Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Alethia]

Quote:

Oh, and, incidentally, when Stratnerd remarked that, by your definition of supernatural ("Anything we can't detect with our five senses" or something like that), mathematics would be supernatural, I think he was pointing out the limitations/absurdity of your definition, not agreeing with it!

There was unequivocal affirmation in his statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."

No. You are very clearly misunderstanding his point. This appears to be obvious to everyone but you. Do you see the IF at the beginning of the sentence? That is a conditional. Stratnerd was clearly NOT making an affirmation that the natural is limited to those things detectable by the five senses. Rather, he was clearly pointing out that this was an absurd definition. It should be obvious to anyone that things like electricity, magnetism, x-rays, all sorts of nuclear forces, would be considered by most people to be "natural", yet they are not directly detectable by the five senses. To limit the natural to the five sentences would be absurd. That's why he put the IF at the beginning of the sentence.

Quite frankly, Mr. Hilston, if you can't see that, you are having a serious problem in comprehension. You need to take a very deep breath, a very big step back, and spend some time thinking here before you continue to misuse that statement, as your misuse of it makes a great deal of your posts meaningless.

 

[Hilston]

Serving size: 2.0 oz., drained ...

Serving size: 2.0 oz., drained ...

Combined reply to:

• mighty_duck
• Balder
• mighty_duck
• Alethia

mighty_duck

Hi mighty_duck,

Thanks for the re-post. That saved me some time.

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.

To be clear. The word itself is fine. But not unlike the word "atheist," I don't think it has any reality or application in the real world. It is nothing like a presupposition, however. They are completely different, unrelated terms. You defined axiom as:

ax·i·om: 3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.​

I don't believe there is any such thing that exists in reality, except as a concept that has no real correspondence in reality. If I ask you to prove something and you refuse, claiming something is "axiomatic," then you're not being rational and you shouldn't be wasting people's time debating them.

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.

This is incorrect. You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions do need to be proven. Presuppositions do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:

"... 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]​

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.

My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven. The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

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.

I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. Logic would not exist. Sentences would not exist. Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence. For you to believe that they could exist in a Godless, mindless, purposeless universe is an appeal to magic.

This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule.

This is nothing new. It is expected. The Bible gives plenty of examples of this sort of ridicule. But the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. Why does the Bible say that? Because the very sentence: "There is no God," and the very process of discursive thought, prove His existence.

If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion.

Again, the case is proven, whether or not you're persuaded.

#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 not rational to accept wrong premises. Coming to a wrong conclusion always involves an error in reason, whether it is via a fallacious premise, or an erroneous chain of logic.

You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform.

Not only "why," but how, in a Godless, purposeless, mindless universe, can you even begin to explain the use of logic and mathematics.

Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.

I agree with you.

What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.

Right, but we all have access to Someone who does. But most refuse to acknowledge that Source.

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?

There are rational answers to all of your questions. I can account for how God did and does what He did and does. You can read it for yourself. You can read about the how and why of God's moral and why they wouldn't be totally different. You can see for yourself why God is logical. Or I can just tell you. Your statements here are false, and anyone reading this should be made aware of that.

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.

Think about this for a second. Use your imagination. Imagine God does exist. Just pretend for the sake of discussion. Consider it a hypothetical. Nevermind for the moment that everything I'm asking you to do is further proving to you of His actual existence. But for now, just humor me. God exists. We have His documented Word called the Bible. No one in the Bible asks God where He came from or why He exists. And God doesn't offer that information. Which is fitting to the personalities and writers of the Bible, since God claims to be transcendent and infinite (and such a Being could not have a "source" or "reason" for existence). Given all that, granting it as true for the sake of argument, does the fact that you find it unacceptable matter one whit? Does your dissatisfaction have anything to do with what is true? If God granted you an interview, do you actually think you would have rational grounds to say to Him: I find it unacceptable that You, the infinite and transcendent God cannot tell me why You exist.

This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God.

How do you know your universe functions just fine without a God?

You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.

What to you would be a sufficient explanation for why God exists?

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.

It's not a parallel. While it is true that logic is transcendental in character and has a necessity about it, logic is not personal; it is not volitional, it cannot justify itself. Similarly, the universe is not personal and not volitional and cannot sustain itself. God is personal and volitional. He has the creative power that brought the universe into existence. He has the sustaining power that keeps creation from obliterating.

Balder

Hi Balder,

I do not agree that concepts should be considered supernatural or extrasensory. They are "beyond" our usual Wenstern classification system of five senses, but that is not the only sensory classification system mankind has devised. Buddhist tradition speaks of mind as a sense as well, perceiving mental objects rather physical objects.

If we expanded the definition of "sensory" to include the mind, do you agree that we'd still need to distinguish between tactile/concrete sensing and conceptual/abstract sensing?

