Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Hilston]

Responses to todays comments

Responses to todays comments

Greetings again, Grandstanders.

The following post contains responses to:

Balder
Carver
Casey
elected4ever
fool
SUTG
mighty_duck
avatar382

Balder

Hey, Jim,

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

Thanks, Balder. Life is busy, but it's a wonderful time to be alive. Good to hear from you.

Hilston originally wrote [to 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?

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?

Are you suggesting that Carver's question is without warrant? In Korea, does one often see numerical sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9? Does a child in Korea celebrate their 10th birthday after their 8th, followed by their 9th?

Carver

Do we really have to question everything?

If you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then yes, you must question everything, including the reason why you would expect 9 to follow 8, instead of 10. However, if you're satisfied with operating on blind assumption and magic, then no.

Doesn't it just get ridiculous after some point?

How will you ascertain when something has indeed become "ridiculous"? What does such a word even mean without applying the inductive principle?

9 is before 10. That's just the way it is. 2+2 is 4. Leave Math alone. Argue God, ...

Am I allowed to say, "God exists. Evolution is wrong. That's just the way it is"? If I'm NOT allowed to say that (nor should I be), then you're not allowed to say "9 is before 10. That's just the way it is."

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.

Carver, you've demonstrated here a fascinating (to me) fallacy that has existed for a long time. It is the fallacy of pretended neutrality. In an effort to appear fair, unbiased and neutral, many if not most people from both camps, evolutionist and creationist, want to put various kinds of knowledge into different compartments. They want knowledge about God and sin and morality to go into a compartment where bias and opinion have free reign. But they want knowledge about math and facts and data to go into a compartment where neutrality is the governing concern. Go ahead and argue about biased, opinion-laden concepts, but leave math out of it. But the fact is, which I've demonstrated and will continue to drive home, there is no such thing as neutrality. Math is not neutral. An attack on the existence of God is an attack on math. An attack on the verity of the Creation account is an attack on math.

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.

Have you ever had a teacher teach you something that they didn't believe to be true? Have you ever seen a teacher give a lecture that taught, with fairness and accuracy, the flat-earth theory or the geo-centric model? Can you imagine such a thing? If creationism were taught in schools, do you expect the teachers who disagree with the theory to nonetheless teach it as something that could be true?

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?

Because requiring a anti-Creationist teacher to teach the merits of creationism would be like asking a pro-choice activist to teach the merits of the pro-life thesis.

It doesn't mean that schools have to define this creator, i.e., who he is, what his purpose was in creating life, etc., ...

That's a problem. It is an attempt to take a neutral approach to the question of origins. Not only is it unbiblical, it is irrational. There can be no cogent discussion of origins apart from a positive affirmation and acknowledge of God, specifically and non-negotiably, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.

... 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.

You used the word "valid." What makes a theory "valid"? And who gets to decide that?

elected4ever

I don't understand why someone would have a biases against disorder to order in the creation of things?

Evolutionists don't believe in creation.

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 either rejects, or he undermines by his assertions, the teaching of Genesis 1.

fool

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 ".

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

To that, fool responded:

By all means, let us unpack further.

OK. Person A says X. The verity of falsity of X is independent of whether or not Person A has a workable worldview on which to base that conclusion. If he holds conclusion X and it happens to be true, his reasoning may or may not be justified, but he holds the correct view nonetheless. However, holding the correct view is not the same as having justified knowledge. But this gets into a difficult area of epistemology called Gettier problems. Are you familiar with them?

Hilston originally wrote: 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.

I would say it this way: A correct conclusion can be held by both the believer and the anti-believer. The difference is, the believer holds a correct conclusion based on principles that are grounded and certain. Thus he has certain and justified knowledge. The anti-believer holds a correct conclusion based on principles that he assumes to be grounded and certain, but in actuality, he is personally unable to rationally ground or certify them. Regardless of whatever assurance or confidence he may claim to have in that knowledge, ultimately his knowledge, although correctly held, is not justified.

Hence, were an unbeliever to become a believer his correct conclusions would cease being irrational assumptions and become grounded certainties.

I would say, if an anti-believer were to become a believer, his correct conclusions would no longer be based on principles assumed to be axiomatic (i.e. magical), but rather based on principles that have a rational grounding in reality (i.e. God's existence).

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?

