient conditions for the intelligibility of human experience and rationality to be possible. When it fails (and all non-Biblical worldviews inevitably do), then that worldview is determined to be irrational.mighty_duck said:
I don't agree with it. It is irrational and self-refuting to exclude the extra-natural from one's science. The very notion undermines reality. If the extra-natural were excluded, the tools of science, such as the extra-natural principle of induction, would be excluded. It is self-refuting. If the extra-natural were not present in every atom, reality would obliterate. Then we wouldn't have to worry about induction.mighty_duck said:
Methodological Naturalism is therefore flawed, because it has the internal conflict of excluding the extra-natural, which is itself an extra-natural stipulation.mighty_duck said:
In all of your examples, you assume induction and the uniformity of nature. According to the exclusions stated by MN, there is no reason to assume that a certain stimulus that caused pain today will cause pain tomorrow. There is no justifiable reason to assume that gravity that works today will work tomorrow. You're pretending to be a Creationist.mighty_duck said:
The very concept of "model" is creationistic. You have to presume upon the Creationist worldview to even conceive of such a thing as a "model."mighty_duck said:
Hilston said:
sentientsynth
New member
Stratnerd said:
Hey Stratnerd,
Guess what I want to be when I grow up?
An ecologist!! :doh:
If it feels right, do it. Right?
SS
mighty_duck
New member
Jim,
I'm enjoying this dialog as well. You're one of the better TAGers I've seen. It is unfortunate that your weapon of choice is fatally flawed, but it is a credit to you as a debater to carry on wielding it so well.
Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type. I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification. I still claim that we all use axioms, even a creationist, but more on this at a later time.
Here's my problem. There are really two issues at hand, but they are intertwined, and difficult to separate. You seem to be using only one at a time, pulling out the one that suits your purposes.
1. The verity of a presupposition.
2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.
What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational. Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.
This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule. If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion. Otherwise you are question begging. It would be like me presupposing that Jesus was actually Satan, and then dismissing anything you say because you are really a lying cheating Satan worshiper, therefore proving my case.
#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means. It is also ambiguous, as you have shown:
You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform. Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.
I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?
You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God. You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.
I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.
As stratned so eloquently demonstrated in his 5th post, science CAN'T consider supernatural causes, since we can't say anything about them. I'll leave this point open though, as it infringes too closely on the actual formal debate at hand. I'm sure you will give a more detailed response in your next debate post.
I'm enjoying this dialog as well. You're one of the better TAGers I've seen. It is unfortunate that your weapon of choice is fatally flawed, but it is a credit to you as a debater to carry on wielding it so well.
Hilston said:
Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type. I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification. I still claim that we all use axioms, even a creationist, but more on this at a later time.
Hilston said:
Here's my problem. There are really two issues at hand, but they are intertwined, and difficult to separate. You seem to be using only one at a time, pulling out the one that suits your purposes.
1. The verity of a presupposition.
2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.
What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational. Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.
This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule. If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion. Otherwise you are question begging. It would be like me presupposing that Jesus was actually Satan, and then dismissing anything you say because you are really a lying cheating Satan worshiper, therefore proving my case.
#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means. It is also ambiguous, as you have shown:
You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform. Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.
I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?
You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God. You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.
I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.
Hilston said:
As stratned so eloquently demonstrated in his 5th post, science CAN'T consider supernatural causes, since we can't say anything about them. I'll leave this point open though, as it infringes too closely on the actual formal debate at hand. I'm sure you will give a more detailed response in your next debate post.
A strong Case
A strong Case
A strong Case
When the West Saxons captured Glastonbury there already existed there, as at Glendalough or Clonmacnoise, a group of small churches built in typical Celtic fashion and occupied by the British monks. One of these, the oldest and most venerated of all, the vetusta ecclesia or lignea basilica, was preserved, and by its survival stamped the later buildings at Glastonbury with their special character.You do have good points about truths being mixed in with legends.Mr Jack said:
sentientsynth
New member
Stratnerd said:
Dr. Stacey Mixon is a physical chemist. He and I have discussed these topics on occassion and he is very aware that what pins his methodology to reality is the super-natural imposition of God's nature upon reality. Perhaps I can get him to post in this forum under his own name. But just so you know, Stratnerd, there is at least one scientist that takes this question seriously (and there are others, I'm sure.) Bottom line:. Not everyone is capable of the compartmentalization and double-think that you would like them to be.
