Datheron

sotzo,

And onto the latter!

No - I hold that the way that God is defined is 1) unsupportable and 2) self-contradictory. These two qualities make it possible to come to the conclusion that he does not exist.

Your argument itself is a fallacy, although I don't know the formal term for it. I am presupposing the definition for the sake of the argument, in order to prove it contradictory. What is in existence is the abstract concept of God, not God itself. There is another excellent thread where a poster noted that saying "God exists" can either mean 1) God the being exists or 2) God the abstract concept exists.

Methinks you're beating a strawman here. I'm arguing against Dave's presuppositionism, whereby he presupposes God as the base of all knowledge and by his own definition says that we not have any ground which to argue in the first place. I'm showing that such a definition is invalid.

Once again, as I said to Dave, you have no idea whether you have it all wrong, half right, completely right, or even e^-1% right. The entire argument of objective morally relies on the fact that there is, indeed, some objective ground to be held by the theist. It becomes a moot point when the map to the ground is lost in subjective babble.

I would agree on that point as well. Neither atheist or theist have any leverage over one another in terms of subjective interpretation, and I am trying to show Dave why an objective ground is essentially meaningless.

But it's a truth which you can never obtain, for you will never know whether it is truth.

And that's where the problem lies. Let me give an example.

One interpretation of the Bible has it that the earth is only around 6000 years old, based on the events that happen in the Bible and the things which transpire from them.

Another interpretation holds that the earth is billions of years old, with the acknowledgement that the "seven days" in Genesis are either mythical or poetical.

Of course, most Christians believe in the latter, but Young Earth Creationists (they seem to be gone now, thankfully) hold the former view true. They support their argument by the way of definition - that God basically makes everything seem like they're billions of years old, when in fact they're only a few thousand.

This is precisely what Dave was trying to run at me earlier. That God is defined, a priori, to be eternal meant that God-killer could not exist. This argument works in the same way by a priori assuming that God has done all this work, then showing that scientific discoveries are moot based on the definition.

I would say that that is a bad analogy, given that one of the beauties of poetry is interpretating it in ways that the poet himself did not intend.

But anyway, suppose that our goal is to get what the poet was trying to convey. How do we know that we've gotten the message, when many valid interpretations exist?

...which is why analogies aren't perfect.

But you're getting the gist of it. The theist is arguing that while the atheist is on an island, he is lost somewhere in the Mall of America. That is not true because there is no way for the theist to get to the mall. There is no way to indicate whether an interpretation is true or otherwise, so while the atheist may be stranded on an island penniless, the theist is stranded on the same island with billions in bills. Too bad they're suffering the same fate.

Read above. I did not intend to make that argument.

The same basis by which God is accounted for - necessity. I see the attempt to place God behind nature simply as a way to extend the epistemological ladder another step. If the theist can stop the infinite chain of contingency by defining God to be absolute and eternal, why can't I do the same to the universe and nature itself?

But God is also subject under the laws of logic, and if that's the case, then there must be been an origin for logic which is not God, which means that God is not all-powerful, nor did he create everything.

I have argued this many times in the past, often with distrubing results. If you want, I can try to rustle up a few threads on this, or you can start a new one. I don't want to broad the scope of this discussion beyond what we're already covering.

Read above.

I already did on Dave's reply - Japan's Shinto religion.

But anyway, I'm interested to see how you're applying the laws of logic to logic itself and even God to make your point. If the laws are indeed a part of God or created by God, then is (was) God illogical?

Eck. I'll just skip any more quotes on this strawman.

Precisely my point.

First off, if you say that Joe is a reckless driver, and him being aware of such a charge does not change his manner, then you have in fact bound him to the description. Every time he recklessly drives, he is proving that you are right. To give a more striking example, consider the friend who says that "you're never going to quit smoking". If you ring true to his claim, then while you're under the control of the cigarette, he is not, therefore he is more powerful. Furthermore, by getting at what is controlling you (i.e. he offers a cig.), he is able to control you.

But what I find interesting is that you say that "God cannot lie." Whereas we, as puny humans, are able to lie easily, God does not have the power to do anything of the sort. Think about exploiting someone that does not lie...that's what I mean by power. It's more than just the ability to create life and throw lightning bolts.