No. The verity or falsity of a statement is objective, independent of who holds the statement. Again, a believer and an unbeliever can hold the same true statement, for example, lightning causes thunder. However, the principle of induction, which is what is required for causality and to understand how lightning and thunder are related, only makes sense in the believer's worldview. The believer holds the statement rationally; the unbeliever holds the statement irrationally.

Hilston wrote originally: 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?

That would be fine. I've never heard that admission. I would regard such an admission as a gift.

SUTG

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.

I'll have a look at Feyeraband and Lakatos. I see them both quoted or in footnotes in Kuhn's Revolutions. Thanks for the recommendation. What would your response be to Bertrand Russell's statement about the inductive principle that I cited in my Opening Statement in the BRIX?

mighty_duck

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

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

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.

A well defined FSM may not be debunkable, especially if it turns out that It has all the same attributes as the Biblical God.

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.

Again, a well defined SUTG may not be debunkable. We might find out that we just have different names for the same omniscient Being.

3. A presupposition that does not rely on god - everything just is.

In a rational debate that sets out to resolve a difference of opinion about the nature of reality or of the origins and diversity of life, the claim, "everything just is," is an admission of irrationality, and thus a concession to defeat. The person offering such a claim should not bother showing up for a debate.

4. The biblical god, with slight modification. He created the world in just 5 days.

Exactly how does the 5-day Creator ground the aforementioned axioms?

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.

Hilston replied: 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.

OK, what convinced you to worship the Pepsi Can Deity and to recognize It as the originator of all things Who accounts for the nature and existence of reality? Given Its existence, how is it that the Pepsi Can Deity originated all things and accounts for reality? Finally (for now), please describe the character, nature and attributes of the Pepsi God Deity Whom you worship.

Hilston wrote: 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.

Faith in God doesn't have to be blind. In fact, true faith in God is not blind at all. Please read my Opening Statement in the BRIX. I give an extended treatment of faith, complete with references to the Bible's descriptions of true faith.

Hilston wrote: 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.

Exactly. And this is precisely what the debate is about, Johnny. The Evolution position will stand or fall in this debate depending on how it fares regarding this issue.

But as you are forced to admit, they work fine even without this philosophical support.

That's true. I readily admit that, because it is biblical. The Bible addresses the fact that all men, theists and anti-theists alike, use the tools of science and rationality that God gave them, even when they use those tools to oppose Him. Cornelius Van Til described this as a little girl climbing up on her father's lap in order to smack him in the face. This is what anti-theists do when they use logic and science to try to disprove God as Creator.

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?

They don't.

Also want to tack this on. You stated,
Originally Posted by Hilston: "[For the] 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?

It isn't a question of whether or not successful scientific advances invoke scientific principles, but rather a question of whether or not those who invoked said principles did so rationally or blindly. Evolution is not blindly religious because it uses science, but rather because it does so without rational warrant or justification.

fool

Originally Posted by Hilston: 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.

It turns out that they're not really parallel, but the same Being. If they're not the same Being, then at every point at which their "prime cause" deviates from the Biblical one, their "prime cause" can be shown to be internally incoherent and self-contradictory.

No defense [of the FSM] 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.

But it actually serves the opposite purpose. To propose that a supernatural FSM could ground their otheriwise magic assumptions is to concede the verity of such a supernatural grounding. All that is left to the task is to show that every characteristic and attribute of the FSM must align with the God of the Bible in order to be coherent and non-self-contradictory.

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.

I assure, and I can demonstrate that my statements are not unfounded, and that those statements do indeed prove my point.

avatar382

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.

Would you be inclined to proffer a definition of science?

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?

Please unpack this for me. What does "self-evident" mean, and how do you distinguish between something that is self-evident and something that is not?

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.

Russell said, "... we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future."

On what basis have you chosen to blindly move from particuluar cases of induction (intrinsic evidence) to the generality called "the inductive principle." On what basis have you rejected the alternative posed by Russell ("to forgo all justification of our expectations about the future")?

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.

Exactly. I have color blindness. I either can't trust my eyes or the occipital lobe of my brain (I don't know which is flawed) to communicate the sense of color accurately. Now how do I know other senses aren't flawed as well? How should I go about ascertaining this? By what method could I calibrate my sensory faculties to ensure that they comport with the real world?

Our senses are also axiomatic.

Magic!

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.