Of course, what we perceive and conceive are very complexly interrelated, so "mind" is involved in the perception of external physical objects as well as "internal" objects such as ideas, images, concepts.

I agree.

To say "no one has tasted a summation" is as meaningful as saying "no one has ever heard the color red."

I agree, but you've missed the meaning I intended, and I blame myself for allowing that ambiguity. I wrote:

No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses.​

I should have written:

No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held, tasted, smelled, heard or seen a 2 or a 4. No one has or felt, tasted, smelled, heard or seen addition. No one has held, tasted, smelled, heard or seen a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses.​

Not being able to hear red no more disqualifies it as a "natural" sense object than not being able to taste a concept.

Not being able to feel, taste, smell, hear or see a concept disqualifies it from being natural. Concepts are extranatural, abstract, universal, conceptual.

mighty_duck

Hi m_d,

The only thing missing from that is how you justify your belief in the existence of God.

It's not missing. It's a different argument.

If God did not exist, then all of your deductions are false

Of course. If God does not exist, there's no such thing as deduction. There would not only be no general principles from which to deduce particular truth claims, the discursive procedure of thought would not be impossible, thoughts would not be possible, minds would not be possible, brains would not be possible.

Alethia

Hi Alethia,

Thanks for your post and suggestions.

Hilston previously wrote: There was unequivocal affirmation in [Stratnerd's] statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."

No. You are very clearly misunderstanding his point. This appears to be obvious to everyone but you. Do you see the IF at the beginning of the sentence? That is a conditional. Stratnerd was clearly NOT making an affirmation that the natural is limited to those things detectable by the five senses.

He is if I defined supernatural as being beyond the five senses, which is exactly what I did. If A, then B. Given A, therefore B.

It should be obvious to anyone that things like electricity, magnetism, x-rays, all sorts of nuclear forces, would be considered by most people to be "natural", yet they are not directly detectable by the five senses.

Each of these are detectable by the five senses by the use of instruments, and that makes them natural. Compare that the Law of Contradiction. No has experienced this law. It is conceptual, extra-natural in character.

To limit the natural to the five sentences would be absurd.

I would be happy to consider an alternate definition. What do you suggest?

Quite frankly, Mr. Hilston, if you can't see that, you are having a serious problem in comprehension.

I welcome your assistance in helping me to improve my comprehension.

You need to take a very deep breath, a very big step back, and spend some time thinking here before you continue to misuse that statement, as your misuse of it makes a great deal of your posts meaningless.

For example?

Thank you all for your remarks and contributions.

Chunkiest national brand,
Jim

 

[mighty_duck]

My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven. The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. Logic would not exist. Sentences would not exist. Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence. For you to believe that they could exist in a Godless, mindless, purposeless universe is an appeal to magic.

Hi Jim,

So let me get your argument straight.
1. Presuppose God and the Bible.
2. Look at another worldview and judge that it is irrational. (repeat as necessary for all worldviews).
3. Conclude that your presuppositions are justified (true).

Now how exactly can you judge another worldview to see if it is rational, without using logic? You can't, you obviously use logic.
So how can you justify your use of logic to prove another worldview is irrational? You use it because it relies on your presupposition. That, my friend, is circular. You can't use your premise (or anything derived from said premise) to prove your premise. This is where your whole justification falls apart.

Allow me to make a similarly silly argument.
1. Presuppose I am always right.
2. Look at any other worldview. If it disagrees with me on anything, then it is irrational because I am always right (see #1).
3. Conclude that I am always right.

Your presuppositions are completely unfounded and unjustified, and by your own definition you are irrational. It won't say "Check Mate" quite yet. I will say "Check".

What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.

Right, but we all have access to Someone who does. But most refuse to acknowledge that Source.

This alleged "access" does not help us, since it doesn't answer all our questions. We are left with things we can't account for. Which means that not being able to account for something doesn't mean your worldview is irrational.

There are rational answers to all of your questions. I can account for how God did and does what He did and does. You can read it for yourself. You can read about the how and why of God's moral and why they wouldn't be totally different. You can see for yourself why God is logical. Or I can just tell you. Your statements here are false, and anyone reading this should be made aware of that.

By all means enlighten me. How did God make a horse? Why is it necessary that God's morals include "adultery is wrong"? Why couldn't that have just been a decree? If you disagree with that particular moral point, choose another.

Think about this for a second. Use your imagination. Imagine God does exist. Just pretend for the sake of discussion. Consider it a hypothetical. Nevermind for the moment that everything I'm asking you to do is further proving to you of His actual existence. But for now, just humor me. God exists. We have His documented Word called the Bible. No one in the Bible asks God where He came from or why He exists. And God doesn't offer that information. Which is fitting to the personalities and writers of the Bible, since God claims to be transcendent and infinite (and such a Being could not have a "source" or "reason" for existence). Given all that, granting it as true for the sake of argument, does the fact that you find it unacceptable matter one whit? Does your dissatisfaction have anything to do with what is true? If God granted you an interview, do you actually think you would have rational grounds to say to Him: I find it unacceptable that You, the infinite and transcendent God cannot tell me why You exist.

