Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Johnny]

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

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

 

[mighty_duck]

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

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

 

[truthteller86]

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

 

[fool]

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

From Stratnerd's OP

now off to Christmas shop, write two lectures, a lab exam, a final exam, finish a manuscript, review of manuscript, learn R and nonmetric nondimensional scaling, and bottle my first home brew!

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

 

[2ephesians8]

From Stratnerd's OP

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

Buzzz, wrong answer. Please play again.

 

[fool]

Buzzz, wrong answer. Please play again.

Did Hilston mention beer? :doh:

 

[2ephesians8]

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


True Redneck info fo' sho'!

 

[truthteller86]

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


True Redneck info fo' sho'!

To prevent any further disruption to this thread, I submit: Battle Royale IX: The Redneck Version

 

[Carver]

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

I think the best and most fair solution would be to have them both send their beginning posts to you, and then you post them both at the same time, but I have absolutely no clue if that's feasable.

 

[Carver]

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

 

[Hilston]

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is dead." ~ Al Dente (1764-1814)

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is dead." ~ Al Dente (1764-1814)

Greetings Grandstanders,

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

SUTG

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

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

The Berean

Then you [SUTG] are saying the "theory" is not "science", right?

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

mighty_duck

I hope this debate won't get too bogged down in terminology. It would be unfortunate to reach round 7 when the debaters still have trouble agreeing on basics.

I agree with you, m_d. I will do my best to make sure the discussion does not slip into that muddy gultch.

Hilston's case is largely based on agreeing to favorable terminology, so I doubt he would make many concessions here.

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

4. His definition of faith should raise some objections.

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

5. Winning the debate. Hilston recognizes that no one is actually going to admit defeat here, and is laying the groundwork to claim he has won.

I can see how you would view this as a pre-emptive strategy toward claiming victory. And since you've pointed it out, perhaps I will actually do that. But seriously, it's not a matter of simply making a claim at the conclusion of the debate. I should be able to demonstrate the cogency of my arguments and the incoherence of my opponent's. My summation might not be persuasive, but if I am to declare victory in the end, it had better be coherent.

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

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

It's very astute of you to recognize the different tack employed by my statement that you quoted. However, in my defense, it is not a departure from my chosen path, but rather the other wheel of the vehicle I use to navigate that path.

fool

But then he falls in this hole.

The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions. The foundation of this principle is the existence and attributes of God and His maintenance of the universe.

It's like saying "if you don't believe in the Flying Spigetti Monster you nave no foundation to believe anything."

I often see these kinds of claims, suggesting that the Biblical conception of God can be merely replaced by any number of imagined entities (Coke cans, Spaghetti Dieties, etc.). The problem with this approach is twofold: First, I've yet to meet someone who starts off with such inane boasts to carry them through. In other words, those who offer up such propositions will not defend them because they don't really believe their own proposition. Competing worldviews cannot be adequately compared if one of the views is not seriously put forth and affirmed. Second, whenever I've pressed those who make such suggestions to begin to describe the nature and attributes of their Coke can deity or their Pasta Papa in the Sky, the ostensible votaries inevitably back down. This is because they realize where my questions will lead, namely, to a description that begins to match in varied respects the true God as revealed in the Bible.

It seems to this Atheist that Theists want you to believe in some kind of God, no matter which God, cause you can't know anything unless you first believe.

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

If this were true, then An Unbeliever would invariably come to the wrong conclusion, or a correct conclusion that was somehow conterfiet?

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

How do you tell the difference between a correct conclusion and a conterfiet correct conclusion?

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

Seems as though if you use Hilstons standard the foundational logic of any conclusion would depend on the positors state of believing in God or not Believing in God.

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

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

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

So if you asked Hilston "here is a statement by person a, is it a correct conclusion? or a conterfiet correct conclusion?" he could only respond with "it depends on what the person thinks now ".

My rejoinder above should suffice to correct this statement. Let me know if you wish for me to unpack it further.

SUTG

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

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

Johnny

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

Although I might be able to guess, I'd like to hear from you why this is a surprising development in your eyes?

Nonetheless, what's to stop me from substituing the flying spaghetti monster as the one who told me that the axioms science assumes are correct?

Would you like to sincerely posit that view? If so, I have a battery of questions for you by which we will ascertain the nature and attributes of the FSM. Please let me know if you're interested in pursuing this.

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

See above.

Further, why is faith in God any different than just assuming axioms?

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

Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.

But the same worldview brought us all the other disciplines of science as well as their respective advancements. Do these not qualify as science? Does that make them invalid?

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

mighty_duck

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

Although roughly stated, you are, for the most part, correct.

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

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

The Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to have a MUCH better account for the existence of pasta in the world.

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

Johnny

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

But it does. That's the point. Do you seriously wish to advance the notion of a universe governed by the Paternal Pepsi Can in the Sky? Because that is the only condition upon which your All-Powerful Pepsi Can will get a fair hearing.

fool

Did Hilston mention beer?

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

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

All the best,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Hi Carver,

I know you asked for a real quick explanation. However, you've presented me with a terrific opportunity to demonstrate something pertinent to the discussions here in the Grandstands. You write:

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

Obviously, you detected a problem with BR9 coming after BR10. I suspect the reason you see this as a problem is because of something called the principle of induction. Induction is the idea of moving from particular cases (such as the sequencing of numerals) to generalities (such as the sequencing of numbers). Here are my questions for you, Carver: Why do you expect 9 to precede 10? On what grounds have you raised your objection or question concerning the numerical sequencing of the Battle Royales?

Thank you for considering my questions.

Warm regards,
Jim

 

[Carver]

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

 

[Balder]

Hey, Jim,

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

Why do you expect 9 to precede 10? On what grounds have you raised your objection or question concerning the numerical sequencing of the Battle Royales?

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

 

[Balder]

Hey, Jim,

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


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

 

[Carver]

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

 

[Casey]

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

 

[truthteller86]

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

Casey, I believe the sentiment was the government (any) does not have the right or ability to educate our children, especially on something as important as where they came from. -michael

 

[elected4ever]

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

 

[Clete]

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

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

Resting in Him,
Clete