Bill Snedden

This is the very heart of the presuppositionalist dilemma. The entire enterprise is no more than a huge petitio principii fallacy. The orderly character of the universe needs justification, but the orderly character of god does not.

Van Til used to characterize the "foundation" of non-Christian thought as "shifting sand." I always found it ironic that while he was exceedingly good at pointing out what he believed was a speck in the non-believer's eye, he somehow consistently missed the log in his own.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Bill Snedden

At least you're consistent. I would assume, then, that you're pro-choice. After all, perhaps God wants all those babies dead. How are you to know that he doesn't personally speak to each of the women involved and command them to get abortions. In fact, since you're a Calvinist (I assume), then it must be God's will that abortions occur. Abortion, therefore, is a good thing.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you would worship a god who could command you to torture and kill children?

My argument is certainly not incoherent. In the logical sense, an incoherent argument is one in which the conclusion is in contradiction to the premises. It is easy to see that my conclusion follows from my premises. Your disagreement with the premises does not render the argument "incoherent". Clearly you understood exactly what I was trying to say. Your declaration of my argument as incoherent is therefore something of a "poisoning the well" approach.

You're correct in that I do assume a particular definition of depravity. My definition is rooted in the idea that human ideas and sensations have meaning. Most people would consider it "depraved" to torture and murder children.

Of course, in your worldview, there can be no depravity. Whatever your god wills, is good by definition. Therefore, no human action can be considered evil or depraved in and of itself. It is only the absence of God's will that makes it so. On what basis, then, can you condemn any apparent evil? How can you consistently hold that God's will determines the moral status of actions and that the terrorist destruction of the twin towers was evil? Clearly, if your god ordered or allowed the destruction to occur, then it was in accord with his divine will and therefore good.

Thank goodness that most of the world doesn't see things your way. That would be a living hell, indeed.

Are you suggesting that because believers differ in their interpretation of the Bible that there can be no true understanding of it?

What's good for the goose is surely sauce for the gander. Differences of opinion regarding "ultimate" human goals do not, ipso facto render such goals non-existent. Your "argument" is a non sequitur.

And I have. You fail to grasp it only because you have rejected outright the idea that Man's life can have any possible meaning intrinsic to Man.

No, you have misstated your own argument. The only thing that makes something right or wrong is that it violates your god's will. To say that "rightness" or "wrongness" inhere to some set of rules dictated by your god is to suggest that he himself could not violate these rules without doing evil. This is clearly not the case. For your god, there can be no prescriptive behavior as his will defines "prescriptive." For your god, anything is possible; it is only we who are the slaves.

But according to your own worldview, we cannot have direct access to this image. The "fall", remember? Your rebuttal is another non sequitur.

Let's put your system to the test. "Mike" killed his mother and father because he thought that God spoke to him, told him that they were evil, and ordered him to kill them.

Was he wrong? Did he do evil? How do you know?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Philosoft

Grrrr.


Dave, you keep asserting this:<strong> in response to objections about the nature of Biblical interpretations, as if we are somehow supposed to listen to what the scripture itself is 'saying.' I'm tired of reading this BS because I know you know it's BS. There is no such thing as an objective text. Words have intersubjective meaning. There's no way around this so I hope we've heard the last of this nonsense.

Theli

Dave...
Halt!

How can humanism be defined as something ultimatly harmfull to humans?
It's the same thing as a circular square. If god would turn a square into a circle, it would be refered to as a circle, not a square.

Typhon

You've missed the point it appears Dave, and inadvertently strengthened my own case.

* * *

Morality:

"A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Immorality:

"The quality or condition of being immoral. An immoral act or practice. " - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Immoral:

"Contrary to established moral principles." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

* * *

Right AND wrong Dave, by the standards of the system. Of course "immorality" is a part of human behavior. It is part of a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct, in other words, it's part of human morality, which is itself determined by human needs and evolution as a social species.

But I just did, twice. I'll repeat myself again.

You may or may not agree with my justification, but it is my justification, and backed up mind you, by a considerable weight of scientific and behavioral evidence.

Care to back up your claim that my justification is incorrect, including the extensive biological, sociological, and behavioral experiments, reports, tests, and observations upon which it is based?