What to you would be a sufficient explanation for why God exists?

To a certain degree, I see your point. But you are in fact agreeing that a presupposition need not be accounted for, in order for your worldview to be rational. It doesn't matter why it isn't accounted for, just that you really don't need an account to still be rational.

BTW, in that interview, I would point my finger at you, and tell Him that using Hilston logic I can't even rationally accept that God is who he says he is, and I would be irrational in believing anything he says.

Allow me to take you down a similar route. Shouldn't be too hard, since you used to be an atheist. Imagine that the universe has always existed, with certain laws as part of its nature. They have existed forever, infinitely. Does asking who created them make any sense? Does the fact that YOU can't make sense of the question "why does the universe exists?" change anything?

How do you know your universe functions just fine without a God?

That is my worldview, which is rational to me. I know it as well as I know anything else. I don't us circular logic to convince myself this knowledge is absolute though.

It's not a parallel. While it is true that logic is transcendental in character and has a necessity about it, logic is not personal; it is not volitional, it cannot justify itself. Similarly, the universe is not personal and not volitional and cannot sustain itself. God is personal and volitional. He has the creative power that brought the universe into existence. He has the sustaining power that keeps creation from obliterating.

The universe is perfectly capable of sustaining itself. The only reason you doubt that, is because you have presupposed an arbitrary creator that must sustain it.

Logic is not volitional or personal, and neither is the universe. So what? The parallel is that asking to account for an eternal and transcendant universe is just as impossible as accounting for God.

 

[sentientsynth]

Science, as the pursuit of reliable knowledge, must presuppose the commensurability of the noumenal to the phenomenal, so that the body of facts compiled by the scientific method is guaranteed to represent reality in itself and not merely as it is perceived by the mind. If the scientist does not make this vital presupposition, then he has no justification for assuming that any knowledge he possesses represents reality.

As there is no Archimedean point outside of the psyche by which to view the psyche, humans will never be in a position to verify to what degree any perceived event accurately and precisely describes the event in itself, if indeed any event in fact happened. The hallucinations of a psychotic are perceived by the psychotic as real in fact, yet they are only delusional fictions of the mind. The so-called "collective consciousness" of mankind, similarly, may very well be only a mass hallucination brought about by the uniform misrepresentation of reality by the human brain unto the consciousness of man.

We have Kant to thank for this completely valid insight into the epistomological problem of man. The condition is insoluble, and it seems as if we're stuck.

So what do we do? We're forced to assume the what we perceive does in fact represent reality as it is in itself so that we can simply live our lives and continue with the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, which has proven quite useful throughout the history of man.

But here's the difference between the theist and the non-theist. Theists presuppose that the phenomenal world of the psyche accurately represents the noumenal world of reality-in-itself because there exists a personal entity (God) which has formed the psyche so as to represent the noumenal world accurately to the mind of man. This presupposition then justifies the use of observations to extrapolate truths concerning the world as it truly is.

The non-theist if forced to accept that his phenomenal observation of the world is an accurate representation of the noumenal world-in-itself as a given without justification, as he can never observe the psyche from without in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays the world-in-itself. The pursuit of reliable knowledge from within the non-theistic framework is thus an exercise in futility.

In the final analysis, only the existence of a transcendant, supernatural Creator justifies the pursuit of this reliable knowledge, that is, science (scientia= "to know".)

In conclusion, every scientist, every philosopher, indeed every single individual that has ever made a truth claim is a Creationist, whethere they realize it and are willing to acknowledge it or not. Stratnerd, therefore, is a Creationist.

Any claim otherwise will be a truth claim, which by definition is impossible outside of the Creationist world-view.


I wonder what the next Battle Royale will be about?

SS

 

[PureX]

Science, as the pursuit of reliable knowledge, must presuppose the commensurability of the noumenal to the phenomenal, so that the body of facts compiled by the scientific method is guaranteed to represent reality in itself and not merely as it is perceived by the mind. If the scientist does not make this vital presupposition, then he has no justification for assuming that any knowledge he possesses represents reality.

As there is no Archimedean point outside of the psyche by which to view the psyche, humans will never be in a position to verify to what degree any perceived event accurately and precisely describes the event in itself, if indeed any event in fact happened. The hallucinations of a psychotic are perceived by the psychotic as real in fact, yet they are only delusional fictions of the mind. The so-called "collective consciousness" of mankind, similarly, may very well be only a mass hallucination brought about by the uniform misrepresentation of reality by the human brain unto the consciousness of man.