And I'm not arguing against the latter; that's just too easy. Yes, I'm arguing against the former, elaborated above.

One example, against how many counterexamples? You're right, this is more fitting in BC&A, but if you want to take up your argument in there, be forewarned that those interpretations will be tested heavily.

But to what is relevant, like I said to Dave, God has given you power over him. He has cuffed himself up with truth and only truth, and handed you the key to the lock.

Oh, come on. The entire pace of this argument is arguing a point, then as that point itself is being resolved, assuming certain things in other to argue about other points. If you want to revert everything back to the basic arguments before we proceed, then we can do that too, but you seemed to be fine about it up till now.

Hm? What makes you think that I will agree to that?

And it is, after all, very simple to show that multiple interpretations cannot obtain truth when truth itself is unknown. Given a set of arguments, p(1)...p(n). One of them is true, and all others are false. If I do not give you any conditionals to evaluate the truth value of p(i) (where 1 <= i <= n), how can you tell me which one is true?

Not exhaustive knowledge - just meaningful knowledge.

(ignore strawman)

Well, yea, obviously I'm not trying to argue the case very seriously. The point, as you illustrate yourself above, is that you still don't have an idea what it means to be a diety in 3 persons, 3 dieties in one person, or any other combination therein of. You can only say that such a relationship exists, but once again, there is no support for the claim.

Actually, that's another good point. The entire reason why atheists have been able to argue God is because theists have given us all their arguments about how God is supposed to be. If my definition of God seems techno-colored, blame it on the myriad of doctrines and arguments that gave rise to the monstrosity.

Actually, if you'd read above, you'd notice that I already conceded that the existence of Christ was one of the only things that all denominations believe in.

I will ask you one of my own, then. What does majority have to do with anything? Religion is not a democracy, nor is truth.

But all a theocracy is is the dominant (nevermind correct) religious faction having an iron grip on the country's affairs. Look to the current Middle East.

To paraphrase what I mentioned above, "might does not make right, nor do numbers".

And it's in the details that kill ya.

For example, suppose I say that all Christians share belief in Christ. Simple enough, and seemingly true....right?

Not so, say some Christians. Some say that to believe in Christ, you must follow his acts and deeds. Others reduce it to a simple "believe in God, and you will be saved". Some say that it's by faith and faith alone, others claim that it really doesn't matter, since it's all predetermined anyway.

It is easy to give a few nondescript, imprecise definitions that are vague enough to encompass everybody. What I'm attacking is precisely that vagueless.

Haha, no. I don't claim to be a philosopher, or even one well versed in philosophy. Sadly, you'll find me without the rich heritage in philosophical banter that most posters on this board share. Datheron is what you'll have to go with.

I don't even need to do that. As you say, I would have to show that a sec. humanist hermaneutic would be the right tool for the job, if I was arguing for that. But I need not to show my case right if I can show your case wrong - here, it means that all scholarly interpretation of the Bible must be itself derived from the Bible, which contradicts the idea of having an "outside" source.

DaveJes1979

Datheron

Dave: the reasoning behind it is the fact that God is the necessary precondition of making the universe intelligible. A God-killer, by contrast, is no such thing.

You could have saved us both alot of time by just skipping your God-killer "argument" and have just interacted with the argument I have been offering for his existence.

Dave: what I am saying is that a world without God is inconceivable - because of the fact that God is necessary for conceptions (knowledge) to exist in the first place.


Dave: it does not follow that we are "unable to use" our objective standard. I just said we are fallible in using it. Subjectively, it is God who guides us so that we make effective use of it.

Dave: why do you think I "have no clue" about what I am getting right? This assumes that God is not providential in guiding His people to come to a sufficient knowledge of his clearly-revealed Word.

Dave: the Trinity is not meaningless - it dictates that God is one in being and three in person. To hold up a meaningless "god" or "chicken" cannot provide the preconditions we need in order to have true knowledge (which meaninglessness is antithetical to).

Dave: because in such a case, right and wrong, fact and fiction are defined differently by competing gods. In such a case - which one is right? One can only pick arbitrarily in this case.

Dave: I explicitly said that the doctrine does NOT teach that 3=1. It teaches that there are three PERSONS in one BEING. Those are two seperate categories.