Let me know when you've managed to show before an accredited peer reviewed body or in a major publication in these fields, that you've done just that. Until then, quit lying and saying I've not justified my non-theist base for my morality.

I have. You're just not listening.

.T.

ShottleBop

Assume that we have the text of Scripture, and that the text of Scripture is subject to more than one interpretation. You asserted previously that we can rely on divine guidance to determine which interpretation is correct. I have asked you how that divine guidance manifests itself. Your answer to my question was entirely non-responsive.

Just for fun, I offer the following traditional story from the Talmud, which evidences the approach to the interpretation of Scripture taken by orthodox Judaism:

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: ShottleBop ]

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: ShottleBop ]</p>

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

Boy, this is exciting.

Why not? As Jack already pointed out, there are an infinite number of possible explanations that would work to full that hole.

BTW, you're also committing a fallacy of equivocation. Theism != Christianity, and even if I give you the binary option (atheism vs. theism), you would have to disprove every other theist answer before you can claim yours correct. As atheists have mentioned, "we just happen to disbelieve in one more God than the Christian". Perhaps you now see why.

I'm talking about how in blazes you can assume, a priori, that a Godless universe has to be chaotic. If you cannot show me this is true, then I do not have to show you how we can account for order with anything other than random chance.

And I've been trying to tell you that there is no such thing as "objective/subjective in nature". Sheesh.

Also, if you haven't been reading, I'm saying that we do not have absolute certainty (like that absolute morals argument) either. And yes, you may disagree with the statement - for example, that logic does not provide the groundwork for an argument - so as expected, it's impossible to make the argument and have the illogical chap understand. I believe this is what is happening right now.

You cannot say that, for you gained that knowledge via subjective means - i.e. reading your book, listening to the priest, etc. You presume, subjectively, that an objective reality exists.



It is circular because you're using the conclusion as the premise of the argument! If you want to show that there is an objective basis to languistics, then you must provide something more than "otherwise, we'd be unable to communicate", which is what you're arguing in the first place.

....which is exactly what "scrutinization" means! It's what science is about - trying to falsify your own claims as thoroughly as possible, and if it stands up to all tests, it's generally accepted to be true (although the possibility of disproving it later still exists). What's the alternative, assuming that it's true when testing? Isn't that....um....bias?

Formalization is required to arrive that at agreed point that I spoke of earlier; it is needed to make sure everybody stays on the same page. I would shudder to think of those individuals that try to "scrutinize" a work when on agreement on what level of scrutiny has been approved beforehand:

"Hey, I've checked all its historical references, translations, cross-references, and context. It's a bit shaky..."
"Hey, it has good grammar! It's rock solid!"

But how can it be a final authority in language? Much of Biblical interpretation (subjective) comes through trying to find the correct meanings for words, via context and historical perspective. The Bible itself, obviously, cannot give us these answers, and thus we have to find them "beyond" Biblical borders. I mean, does this simple example have you reduced to monotonous assertions and claims?

But don't you understand that these are ALL claims? That you say the Bible is the ultimate authority is a claim. That you say that you're certain of your interpretation is a claim. That you say that other Christians, with their versions of interpretation and certainty, are wrong is a claim. You assume, a priori, that I have somehow agreed to your claim that the Bible is the sole source of God's words.

As you can see, you hold no leverage over any other denomination, group, or even any theist. Defining yourself to be right only gets you so far.

No, it isn't "the right answer", but rather, in scientific terms, "the accepted answer". You're beating your strawman senseless here.

No. You're once again assuming that without an ultimate standard, the scheme crumples. I'm arguing that no such standard exists, so the lack of one is expected.

Also, note that "it gives rise to meaningful knowledge" does not work because you've essentially just defined your circular argument to have meaning.

Of course, the fact that nothing is certain is one of the most powerful assets of my "scheme". Is there anything certain in today's technological world? Does the US Constitution not have rules that allow it to be amended, since we admit to be uncertain about how to govern citizens of the state? Is science certain? Is literature ever certain (and don't bring up the bible, which is the literature in question; think about everything else)? Your CLAIM of certainty does not reflect our world.

They are the same argument. Bill has put it quite eloquently:

The entire enterprise is no more than a huge petitio principii fallacy.

To ACCOUNT FOR is to (try to) discover the cause of some element. Simple enough.