Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[sentientsynth]

Hilston: Just the man for the job.

 

[fool]

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

By all means, let us unpack further
I said;

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

To which you responded;

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 a correct conclusion from a believer is a grounded certainty, whereas a correct conclusion from an un believer is an irrational assumption.
Hence, were an unbeliever to become a believer his correct conclusions would cease being irrational assumptions and become grounded certainties.
Hence if Hilston were to look at a correct statement he would have no way of telling which it was without knowing the current state of mind of the positor.
Yes? No?

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

How bout they just say they don't know?

 

[GuySmiley]

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.

I think that in the end you will find that Hilston's question involves God, logic, and whether or not we really exist.

 

[GuySmiley]

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?

Because the evolutionist idea is supposed to be driven by pruely natural forces, the Bible does not support that.

 

[GuySmiley]

Hilston looks like Captain Jack Sparrow and when I read his posts I read it in that voice, although not aloud.

 

[elected4ever]

Because the evolutionist idea is supposed to be driven by purely natural forces, the Bible does not support that.

Aren't the natural laws of the universe created by God? Didn't he place them there so they could be observed and witness to Himself? It would be the erroneous conclusion of the non-believing observer that would be wrong, not the law itself. Isn't that correct?

 

[The Berean]

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 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?

Isn't it both? After one year the child will have completed their first year and begin their second year of life. Koreans simply celebrate the begining of the "new" year. My wife is Korean and she explained it to me.

 

[SUTG]

SUTG
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.

For the record I don't really care for Popper or Kuhn, or Feyerabend or Lakatos. I was just stating Popper's position (which I do not adhere to) earlier. These guys have all drawn from Hume's Inductive Skepticism, but they've taken it to different places. Especially Feyerabend. You could probably use some of his stuff in the skeptical half of your apologetic.

 

[mighty_duck]

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

This would depend on your method of proving it, say against a otherwise deist god, who just spoke to me a few minutes ago, and grounded my axioms. I even have written proof.
There are some flaws with this, but it would serve to show your method, and so fuel objections. There are an infinite amount of possible groundings, but thoroughly debunking a few archtypes with slight modifications would be an acceptable method of convicing me.
1. A well defined FSM.
2. SUTG, who admitted to being omniscient on another thread. He is truely amazing! The guys at the state lottery keep getting the numbers wrong though
3. A presupposition that does not rely on god - everything just is.
4. The biblical god, with slight modification. He created the world in just 5 days.

That would be a good (if long) start.

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).

Angel hair pasta was made to test your faith. Also known as the Problem of Evil Pasta (POEP). How could a perfect Spaghetti monster exist, that allows such vile forms of creatures in his image to exist.

 

[Johnny]

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.

Sure, why not. I'm not asking you to spend a lot of time engaging me, I know you're busy. But since you asked..

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

No, it's asking why blind faith in axioms is different than blind faith in God.

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

Of course they are. The axioms function whether or not they are philosophically grounded and are logically coherent because of your faith in God. All you seem to be arguing (so far) is that you have a logical reason to employ these ideas that science uses (induction, uniformity, etc) whereas an atheist does not. But as you are forced to admit, they work fine even without this philosophical support. And why do the tools of science work fine in describing the rest of the universe but suddenly stop working when we knock on evolution's door?

 

[Johnny]

Also want to tack this on. You stated,

"Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."

Then aren't all scientific advancements blindly religious and therefore they do not qualify as science? What valid science have we done?

 

[fool]

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.).

You see this because it draws a logical parrallel. You posit an unfalsifiable, invisable prime cause, they posit another, neither of you can prove the others dosen't exist.

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.

No defense is nessasary, you can't prove there is no FSM just as they can't prove there is no Yaweh. Besides the point is to illustrate the weakness of your arguement, not bring people to the FSM faith.

Competing worldviews cannot be adequately compared if one of the views is not seriously put forth and affirmed.

Again I don't think many people actually believe in the FSM, it is used to show that making unfounded assertations does not prove your point.
It's unfounded assertation for unfounded assertation. 1

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.

This description you seek would be no more than a game of "My unfounded assertation can beat up your unfounded assertation"



1( my apologies to anyone that does believe in the Flying Spigetti Monster)

 

[Balder]

Isn't it both? After one year the child will have completed their first year and begin their second year of life. Koreans simply celebrate the begining of the "new" year. My wife is Korean and she explained it to me.

Sure, you can say it's both. I'm just pointing out that how we number things is sometimes based on convention -- it is not absolute, and doesn't require "God" to explain the apparent "inevitability" of our expectations. I'm not arguing against God here; just saying that the belief that something should obviously be numbered in a particular way isn't a particularly good argument in favor of the necessity of God's existence.

I worked for a couple years in Korea, by the way, and some of my friends have married into Korean culture. Sometimes I miss a good, make-your-eyes-run-with-tears-and-your- face-flush- with-heat Korean meal.

Annyonghi kyeshipshio,

Balder

 

[fool]

Annyonghi kyeshipshio,

Balder

"Hey now fellas, we don't need any trouble in here, not in any language."-the sheriff in Tombstone.

 

[avatar382]

Thanks to both Strat & Hilston for taking the time to debate! I'm hoping for a very interesting debate between both of them.

I see that Hilston is going the same way Clete went in his Carl Sagan thread.