We have Kant to thank for this completely valid insight into the epistomological problem of man. The condition is insoluble, and it seems as if we're stuck.

So what do we do? We're forced to assume the what we perceive does in fact represent reality as it is in itself so that we can simply live our lives and continue with the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, which has proven quite useful throughout the history of man.

This is a clear representation of the human condition and the intent of the scientific process in relation to it. Thank you.

But here's the difference between the theist and the non-theist. Theists presuppose that the phenomenal world of the psyche accurately represents the noumenal world of reality-in-itself because there exists a personal entity (God) which has formed the psyche so as to represent the noumenal world accurately to the mind of man. This presupposition then justifies the use of observations to extrapolate truths concerning the world as it truly is.

So basically, the theist just pretends that there is a solution to the limitations of his human condition by pretending there is a God, and his pretense then becomes his solution. I agree. But it's all still make-believe. His "solution" may be real to him, as are the hallucinations of a psychotic to the psychotic, but he is still human and he is still limited by his human condition.

The non-theist if forced to accept that his phenomenal observation of the world is an accurate representation of the noumenal world-in-itself as a given without justification, as he can never observe the psyche from without in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays the world-in-itself. The pursuit of reliable knowledge from within the non-theistic framework is thus an exercise in futility.

But neither the theist nor the non-theist can actually view the phyche from outside itself in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays reality, and that includes the theist's supposed "noumenal" reality.

So the choice, here then, appears to be to pretend that we can know what we can't really know, and let our pretense be our solution, or we can accept that as human beings we are limited in such a way that we will not be able to resolve our perceptual limitations and will then just have to be as honest as we can and trust in the unknowable.

In the final analysis, only the existence of a transcendant, supernatural Creator justifies the pursuit of this reliable knowledge, that is, science (scientia= "to know".)

This is simply untrue. Necessity justifies the pursuit of reliable knowledge just as fully as the pretense of any divine being. And as for the fact that we cannot as limited human beings achieve perfect knowledge, well, we still can't do that as long as we remain human, even if God does exist.

So all you really have as a choice, here, is the employment of pretense for the purpose of self-deception regarding the limitations of the human condition, or the acceptance of the unknowable, and of a resultant life based on humility and faith. Why is it that the latter sounds more like it should be the theists method than the former, when it's based on a non-theist's choice? Interesting.

In conclusion, every scientist, every philosopher, indeed every single individual that has ever made a truth claim is a Creationist, whethere they realize it and are willing to acknowledge it or not. Stratnerd, therefore, is a Creationist.

This is, of course, just nonsense based on a deceptive pretense, and stands as evidence for why it's unhealthy and dishonest to choose this intellectual response to the dilemma of the limitations of the human condition.

Any claim otherwise will be a truth claim, which by definition is impossible outside of the Creationist world-view.

This is of course equally nonsensical, as it has already been established that human beings can't make truth claims without first pretending that they can know the truth. And since this claim would already be established to be a pretense, it's a false claim by default.

We can claim that God exists. Or we can claim that God does not exist. But we can't claim to know that our claim is true, or our claims in either case become untrue by default, whether God exists or not.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I. Justification Schmustification

:chuckle: That was funny Stratnerd!

 

[SUTG]

Science, as the pursuit of reliable knowledge, must presuppose the commensurability of the noumenal to the phenomenal, so that the body of facts compiled by the scientific method is guaranteed to represent reality in itself and not merely as it is perceived by the mind. If the scientist does not make this vital presupposition, then he has no justification for assuming that any knowledge he possesses represents reality.

As there is no Archimedean point outside of the psyche by which to view the psyche, humans will never be in a position to verify to what degree any perceived event accurately and precisely describes the event in itself, if indeed any event in fact happened. The hallucinations of a psychotic are perceived by the psychotic as real in fact, yet they are only delusional fictions of the mind. The so-called "collective consciousness" of mankind, similarly, may very well be only a mass hallucination brought about by the uniform misrepresentation of reality by the human brain unto the consciousness of man.

We have Kant to thank for this completely valid insight into the epistomological problem of man. The condition is insoluble, and it seems as if we're stuck.

OK...

So what do we do? We're forced to assume the what we perceive does in fact represent reality as it is in itself so that we can simply live our lives and continue with the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, which has proven quite useful throughout the history of man.

Or, with Kant, we can decide not to be all that concerned, and admit that we can never have direct insight into the noumenal, and instead just operate with the phenomenal as sort of an epistemological middle-man.

But here's the difference between the theist and the non-theist. Theists presuppose that the phenomenal world of the psyche accurately represents the noumenal world of reality-in-itself because there exists a personal entity (God) which has formed the psyche so as to represent the noumenal world accurately to the mind of man. This presupposition then justifies the use of observations to extrapolate truths concerning the world as it truly is.