Brilliant! I commend you, avatar382. I've not met many people who are able or willing to acknowledge this issue in human experience. Your statement is exactly correct. So, in this regard, as it pertains to the verity of the senses, how is the Creationist view superior? It is superior, and in fact, exclusively rational, because God, the Creator of eyes, noses, taste buds, eardrums, nerve endings, the brain that processes the data, and the mind that cogitates it, assures the believer, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit in the experience of each believer, that our senses are generally reliable, barring obvious exclusions. The anti-Theist/anti-believer has no such assurance, and thus, can only rely upon his senses axiomatically (i.e., by trusting in magic).

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.

On the contrary, the existence of God is not known only through the senses. His existence is communicated immediately (as opposed to mediately), internally, to every human being, and is reciprocally reinforced by the rational faculties and sense experience. That is not to say that every human being acknowledges and embraces this truth. In fact, the Bible teaches that the vast majority of human beings hold this truth in unrighteousness, doing everything they can to push God and His truth down, out of their view.

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

Then we're back to magic, and no one needs to show up for the debate.

It is my observation that the presuppositional argument is circular.

You're right. But all worldviews are ultimately circular. It is an inescapable fact of philosophy. All worldviews are circular, but the Creationist worldview has a ratioanl starting point, and that is God. By falling back on so-called axioms, the anti-Theist/Evolution admits that he has no rationally justifiable starting point.

It seeks to begin with the Bible to defend the Bible.

What's wrong with that?

Of course, the presuppositional theist will argue that the non-theist does the same - presupposing logic to defend logic.

There's nothing wrong with that either.

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

It's a good point. I'm glad I have a worldview that grounds my reliance upon my senses and reason. I'm sad for anti-theists who must resort to blindly trusting them and relegating them to axioms.

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

That's not what the Bible says.

Romans 1:19,20 ... [T]hat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The Bible says all men know God and are without excuse, even those who have never read the Bible.

I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep this up, but I'm glad I was able to participate up to this point.

Keep on rockin' in the quasi-free world,
Jim

 

[mighty_duck]

The Carl Sagan thread has been closed.

This was a disappointing end, just when it was getting interesting. It diminishes this whole site that such a thread was inducted to the hall of fame, merely a day after it was started.

What I see carrying over from Clete to his mentor Hilston, is that the basis for his entire claim is an assertion:

Logic is an attribute of God and would not, could not, does not exist apart from Him. He is its source and its foundation. It is God that I presuppose not logic. Logic does not work apart from the existence of God, as I have demonstrated in this thread and thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

There is really no way to back this up aside from hand waving. Hilston does wave his hands pretty artfully, so I'd like to see him try to make this more than an assertion.

The other major quibble I have regards all this talk of absolute knowldge, when the basis for it is a presupposition that in itself is uncertain. There was also no mention of how Solipsism is refuted.

These issues should pop up in the BR IX debate, so we may get a better answer soon.

 

[Clete]

These issues should pop up in the BR IX debate, so we may get a better answer soon.

Which is why I closed the thread. It would have been a distraction to the Battle Royale.

And you're the one who deserves the credit for its early induction into the TOL Hall of Fame, not me. I just presented the argument in it simplest terms and instantly you responded with the following...

You are right. I don't know that reality is real.

Now if that isn't a classic I don't know what is. How common is it for one's opponent to come right out and say "You're right. I don't know anything including what the heck I'm talking about, or whether I'm really saying anything for that matter."! I mean what more could you ask for in a debate than that?! It's absolutely unbelievable. I literally don't recall that ever happening in any debate anywhere ever before. The only thing that could have been better is if you had used the realization you proclaimed as cause to repent, but I suppose that I'll take what I can get.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[fool]

OK. Person A says X. The verity of falsity of X is independent of whether or not Person A has a workable worldview on which to base that conclusion. If he holds conclusion X and it happens to be true, his reasoning may or may not be justified, but he holds the correct view nonetheless. However, holding the correct view is not the same as having justified knowledge. But this gets into a difficult area of epistemology called Gettier problems. Are you familiar with them?

Thank you.
I would submit that , since a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that the worldview of the positor is a moot point.

 

[Hilston]

Solipsists of the world, unite!

Solipsists of the world, unite!

Hi Eff (I really do hate calling you "fool").

This is an excellent post you've made. It provides a wonderful opportunity to talk about an important point concerning how a resolution of the differences between the Creationist and Evolutionist should be addressed.

Thank you.
I would submit that , since a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that the worldview of the positor is a moot point.