SS
Metalking said:
I live in Glastonbury CT. While we do not have the oldest church we do have the oldest continuously operating ferry in the US. It shuts down when the river ices over but other than that it has been ferrying people, horses, and now a few cars at a time, over the Connecticut River since 1655.
I have to say that as a Christian with honest questions about evolution, I have found this debate to be very disappointing and of no value whatsoever so far. So far as I have seen, there has been no actual discussion of the topic yet.
Hilston has attempted to take it off into a pure philosophical direction, as if, like the ancient Greek philosophers, he felt the answers could be determined without crass, materialistic things like the actual evidence. He argues that it is a waste of time to look at evidence, because everyone will simply interpret the evidence according to their own biases. Sorry, but they will also evaluate his philosophical meanderings by the same standard. It is a fundamental principle that you cannot determine whether God exists by pure reason alone, yet that seems to be his approach.
Hilston says:
a) He has an unshakable faith in God.
b) He has an unshakable belief that God contradicted evolution.
In that case, there really is no opportunity for discussion of the evidence for evolution.
Hilston shows an extremely facile debating style that is most impressive. It is most impressive at being able to sound like he's winning without ever making any sense. His approach that evolution must be false because God says so, and our only tools for evaluating the evidence are God given, therefore ipso facto, his case is proven, is absolutely and totally circular, yet so well stated as to obscure that reality.
I really don't care to hear this subject argued on a basis of pure philosophy. It appears to be that neither scientists nor Christians would either. Scientists want testable evidence. Christians should distrust philosphy.
In my view, the whole question of evolution boils down to this: If Evolution is impossible, then creation had to have occurred, so there must be a God. If evolution can be proven, then there might not need to be a God (though there could be). Scientists assert that they can prove that evolution occurred. If we tell them we are uninterested in hearing their evidence because our minds are already made up, they have good reason to discount our opinion, both about evolution, and also about God.
In short, I would really love to see a true consideration of the factual evidence for and against evolution, with each side competently defended. It does not appear that this is going to happen in this debate. Stratnerd seems willing, but Hilston doesn't want it to go there. Although my bias and leaning is heavily toward creation rather than evolution, and I doubt evolution for both religious and scientific reasons, Hilston's apparent avoidance of consideration of the science makes his case look weak to me.
Hilston has attempted to take it off into a pure philosophical direction, as if, like the ancient Greek philosophers, he felt the answers could be determined without crass, materialistic things like the actual evidence. He argues that it is a waste of time to look at evidence, because everyone will simply interpret the evidence according to their own biases. Sorry, but they will also evaluate his philosophical meanderings by the same standard. It is a fundamental principle that you cannot determine whether God exists by pure reason alone, yet that seems to be his approach.
Hilston says:
a) He has an unshakable faith in God.
b) He has an unshakable belief that God contradicted evolution.
In that case, there really is no opportunity for discussion of the evidence for evolution.
Hilston shows an extremely facile debating style that is most impressive. It is most impressive at being able to sound like he's winning without ever making any sense. His approach that evolution must be false because God says so, and our only tools for evaluating the evidence are God given, therefore ipso facto, his case is proven, is absolutely and totally circular, yet so well stated as to obscure that reality.
I really don't care to hear this subject argued on a basis of pure philosophy. It appears to be that neither scientists nor Christians would either. Scientists want testable evidence. Christians should distrust philosphy.
In my view, the whole question of evolution boils down to this: If Evolution is impossible, then creation had to have occurred, so there must be a God. If evolution can be proven, then there might not need to be a God (though there could be). Scientists assert that they can prove that evolution occurred. If we tell them we are uninterested in hearing their evidence because our minds are already made up, they have good reason to discount our opinion, both about evolution, and also about God.