Dave: I am not talking about where religions "come from" historically- I am talking about philisophical and conceptual dependence. For instance, the shinto religion or the Roman/Greek gods do not even conceive of their gods as being eternal, unchanging, personal, just, perfectly good, all-knowing, or all-powerful. They fall prey to the criticism that such "gods" cannot provide a foundation for knowledge.

I also deny that Christianity is "younger" than pagan mythology, since it is, in essence, an extension of ancient Judaism.

Dave: it is not "binding" to speak truth about God. God is only "bound" (if one may use that term) only by His own unchanging nature, not by any external authority.

Dave: but that power is given to us to influence things within God's creation, not to influence, change, or control God Himself. As a matter of fact, God has already predestined precisely how we will use this power.

Dave: it is not I who have "bound" God to a merciful nature. His nature is who He is. He is who He is.

Dave: I don't know how speaking truth about God "binds" him or puts a gun to his head. It is descriptive in nature - not prescriptive. This is a very bizarre argument, I must say.

Dave: then you have provided no compelling reason why I should believe anything you tell me, since truth is subjective. Its your preference vs. mine, and no more.

Dave: how is the foundation useless, since - in effect, history has shown the fruits of our foundation in our basic doctrinal unity? It has provided precisely the fruit that God has required, and is sufficient for His church.

Dave: well, if you understand what the difference of being and person is, you'd understand the doctrine. Anything that exists has being. When we say that God is one in being - we are telling you WHAT God is. When we say that God is 3 in PERSON - we are telling you WHO God is. He is Father, Son, and Spirit. Three centers of self-consciousness who share the same divine being (nature and attributes), and have inter-personal relations to each other.

Dave: I am not sure what you are asking for. If you are asking for books on the subject, then any Evangelical or catholic Systematic Theology would have a section on it. Charles Hodge's, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, or Robert Reymond's are the best. Or an easy-to-ready book would be J. White's "Forgotten Trinity".

Dave: its not a fallacy - since what is being discussed here is the definition of Christian. There is no accepted definition between us. For the Christian, the accepted definition is prescribed by Scripture. You slap the label "Christian" on anything which has even the most superficial formal claim to Christ.

Dave: actually, the Scriptures prescribe the content that the true believer must believe.

Dave: well, on atheistic presuppositions, I don't really expect you to understand and take seriously the noetic effects of sin.

Dave: actually I was simply referring to the fact that only the Evangelical church today is Bible-based. Roman catholicism, eastern orthodoxy, as well as cults have other forms of authority to "supplement" the Bible.

Once again, I wonder why you "have no reason to believe one interpretation above another". You are to make your decision based on scrutinizing their interpretations based on Scripture. Once again - you are trying to make interpretations normative. You are making agreement the ground of certainty instead of God's revelation. Your argumentation will have to avoid this fallacy from now on.


Dave Gadbois

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

No - the fact that you're not getting why I used the killer as a refutation still shows that you do not quite understand my argument. Simply put:

What makes God necessary for the Universe?

We do not know how the Universe would turn out without God. We don't know how, if he exists and did at all, God created the Universe. All we have is an arbitary definition saying that God must exist as a precondition for the existence of the Universe. I am showing that any such definition is possible and can be constructed with ease.

Once again, how do you know this? The problem with presuppositionism is that while you can happily define and claim, you cannot back up these statements. Can you give me an example of a world without God where knowledge would not be possible? Note that any argument from "holy relevation" or "God told me so" is circular.

Correction - we will always be fallible in using it. Furthermore, no, we do not have any guidance whatsoever from God in using his laws. If we did, then we would not see the Church change its stances so many times throughout history. Once again, the main argument is that we have no way to know whether we hit upon "the truth" or otherwise, so any claim of "correctness" has no weight.

Yea, and do you know what I'm basing that assumption off of? An omnipotent God, who has so much trouble just writing a simple book about what he wants, only reveals enough about himself and still has to guide his people to thousands of separate denominations.

That's all you can say about God - that he's "one in being and three in person". I have asked, repeatedly, what this statement meant, but all I've gotten is the same thing thrown back, i.e. the same statement. I don't see how that is anything but meaningless when you cannot explain to me what it means.