I would agree with you if there were such a thing as "brute facts," i.e. uninterpreted data. The problem is, a worldview -- that is, a system of thought by which one regiments his reasoning and tries to make sense of the world -- is necessary to meaningfully make or comprehend any statement whatsoever. To say that "a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor" is NOT the same as saying "a statement can be comprehended or affirmed APART from a worldview." That is, apart from a working paradigm, even a true statement would be meaningless. While a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that statement can only be meaningful and make sense within a worldview, the Creationist/Theistic worldview in particular.

My position is that all true predication makes sense only in terms of the Creationist/Theistic worldview. All other worldviews will fail at this point. Furthermore, any meaning and comprehension attained and held by anti-Creationist/anti-theistic worldviews are in spite of, not because of, their false view. Moreover, any meaning and comprehension that is held by the anti-Creationist/anti-Theist comes from tacitly and unwittingly borrowing the tools of the Creationist/Theist paradigm, even while attempting to discredit and debunk Creationist/Theist claims.

Thanks again for your post.

Plays well with others,
Jim

 

[Balder]

Are you suggesting that Carver's question is without warrant? In Korea, does one often see numerical sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,9? Does a child in Korea celebrate their 10th birthday after their 8th, followed by their 9th?

No, not without warrant; just not requiring the existence of the Judeo-Christian God to ground it. As I stated, experience and convention are sufficient to explain his expectation of a particular order to things: "If these conditions pertain, we call it this; if these other conditions pertain, we call it that." I expect that you will point past this particular instance to the general, asking if experience and order themselves can be explained in the absence of God. And here I will agree that the atheist materialist worldview is hard-pressed to explain the emergence of sentience out of a wholly insentient universe. Where I disagree is with the assertion that no perspective but the Christian one is capable of accounting for this; but we've been down that road...

How is the Creationist view superior? It is superior, and in fact, exclusively rational, because God, the Creator of eyes, noses, taste buds, eardrums, nerve endings, the brain that processes the data, and the mind that cogitates it, assures the believer, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit in the experience of each believer, that our senses are generally reliable, barring obvious exclusions.

To return closer to the discussion of evolution, do you have an explanation for why God gave human beings tail bones and human males nipples?

In another discussion, Clete talked about God being able to perceive his environment. Does God inhabit an environment, and if so, is it co-eternal with him? Do you, or Clete, think that a "God with senses and an environment" is necessary to rationally explain the existence of creatures with senses and an environment?

Best wishes,
Balder

 

[mighty_duck]

Again, a well defined SUTG may not be debunkable. We might find out that we just have different names for the same omniscient Being.

a SUTG is very well defined. He is an ape-like creature that lives and breathes, and occasionally posts in this forum. He has a funny looking goatee artificially painted on his face. He may not have created all of existence, but he's Omniscient. How do I know? I presupposed it. I will also presuppose that everything in this post is inerrant. How do I know that logic is vald? Because SUTG says it is, and he's always right.

Fun fact: while SUTG's morals are very different the God of the Blible (for example SUTG doesn't condone genocide, slavery, and other horrible things), he is nevertheless a perfect moral being. Morality is defined as being whatever SUTG says it is, and it is in his nature to be moral.

In a rational debate that sets out to resolve a difference of opinion about the nature of reality or of the origins and diversity of life, the claim, "everything just is," is an admission of irrationality, and thus a concession to defeat. The person offering such a claim should not bother showing up for a debate.

This just smacks of God of the gaps. While my worldview may not be able to "account" for logic (more on this later), that doesn't make it invalid. Whie you worldview does "account" for logic, it doesn't make it valid. A few thousand years ago someone with my worldview would not have been able to explain why the sun seems to go around the world. Someone with your worldview would have used the ever useful goddidt.
And how did God obtain this gift of logic? Oh, its in his nature. In other words, "it just is".

If you can, please also define "account".

Lastly, why can't we define logic as a formal way of describing how humans reason? If this is true, then logic came in the same way we did, which is what this debate is really about.

 

[aharvey]

As fascinating as a debate on whether evolution is science in which one side explicitly plans to avoid discussing the scientific evidence concerning evolution promises to be, I must limit myself to the occasional observation.

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. (my emphasis)

That’s all scientists, Jim, not just evolutionists, and if you think it's strange for scientists to think this way, you are going to have a difficult time making an intelligent statement about what qualifies as "science." Perhaps you are saying that you find it strange that evolutionists would think this way because you also assume they have blind faith in evolution? If so, then allow me to point out the obvious resolution to this paradox: your assumption is incorrect, evolutionists don't have blind faith in evolutionary theory.