This presupposition is itself unjustified. Sure, you can invent a solution to make yourself feel certain. To use your own quote from the previous paragraph, you have entered into the realm of "delusional fictions of the mind".

The non-theist if forced to accept that his phenomenal observation of the world is an accurate representation of the noumenal world-in-itself as a given without justification, as he can never observe the psyche from without in order to ascertain to what degree the psyche accurately and precisely portrays the world-in-itself.

Well, if the non-theist were really that concerned, he could make something up just as well as the presuppositionalists. If all you have to do is assert absolute knowledge, you have an easy task before you.

In the final analysis, only the existence of a transcendant, supernatural Creator justifies the pursuit of this reliable knowledge, that is, science (scientia= "to know".)

No presuppositionalist will ever be able to provide this "final analysis". This thread, as well as Hilston's posts in the debate are great examples. You'll repeat this mantra over and over, as if it were shown (by someone, somewhere) to be true. Did bahnsen ever show this? No. Did Van Til ever cover this part of the TAG? No. Hilston? No. Do you the pattern?

 

[SUTG]

:chuckle: [/b]That was funny Stratnerd!

Yeah. Those always crack me up: Hilston, Schmilston. Knight, Schmight. Stratnerd, Schmatnerd. Axiom, Schmaxiom, etc... :chuckle:

 

[koban]

Yeah. Those always crack me up: Hilston, Schmilston. Knight, Schmight. Stratnerd, Schmatnerd. Axiom, Schmaxiom, etc... :chuckle:

I have an image of Billy Crystal from The Princess Bride. :chuckle:

 

[Metalking]

Theologically speaking...Merry Christmas to one and all. .even the Grinches.

 

[PureX]

Theologically speaking...Merry Christmas to one and all. .even the Grinches.

Thanks, Metalking, and the same to you and to everyone.

 

[Metalking]

The scientific method (using observations about the natural world and the rules of logic to test hypotheses), the theory of evolution, creationism and intelligent design.
Evolutionary theory holds that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time driven by several processes, including natural selection.

Creationists believe the Earth and all life were created by God. Intelligent design advocates argue that that life is so well-ordered and "irreducibly complex" that it must have been designed.
This makes me an "Intelligent Creationist". : )

 

[mighty_duck]

This makes me an "Intelligent Creationist". : )

Oxymoron

And Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah . Kooky Kwanza. (Circle which applies).

 

[Metalking]

Oxymoron

And Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah . Kooky Kwanza. (Circle which applies).

Merry Christmas is circled.
The Bible contains many amazing scientific facts. When the rest of the world believed the earth was flat or was supported on the shoulders of the mythical god Atlas, or said that it rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a turtle that was swimming in a great endless sea, the Jewish prophets wrote that (Job 26:7)M, "God hangeth the earth upon nothing," and implied that the world was round (Isaiah 40:22) when it said, "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

 

[Hilston]

Superior picture quality ...

Superior picture quality ...

Hi m_d,

So let me get your argument straight.
1. Presuppose God and the Bible.
2. Look at another worldview and judge that it is irrational. (repeat as necessary for all worldviews).
3. Conclude that your presuppositions are justified (true).

What argument does that represent? That's no argument that I've made. I don't justify my presuppositions by looking at other worldviews. It's not a process of elimination. One way of seeing it is to say, if logic exists and human experience is intelligible, then the God of the Bible exists. Since logic exists and human experience is intelligible, therefore, the God of the Bible exists. It's a modus ponens line of reasoning. P implies Q. Given P, therefore Q.

Now how exactly can you judge another worldview to see if it is rational, without using logic? You can't, you obviously use logic.

Of course. When did I ever suggest otherwise?

So how can you justify your use of logic to prove another worldview is irrational?

You describe two different tasks, m_d. Justifying my use of logic is a separate issue from proving the irrationality of a competing worldview.

You use it because it relies on your presupposition. That, my friend, is circular.

Of course, Logic relies on my presupposition. That is always the case, whether one is a theist or a non-theist. Your use of logic relies on blind faith in magic. Faith is the foundation of reasoning. In the case of the Creationist, reasoning is based on faith in the Creator. In the case of the anti-Creationist, reasoning is based on blind faith in magic.

You can't use your premise (or anything derived from said premise) to prove your premise. This is where your whole justification falls apart.

If that's what I were doing, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I don't use my premise to prove my premise. That's the point of a transcendental argument. The whole point and form of the argument is to avoid question-begging. Since no one is able to transcend the use of logic, that is why one must frame the question in such a way that gets behind the premise. The way to do that is with transcendental argumentation, which asks the question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible? Or, what is the necessary set of conditions that must exist in order for logic and mathematics to function in the universe?