Since I've yet to get a response from Clete regarding certain points I've made, perhaps, if the debate goes that way, Hilston will have an a opportunity to respond to them.

First, the topic of the debate is "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction"? To win, one must merely define science, and then show that the Theory of Evolution fits, or doesn't fit.

Stratnerd basically describes "science" as falsifiable. At the center of Hilstons argument is that science is impossible without a "rational basis" for induction, which is belief, or faith, as he puts it, in his God.

I hope that the following is touched on:
a.) Why is it necessary to justify or have a "basis" for concepts which are self-evident? When one says that a concept is an axiom or is axiomatic, we say that it is to be accepted on its intrinsic evidence, to borrow from the Russell quote Hilston provided.

b.) If it's blind faith that one is to accept axioms only on their intrinsic evidence, then it must also be blind faith to accept one's senses. Our senses are also axiomatic. Like logic, it is not possible to verify or falsify one's senses without using the same senses.

c.) What about the possiblity that the origins of nature and logic are merely beyond the capacity of human comprehension?

 

[avatar382]

Thanks to both Strat & Hilston for taking the time to debate! I'm hoping for a very interesting debate between both of them.

I see that Hilston is going the same way Clete went in his Carl Sagan thread.

Since I've yet to get a response from Clete regarding certain points I've made, perhaps, if the debate goes that way, Hilston will have an a opportunity to respond to them.

First, the topic of the debate is "Evolution: Science or Science Fiction"? To win, one must merely define science, and then show that the Theory of Evolution fits, or doesn't fit.

Stratnerd basically describes "science" as falsifiable. At the center of Hilstons argument is that science is impossible without a "rational basis" for induction, which is belief, or faith, as he puts it, in his God.

As others in this thread have said, I hope that the following is touched on:
a.) Why is it necessary to justify or have a "basis" for concepts which are self-evident? When one says that a concept is an axiom or is axiomatic, we say that it is to be accepted on its intrinsic evidence, to borrow from the Russell quote Hilston provided.

b.) If it's blind faith that one is to accept axioms only on their intrinsic evidence, then it must also be blind faith to accept one's senses. Our senses are also axiomatic. Like logic, it is not possible to verify or falsify one's senses without using the same senses, so such an attempt would be begging the question.

Since the senses are used by Christians to observe the world and read the Bible, the Bible cannot be used as a "rational basis" for our senses. In fact, nothing can be used as a rational basis for our senses, since everything we experience relies on them! This is exactly why they are axiomatic.

c.) What about the possiblity that the origins of nature and logic are merely beyond the capacity of human comprehension?

 

[avatar382]

Yeesh. I thought I was editing my post, Turns out I was quoting myself.

Please, read the second post.

Mods, if you would be good enough to replace post 55 with the content from 56 and delete 56, I'd be much obligied! :e4e:

 

[Zimfan]

Isn't it both? After one year the child will have completed their first year and begin their second year of life. Koreans simply celebrate the begining of the "new" year. My wife is Korean and she explained it to me.

[worthless trivia] One of my Political Science professors told me once that that method of counting age is used in certain parts of central/eastern Europe, too. [/worthless trivia]

 

[Just_like_Peter]

I am very excited! Thank you for the email concerning the start of the Battle. I am a Pastoral student and I believe Jim opened with an excelent style to his debate. I am on the edge of my seat! I am still trying to navigate through this site, so please stick with me while I do learn. Oh, and i surely can not type! So forgive me. I think this is a great start and would have to agree that Stratnerd did not do his homework on Jim. Hilston, I must say has blown me away with his style of debate. I absolutely like the way he writes, and I spend 90% of my time in comentaries. I think this is a great site, and am very glad I stumbled accross it.

 

[avatar382]

The Carl Sagan thread has been closed.

Although I completely understand the reason why - (and even agree with the closing) - as the subject matter is virtually identical to BR IX, I cannot help but feel slightly annoyed that I will be unable provide a rebuttal to Clete's latest argument in that venue. Especially since Clete has inheretied the Enyartian tendency to declare "victory" in the middle of a debate.

This thread is not about Clete and I, however - it doesn't seem quite right to quote and rebut the last post made in the Sagan thread here - but, I would like to offer some of my obversations about the presuppositional argument used by Hilston in BR IX and Clete in the aforementioned thread.

It is my observation that the presuppositional argument is circular.

It seeks to begin with the Bible to defend the Bible. Of course, the presuppositional theist will argue that the non-theist does the same - presupposing logic to defend logic.

There is much to say on this matter (obviously), and I'd like to see how the battle plays out rather than dump a bunch of arguments at this early stage, but I would like to explain where I was going with one of my arguments to Clete, which, incidentally, I repeated to Hilston just a few posts above.

I mentioned the human senses because we are utterly dependant on them, like logic, to percieve and interact with the world around us.

Clete has made the claim that like logic, our senses are accounted for because we have been created by a being that is logical, and able to sense.

My question is then - How do we know of this being, called "God"? The theist answer is: By revelation from the Bible.

My very next question of course is: How is one to recieve revelation from the Bible, without senses to read the words or to hear them spoken?

So, given that man's only method of revelation is utterly reliant on the senses, it is necessary to presuppose their (and ultimately, logic's) verity before we can presuppose the Bible. One cannot use the Bible to account for the verity of the senses while relying on the very same senses to know what the content of the Bible is.