Ironically, the only people who claim to have true and certain knowledge about anything derive that certainty entirely from blind faith in _____ (you’re welcome to fill in the blank). So you’ve got it exactly backwards. Scientists acknowledge that they lack certain knowledge of absolute truth because they are unwilling to place blind faith in anything. You, on the other hand, are quite happy to claim certain knowledge of absolute truths and you quite happily base it on your blind faith in a particular religious view. However, I would find it most entertaining for someone to try to demonstrate how one could believe they had certain knowledge of absolute truths without having blind faith in anything. And I know you've said your faith isn't blind faith, but saying they're different ain't the same as showing us how. One could make the case that "faith" is to "blind faith" as "circle" is to "round circle."

 

[mighty_duck]

Which is why I closed the thread. It would have been a distraction to the Battle Royale.

I agree with the rationalle. It is just a half baked thread, and should not have been HOF material just yet, regardless of the quote you're so proud of.

And you're the one who deserves the credit for its early induction into the TOL Hall of Fame, not me. I just presented the argument in it simplest terms and instantly you responded with the following...

This is why I would have made a terrible politician. Even though far greater minds than mine have posited similar affirmations. It would have been a lot less useful for you had I not made the semantic concession at the begining of that post, and worded it:

"I do not have absolute knowledge that reality is real."

If you wish to continue to use it out of context, feel free. It is only your integrity that is being shot each time you do. Isn't false testimony a no-no for Christians?

Semantics aside, you still have not demonstrated that the folowing is any more than an assertion:

Logic is an attribute of God and would not, could not, does not exist apart from Him. He is its source and its foundation. It is God that I presuppose not logic. Logic does not work apart from the existence of God, as I have demonstrated in this thread and thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

I know, the word "demonstrated" is in there, but the only demonstration is more assertions.

It isn't just you, I have never seen any presuppositionilst back it up. Without this, you have no absolute knowledge either, and therefore are just as guilty as anyone of not "knowing" that reality is real. You just won't admit it...

 

[SUTG]

If you're going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then yes, you must question everything, including the reason why you would expect 9 to follow 8, instead of 10. However, if you're satisfied with operating on blind assumption and magic, then no.

It is best to go with the modern logicians on this one. That 2+2=4, or that P^Q implies P, and all of the other truths of logic, are true because we defined them that way. They give us no information about the world, and are true in every possible world. In Kant's terminology, they are the analytic apriori.

SUTG
I'll have a look at Feyeraband and Lakatos. I see them both quoted or in footnotes in Kuhn's Revolutions. Thanks for the recommendation.

I think you'd especially enjoy Feyerabend's "Against Method" which takes Hume's skepticism to its logical (pun intended) conclusion. David Stove would be his counterpart on the other side of the spectrum. See his "Rationality of Induction" for a rrefutation of Hume's thesis.

What would your response be to Bertrand Russell's statement about the inductive principle that I cited in my Opening Statement in the BRIX?

If I recall the quote correctly, it is simply another example of the Humean Thesis. This is one of the most popular areas in modern philosophy. It is always fun to introduce it to those who are unfamiliar with Hume's work. Of course, as humans, we have no choice but to use induction! And, to this date, no-one has been able to formalize a good way to determine whether inductive reasoning is appropriate in a given situation. You are probably familiar with examles of inductive reasoning leading to false conclusions.

Positing the Christian God adds nothing to the debate.

 

[SUTG]

It isn't just you, I have never seen any presuppositionilst back it up.

If there is anything you can ever have absolute knowledge about, it is that you never will see a presuppositionalist back up that statement. Every debate I have seen on the topic ends up with the presuppositionalist asserting the "impossibility of the contrary". The defense of the assertion is never fothcoming.

As a kick, go to a christian forum, or an athestic one like infidels.org, and search for threads on the TAG. They all end this way. By induction, this one will too.

 

[mighty_duck]

Only an atheist brings a knife to a gunfight

Only an atheist brings a knife to a gunfight

Stratnerd's second post is a mixed bag. He makes many good points, which would be very convincing had it not been for his opponent's strategy.
As I have said before, strategically, there are really only two ways he can win this debate:
1. Object to discussing "is Science valid?", and focus on "is evolution science?". Strictly define science as a toolbox, and define evolution as a tool which fits in that box. That would mean having the opponents talk past each other.
There was a little meat in Jim's 1st post that falls under scientific objection, that could have been used to fill an entire post. Such as the implied irreducable complexity of the eye, ear, etc. Refuting this line, while maintaining a strong line on definitions, would have meant victory.
2. "Answer the fool according to his folly". There are any number of refutations to Jim's TAG argument. The problem is that stratnerd has been hoodwinked in to posting under the assumption that this is a debate on evolution. It is not.
There is still time for refutations, which will be clearer once Jim formalizes his version of TAG in the next post.