Allow me to make a similarly silly argument.
1. Presuppose I am always right.
2. Look at any other worldview. If it disagrees with me on anything, then it is irrational because I am always right (see #1).
3. Conclude that I am always right.

You really seem to be having difficulty following this. I don't know how to help you, except to urge you to keep the issues straight and try not to jump to unrelated conclusions.

Your presuppositions are completely unfounded and unjustified, ...

My presuppositions are very well-founded and entirely justified, m_d. The presupposition of the existence of God and the verity of the Bible is solidly founded on its unique and exclusive ability to account for contingent experience in the human condition, and universal laws of logic and mathematics, without violating rationality. Of course, someone may claim that it doesn't make my view right, and that perhaps some other view can be shown to be superior. And while I do not believe that is true at all, even if I were to grant that, you cannot rationally claim that my view is "unfounded and unjustified."

... and by your own definition you are irrational. It won't say "Check Mate" quite yet. I will say "Check".

How are my presuppositions irrational by my own definition?

This alleged "access" does not help us, since it doesn't answer all our questions.

Just because you don't find it helpful you doesn't mean the help isn't there, or that it isn't true and rational.

We are left with things we can't account for. Which means that not being able to account for something doesn't mean your worldview is irrational.

Everything in our experience can be rationally accounted for in the Creationist worldview. God Himself, Who transcends human experience, needs no accounting, and in fact, because He is transcendent, it should be expected that there is no accounting for God, for if He could be accounted for, He would not be infinite and transcendent.

By all means enlighten me. How did God make a horse?

By His power and volition. He willed it into existence, and brought it about via means not revealed.

Why is it necessary that God's morals include "adultery is wrong"?

It depends on what part of the created order you're talking about. For Israel, adultery was wrong because it was the manifestation of blatant disrespect for one's family lines, among many other things. For this current biblical economy, adultery is wrong because, among many other things, it dishonors the Headship of Christ over the church and the role of the Son in the Godhead.

Why couldn't that have just been a decree?

It WAS a decree.

To a certain degree, I see your point. But you are in fact agreeing that a presupposition need not be accounted for, in order for your worldview to be rational. It doesn't matter why it isn't accounted for, just that you really don't need an account to still be rational.

You're trying very hard to equate logic and God as equally unaccounted for presuppositions, but the problem is, while God is self-justified, logic is not. God is volitional, personal, purposeful, powerfully creative, etc. Logic is an abstraction; it doesn't have volition, personality or purpose. It cannot sustain itself. It cannot justify itself. To believe that logic has existence the way God existence, or to believe that logic can somehow sustain or justify itself, is mythical.

BTW, in that interview, I would point my finger at you, and tell Him that using Hilston logic I can't even rationally accept that God is who he says he is, and I would be irrational in believing anything he says.

How so?

Allow me to take you down a similar route. Shouldn't be too hard, since you used to be an atheist. Imagine that the universe has always existed, with certain laws as part of its nature.

I wish I could, even for the sake of argument, but I can't without sacrificing rationality. I can pretend, the same way I do when I see a magician or watch a vampire movie, but I'm ever aware of the fictionality of the scenario.

They have existed forever, infinitely. Does asking who created them make any sense? Does the fact that YOU can't make sense of the question "why does the universe exists?" change anything?

Again, you're asking me to suspend my disbelief to the point of believing a myth, something that the rational mind will not abide.

That is my worldview, which is rational to me.

It really is amazing to me. As often as I encounter this claim, it always amazes me that people will be so deliberate and self-convinced of something so utterly irrational and mythical.

The universe is perfectly capable of sustaining itself.

Really? Wow. Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?

The only reason you doubt that, is because you have presupposed an arbitrary creator that must sustain it.

On the contrary. There are many, many reasons why I doubt it, not the least of which is the fact that a self-sustaining universe doesn't comport with reality and human experience. Every day things break, things decompose, things do not sustain themselves. If the universe is self-sustaining, it goes against everything we've learned from our personal interactions and observations of our world and everything in it. Interestingly, the Bible teaches exactly the same thing.

Logic is not volitional or personal, and neither is the universe. So what?

So how does it make any sense that non-volitional, non-personal, non-physical entities create volitional, personal and physical beings?

Multi-region encoding,
Jim

 

[sentientsynth]

Warning: Non-trascendent reply below

Warning: Non-trascendent reply below

This reply covers all criticisms of my previous post. I have deliberately suspended the transcendent aspect of language in this post in order to demonstrate one of the theses of my previous post. In possible rebuttals will also be included.

awpoi ngidya kdjpadigi woiehaig mvnlhgaihhhzbdte jfdk fiejeiaifjei kafjeofjaz[z fniej8hjeijhfh83tya 84yt94q943 4t798q 4q498 834579q5

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi again Jim,
Its getting late, so I may be a bit abrupt. I apologize in advance

What argument does that represent? That's no argument that I've made. I don't justify my presuppositions by looking at other worldviews. It's not a process of elimination. One way of seeing it is to say, if logic exists and human experience is intelligible, then the God of the Bible exists. Since logic exists and human experience is intelligible, therefore, the God of the Bible exists. It's a modus ponens line of reasoning. P implies Q. Given P, therefore Q.