And as I explained above, the claim that knowledge must necessarily come from God is again unwarranted and not shown. It seems like presuppositionism loves falling to the No True X fallacy, for you seem to suggest that whatever knowledge non-believers have is not "true knowledge". The problem is, you cannot show me that this is, in fact, a true statement without invoking some circular logic.

First of all, this is the primary argument behind the existence of so many Gods in the first place. If your main argument is that God is a necessity, you have not provided that this God must be Christian, Islamic, Shinto, or Greek, Roman, or any other. You have set up a false dilemma, whereby by disproving Allah, you immediately run to Yahweh. This is an arbitary decision, as you have not shown that other Gods, who may very well have the same definition in terms of necessity, do not exist.

Next off, you're assuming that all polytheistic Gods are somehow battling one another, using their followers as pawns on the battleground to the "true one". That is, simply, the assumption that polytheism wishes to turn to monotheism, which is not demonstrated in the polytheistic religions I have heard of. The Greek/Roman Gods even had a hierarchy, and each God reigned over his dominion. There was no competition, and as a matter of fact, these Gods were rather likable, unlike the short-tempered Yahweh.

And finally, you once again make an argument without seeing that it also applies to your own arguments, and even more strongly so. If there exists multiple Gods whereby you have to pick one arbitarily...well, what of the argument I'm making that any interpretatoin must also be chosen arbitarily? Remember that everybody is going to claim that his interpretation is divinely inspired, guided, revealed, whatever. If there is, in fact, any holy guidance, all it has done is guide millions of people to thousands of different interpretations. How can you not see this and still make the above argument?

....with no meaning behind the term whatsoever, so I might as well use 3=1 or 3 person = 1 being, therefore a soccer team of 12 persons = 4 beings. You have not shown that 3 persons = 1 being means anything.

And you have not shown that a foundation of knowledge even requires a God, much less a God with so many non-sequitur properties. They believe that their Gods are also of necessity simply because what they perceive to be necessary is completely different from what you perceive to be necessary. The conclusion? Necessity, especially when no argument is given on why it is necessary, is arbitary.

In essence? You have an entire new Testament, the Trinity, and Christ. Unless you're ready to embrace Judaism and abandon Christianity, you cannot make this claim without noticing the separation of beliefs and the arbitariness used to separate the two groups.

I explain how this is not so. It is not binding in the positive sense, in the sense that you're actively forcing God to follow your words. But it is binding in the passive sense, in that he is powerless to do otherwise.

As I have explained before, no, you're trying influencing God, and in a lot of cases controlling God by dictating how he will act. Furthermore, I would argue that a being that is able to change and adapt is indefinitely more powerful than one that is stuck with eternal static behavior.

...and he cannot change, whereas we can. We do not place descriptions on each other and expect those descriptions to be true for all of their lives, but we can do that to the Christian God. Like I said, you're confusing being active in seizing power, and being passive and having that power handed to you, like what God has done.

I think I explained this sufficiently above.

Non-sequitur.

In logical terms, truth is a value which can be derived from an argument and logical laws. The system itself is subjective and is prone to change (after all, it was developed by human beings), but the fact that it is accepted as the basic system for proofs means that it is the common ground needed for meaningful conversation. If we can agree on a subjective set of rules, then it is no longer preference that dictates truth.

I should point out, again, that you also have no idea what "truth" is, as outlined by the arguments above. You claim that there is "a truth" somewhere out there, but you wouldn't know if you'd hit it. Furthermore, history suggests that everybody thought the "truth" was something different and contradictory, which argues against any objective truth in the first place.

You mean his thousands of churches, right?

I note that "basic doctrinal unity" really just means "I believe in Christ" and no more, if you wish to include all Christian denominations that call themselves such. Let me also clarify that foundation is useless in determining a consistent and objective set of morals.

That is a whole lot of meaningless jumble-mumble. If there are persons with three centers of self-consciousnesses, then even if they share the exact same attributes and natures (think siamese triplets), then we still know them as three beings. Clumping them into one somehow, and then making some vague appeal to "divine being" does not solve the contradiction.

Because there is no accepted definition, period, on the definition of Christianity.