My notes of stratnerd's 2nd post:
1. Others who could reconcile evolution with God. While a worthy attempt, every theist thinks he has a monopoly on the truth, which means that every other theists are wrong. And for any theist reading this that thinks I am wrong, think how wrong other denomination of your own faith got it. Take a look at posts here mocking Catholics/Baptists etc.
The "no true scottsman" fallacy will rear its ugly head in Jim's rebuttal: Those guys were wrong, God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago.
2. Evolution does not entail Atheism. Jim did not commit this fallacy, so rebutting it was not necessary. He did make a deeper statement about the presuppositions that must be made in order to do science.
3. Makes nice point about skeptisism regarding Jim's fantastic claim "the bible is necessary for science". In so doing takes the poison pill, in allowing in Jim's TAG.
4. Makes an astute comment

I haven't seen any philosophical discussion that hasn't ended like a dog chasing it's tail

From now on, all he can do is follow this needlessly complicated philosophical tail. We won't get any resolution on this matter.
5. Misunderstands Jim's stand on evidence. Evidence must be interpreted using your worldview, and if your worldview happens to say that the Bible is true (absolute truth, it's an axiom), then no competing evidence is going to change that.
To counter this point, it may be argued that it's less conductive to change. Is change a good thing? Science has certainly proven so. This will probably come up later. Also, can atheist science find evidence against it's own axioms? The answer may be surprising and damaging to Jim's case.
6. Does lay some groundwork, in that he argues that evolution is science, based on similarities to all the other scientific tools. If Jim is willing to throw away every scientific progress we've made, he would have lost the debate regardless of the success of his argument.

With some homework on Jim's methods, or a more honest debate topic, we could have saved 2 posts.

 

[Clete]

I will predict that you guys make the argument after this Battle Royale. The argument has been made and will be made a hundred times better during this BR but you guys still won't see it and will continue to claim that its nothinig more than an assertion.

Actually I understand where you guys are comming from. I didn't see it either for the longest time.

 

[aharvey]

I will predict that you guys make the argument after this Battle Royale. The argument has been made and will be made a hundred times better during this BR but you guys still won't see it and will continue to claim that its nothinig more than an assertion.

Actually I understand where you guys are comming from. I didn't see it either for the longest time.

To which argument/assertion are you referring? That a presupposition is the same as an assumption BUT presupposing the existence of a logical God is completely different from assuming the existence of a logical God?

 

[SUTG]

I will predict that you guys make the argument after this Battle Royale. The argument has been made and will be made a hundred times better during this BR but you guys still won't see it and will continue to claim that its nothinig more than an assertion.

Actually I understand where you guys are comming from. I didn't see it either for the longest time.

I won't deny that there are alot of nuanced practitioners of the TAG, and it can be hard to see at first, but it is ultimately rubbish. I understand where you are coming from, I didn't see this either for the longest time.

There are several ways of attacking the TAG, and all of them are fatal. The "impossibility of the contrary" sounds nice to say, but since there are no presuppositionalists that can show this, the contrary is possible.

Also, alternative worldviews can be proposed that stand up to scrutiny just as well as asserting the Christian God does. And so on...

Finally, it has to be asked of what use logic and rationality are that you even want your worldview to 'justify' or 'account' for them in the first place.

 

[GuySmiley]

Stratnerd's second post

Stratnerd's second post

I thought after all the discussion in the Talk thread that Stratnerd would go read the Carl Sagan thread and have some idea of what Hilston was talking about but apparently he didn't. Since Hilston also included the beginnings of an argument in his first round, and Stratnerd didn't really, I think Stratnerd is now on his heels. I hope he doesn't want direct answers to the 500 questions he asked. I predict a discussion about the 'listing official questions at the end of each post' rules.

 

[sentientsynth]

Hilston,

Have you read any of Godel's work? If you haven't, I'm sure you'd enjoy him.

Keep up the extraordinary work.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

Godel was some kinda smart.

Interesting Reading.

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

 

[PureX]

Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology.

 

[PureX]

Hilston's argument looks like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.

For some reason I couldn't edit this post, so I just reposted it, corrected.