In short, I would really love to see a true consideration of the factual evidence for and against evolution, with each side competently defended. It does not appear that this is going to happen in this debate. Stratnerd seems willing, but Hilston doesn't want it to go there. Although my bias and leaning is heavily toward creation rather than evolution, and I doubt evolution for both religious and scientific reasons, Hilston's apparent avoidance of consideration of the science makes his case look weak to me.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Debates in which scientists throw evidence at each other have been done. Scores of books have been written on the subject. You should have more than enough evidence available to make up your mind. I think a new approach to the subject is refreshing. I also thought the debate would be about the evidence for evolution, but according to both participants, its not about that. The topic concerns what is valid science and what is not, which I think, demands a rather philosophical approach. And I think the answer will depend heavily on each person's worldview, so I think Hilston is hitting the nail on the head. Your disatisfaction with the debate seems to come from a misunderstanding of the topic.Alethia said:
Yes, you could be right about that. I probably misunderstood the topic. Whether or not Evolution is "science" seems to me to a far less interesting, important or relevant question than whether it is the true. If the debate is only about whether it meets someone's definition of "science" then I really don't much care, as that is merely a semantic discussion. What you call it is not nearly so important as whether it works, and whether it actually happened. A philosophical or semantic debate about what is truly "science" could be interesting, but then can we debate whether psychology and psychiatry are "science"? Is economics "science"? Is "rocket science" actually "science" or is it really "engineering" (the latter is generally agreed to be true, but the question is not really, shall we say, rocket science). Fun, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing. Then we can move on to numerating terpsicorian messengers on pinheads.GuySmiley said:
Yes, scores of books have been written about it, but almost all of them are one-sided, one way or the other. The books tend to either highly technical books that I cannot readily follow and that assume evolution to be true; condescending popularizations which assume evolution to be true; or religious based arguments that assume it to be false. How exactly should I make up my mind among those? I'm not really all that sure. It is true that most people's answer depends on their pre-existing "worldview," and I would like to take a look at the issue in as unbiased a way as possible by letting proponents of each side debate it, so I can better evaluate their arguments.
The fundamental assumption seems to be that everyone's mind is made up by their (choose your own word carefully here) "worldview", "presuppositions", "biases" or whatever you call it. I don't think that is totally true, or at least, I hope not. If it is, then discussion is a total waste of time anyway and why bother? If it is, then all those books are a waste of ink. I concede that people are heavily influenced, but I think that people do have the ability to overcome that, otherwise, I am merely a victim of whatever I already believe, and I am stuck with it. The very fact that I can raise the question proves to me that I am capable of rising above my biases to some degree. I does not appear to me that Hilston is able to do so. His "worldview" is his answer.
mighty_duck
New member
GuySmiley said:
You'd be surprised, but TAG (Transcendent Argument for God) debates have also been done. Many times. I can give you links if you'd like.
The reason there aren't scores of books about them, is that it is a very weak argument. It is readily refuted with a little work, as we are trying to demonstrate to Hilston on this thread. The debate topic is a bit dishonest though, if you want a TAG debate go ahead and state it up front.
Instead of working on a common ground which everyone can agree on, the TAGer tries to move the debate to more favorouble ground. This makes it very uninteresting. If creationism were true, there would be no reason to presuppose it to prove it, all the evidence would be pointing to that conclusion. It's not like scientists sat around and presupposed a 5 Billion year old earth, they came to that conclusion from multiple sources, based on observation. This included honest Christian scientists, who may have wished to confirm the Bible, but stuck to the scientific method.
mighty_duck
New member
sentientsynth said:
This may be true, SS. Some scientists are also part time philosophers, and can hold any theistic conclusions they like.
But if this physical chemist ever introduced the super natural in a hypothesis, or discards an observation because it conflicts with the Bible, he has ceased using the scientific method.
I doubt there is one mention of the above in any of his work. Also, believing in God is a far cry from being a Biblical literalist.
- Status