This is the TAG argument in a nutshell, I hope you are not making changes as you go along. Since you are being very obscure about your actual argument, I've had to try to make it for you. Please present it in Syllogism form. How the heck to you justify your presuppostions?
I'm too tired to look back, but I am sure you invoked the infamous "The impossibility of the contrary", or in slightly varied form. Possibly "Without God, use of Logic is not rational". How can you tell if a worldview that excludes God is not rational? You invoke logic, and therefore use your presuppositions to justify your presupposition.

Regarding the P -> Q you posted, how do you know that logic exists? How do you know the human experience is intelligible? Can you prove any of these? I'm not denying them, I'm asking how you know them to be true.
And how do you justify the modus ponens itself?

I beg you, I implore thee, please please please don't say "I already have" to any of the above. If you feel you have, then you have not done it clearly enough. I am still fighting a shadow, and others have mentioned the same. If your argument is so compelling, it should be in your best interests to be crystal clear. With multiple syllogisms, there is less room for misunderstandings.

Also, how do you disqualify this MP:
Logic exists -> Logic is part of the nature of the universe, which is eternal, infinite and transcendant.

You describe two different tasks, m_d. Justifying my use of logic is a separate issue from proving the irrationality of a competing worldview.

Proving the irrationality of a competing worldview requires logic. Using logic requires justification for logic. The only way you get justification for using logic, is by proving the irrationality of a competing worldview requires logic. See a circular pattern?

Of course, Logic relies on my presupposition. That is always the case, whether one is a theist or a non-theist. Your use of logic relies on blind faith in magic. Faith is the foundation of reasoning. In the case of the Creationist, reasoning is based on faith in the Creator. In the case of the anti-Creationist, reasoning is based on blind faith in magic.

Stop the press!
Your whole reasoning is based on your faith in a creator? So much for absolutes. I don't share your faith, so your whole argument means very little to me. Your presuppositions are unfounded (well, unless you call faith a foundation), unjustified, and you are irrational according to your own definition.

I wouldn't call my faith in logic blind. I have seen it work for every second of my waking existance, which gives me good reason to assume it is true. Ditto for gravity, etc.

If that's what I were doing, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I don't use my premise to prove my premise. That's the point of a transcendental argument. The whole point and form of the argument is to avoid question-begging. Since no one is able to transcend the use of logic, that is why one must frame the question in such a way that gets behind the premise. The way to do that is with transcendental argumentation, which asks the question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible? Or, what is the necessary set of conditions that must exist in order for logic and mathematics to function in the universe?

What are the necessary set of conditions that must exists for God to be logical? Oh, he just IS. That is part of his nature. He couldn't be any other way.

Replace "God" with "universe" and you understand why your questions make no sense.

My presuppositions are very well-founded and entirely justified, m_d. The presupposition of the existence of God and the verity of the Bible is solidly founded on its unique and exclusive ability to account for contingent experience in the human condition, and universal laws of logic and mathematics, without violating rationality. Of course, someone may claim that it doesn't make my view right, and that perhaps some other view can be shown to be superior. And while I do not believe that is true at all, even if I were to grant that, you cannot rationally claim that my view is "unfounded and unjustified."

I can and I do. According to your own parameters. All you have is blind faith in your presuppostions, which makes them, and anything you derive from them, unfounded and unjustified.

How are my presuppositions irrational by my own definition?

See above.

Everything in our experience can be rationally accounted for in the Creationist worldview. God Himself, Who transcends human experience, needs no accounting, and in fact, because He is transcendent, it should be expected that there is no accounting for God, for if He could be accounted for, He would not be infinite and transcendent.

By His power and volition. He willed it into existence, and brought it about via means not revealed.

You just contradicted yourself.

"brought it about via means not revealed" can be translated to "I don't know how". Which means you can't account for it. Which contradicts "Everything can be accounted for"

Just saying goddidit is not an account. You would be very upset if I answered all your questions with "Nature did it, by means we don't know yet".

It depends on what part of the created order you're talking about. For Israel, adultery was wrong because it was the manifestation of blatant disrespect for one's family lines, among many other things. For this current biblical economy, adultery is wrong because, among many other things, it dishonors the Headship of Christ over the church and the role of the Son in the Godhead.
It WAS a decree.

So God can have any morals. He could enjoy murdering humans, and finds it funny in a sadistic way that he decrees it they can't murder each other. There in no necessecity for God's own morals to match his decrees. You therefore have no way to know what God is really like.
Sure, it is possible that god personally dislikes murder. But it is in no way necessary.

You're trying very hard to equate logic and God as equally unaccounted for presuppositions, but the problem is, while God is self-justified, logic is not. God is volitional, personal, purposeful, powerfully creative, etc. Logic is an abstraction; it doesn't have volition, personality or purpose. It cannot sustain itself. It cannot justify itself. To believe that logic has existence the way God existence, or to believe that logic can somehow sustain or justify itself, is mythical.

What does it mean that God is self-justified?
Asking to justify a law of the universe that has existed forever makes no sense.

I wish I could, even for the sake of argument, but I can't without sacrificing rationality. I can pretend, the same way I do when I see a magician or watch a vampire movie, but I'm ever aware of the fictionality of the scenario.
Again, you're asking me to suspend my disbelief to the point of believing a myth, something that the rational mind will not abide.

Ouch! My irony meter just broke. I'll be sending you the bill :chuckle:

Really? Wow. Do you also believe in perpetual motion machines?

No. What is your point? (Can't wait to finally see a classical creationist argument).

On the contrary. There are many, many reasons why I doubt it, not the least of which is the fact that a self-sustaining universe doesn't comport with reality and human experience. Every day things break, things decompose, things do not sustain themselves. If the universe is self-sustaining, it goes against everything we've learned from our personal interactions and observations of our world and everything in it. Interestingly, the Bible teaches exactly the same thing.

This is a new form of argument, one which tries to use more common sense. Please carry on.
I have never seen any supernatural events, no hand of God, no Holy Spirit, no miracles. I have never seen any of those reliably reproduced either. Everything seems to be regulated by natural laws. Human experience therefore denies a personal God. The Bible further makes the case stronger, since the God described there liked to meddle in our life here in very obvious ways, which is not what we see in the world.

So how does it make any sense that non-volitional, non-personal, non-physical entities create volitional, personal and physical beings?

They don't create physical beings. Matter has existed eternally. Natural laws do affect physical things. For example, gravity, a non personal, non volitional law of the universe, affects every piece of matter. Makes perfect sense.
See Evolution on how a non thinking bacteria can become a thinking human. No God Need Apply.
Irish are ok, though.

I need more sleep.
-mighty_duck

 

[Balder]

M_D,

So let me get your argument straight.
1. Presuppose God and the Bible.
2. Look at another worldview and judge that it is irrational. (repeat as necessary for all worldviews).
3. Conclude that your presuppositions are justified (true).

Spiritual regeneration is a lynchpin in Hilston's argument, if I recall. He says he doesn't use it to prove anything to unregenerate folks like you and me, but it is essential for how he "gets" his presuppositions: they are "given" or "implanted" directly by God, so that he doesn't have to look first at other worldviews, find them illogical, and then conclude that his view is correct. He starts with God giving him unwavering faith in a particular set of presuppositions, such as "God exists" and "The Bible is God's infallible word."

Just thought I should mention this; it was an important element in my discussion with him. Perhaps he hasn't brought it up because he's talking with scientists rather than another religionist.

Best wishes,
B.

 

[mighty_duck]

M_D,


Spiritual regeneration is a lynchpin in Hilston's argument, if I recall. He says he doesn't use it to prove anything to unregenerate folks like you and me, but it is essential for how he "gets" his presuppositions: they are "given" or "implanted" directly by God, so that he doesn't have to look first at other worldviews, find them illogical, and then conclude that his view is correct. He starts with God giving him unwavering faith in a particular set of presuppositions, such as "God exists" and "The Bible is God's infallible word."

Just thought I should mention this; it was an important element in my discussion with him. Perhaps he hasn't brought it up because he's talking with scientists rather than another religionist.

Best wishes,
B.

Hi Balder,

Thanks for your comments,

I read the latter part of your exchange with Hilston, it was very interesting (especially your descriptions of budhistic beliefs I was not aware of). Unlike most creationists, Hilston does us the courtesy of seperating how he knows his beliefs are true, and how he proves it. Makes for a better debate. I don't have any illusions I will actually change Hilston's own views, which are not based on this argument. All I can hope for is to make this form of argument go away forever

In the end, it doesn't matter who he is debating. If his argument boils down to personal faith, it is unconvincing. In your quote, I outlined what Hilston's argument/proof is. The argument is just a circular toy without faith though...

Happy Holidays,
-mighty_duck

 

[Metalking]

Heard this story..thought some of you would like it.
The Christmas candycane , is it more then candy, let us take a closer look.
Holding it up you might see a sheppard's staff or holdin it down a Fisherman's hook.
The red and white stripes could have deeper meaning as well, the red could represent the
blood Jesus shed for our sins (which when licked slowly goes away).The white could
represent the purity of our Lord, the taste is also good.
Merry Christmas!