It is a fallacy since you are adding more an ambigious definition in order to make it more consistent with your views. It would be like saying that "a true Scotsman", in addition to living in Scotland, must also "party with vigor". In this case, with no clear definition and thousands of denominations, saying that a certain group are actually "true Christians" is meaningless and fallacial.

...which is completely different for different groups, since it's all based on subjective reasoning and interpretation. Glad you agree.

So irreconcilable contradictions are somehow my fault? That the Bible is completely ambigious and inconsistent in its first few chapters in its first book is the fault of my sins?!

Ah, that's good. At least you will come into the open about what you believe, instead of vaguely making claims about all of Christiandom.

Because there is no evidence of "God's revelation"! You have recognized this fallacy above - that if we are given a number of Gods, all of which claim that they're true, that picking any one would be arbitary. Well, this is the exact same deal, if you'd turn around and check your own argument - there are thousands of Christian denominations claiming themselves to be the true followers of God, and whichever view I pick to be "true" is also arbitary. Once again, I'm amazed to see that while Christians scrutinize and criticize other religions for their fallacial structures, they seem to ignore their own inconsistencies and fallacial hierarchies.

Jack the Bodiless

Dave, I find it quite astonishing that you can dismiss all the major non-Abrahamic religions as "squabbling polytheistic deities" when this description cannot be applied to ANY of them!

It does not apply to Buddhism.

It does not apply to Taoism.

It does not apply to New-Age mysticism.

It does not apply to Wicca.

It does not apply to Sikhism.

It does not apply to Zoroastrianism.

It does not apply to the Ba'hai.

It does not apply to Hinduism.

What, exactly, DOES it apply to? Are you classifying the Greek and Roman pantheons as major modern religions?

The case of Hinduism is particularly relevant here. Hinduism is just like the Christian Trinity (it is very likely that Christianity stole the concept), but with more deities, and greater levels of nesting (deities are avatars of greater deities, which are themselves avatars and so forth). All partake of the same monotheistic whole, the Brahman.

Furthermore, you are clearly wrong about Islam also. Muslims do NOT believe that Allah is entirely aloof and unknowable: they believe that he interacted with humanity to deliver the Koran!

Most seriously of all, however, you are arbitrarily throwing everything you like into your definitions. You are NOT just defining God as "the cause of the Universe": if you did, I would have no problems with it. You are defining God as "the creator of the Universe who wrote the Bible". I could just as easily define God as "the creator of the Universe who also created the semen-stain that framed Bill Clinton". This allows me to cite the existence of the Universe as proof that Clinton was innocent in the Lewinsky affair: Clinton's innocence is proved because of the impossibility of the contrary.

(edit: added a few more religions. We have a Sikh in this forum)

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]</p>

DaveJes1979

Datheron

Dave: the fact (that I have argued at length) that God's existence is the necessary precondition for knowledge is what makes God necessary for the Universe.

Dave: it can only be "constructed with ease" because you provided no philisophical justification for it. I, however, did provide such a justiciation.

Dave: how do you know I cannot baci up these statements? I do all the time in these chat threads. Oftentimes, I will use different forms of knowledge as examples, and show how God's existence (alone) accounts for logic, the law of induction, morality, historical significance, etc. Right now I happen to be engaged in a thread ("Theists who buy the moral argument") where I am arguing that ethical norms can exist only if they are grounded in an eternally good and just personal Being. If you'd like to interact on this point, go ahead.

Dave: just because we are fallible doesn't mean we WILL err on a particular matter - especially given God's providence and Spirit.

Dave: you are fallaciously assuming that certainty is established upon the opinion of the church, rather than on Scripture itself. Concerning the church - it bears the marks of God's guidance in definitive matters.

Dave: denominations exist as the result of sin, which God has not seen fit to do away with. He will destroy sin on judgement day, and there will be no more such denominations. For now, we will have to be content with unity on the essentials, and liberty and charity on what divides us.

Dave: I am not at all embarrassed by the circularity of my position. All worldviews are ultimately circular. But my argument is that knowledge MUST come from God because He is the only non-arbitrary starting point. The only alternative is to ground one's knowledge in the finite - thus leading to the downward spiral of relativism and arbitrariness.

Dave: my critique of polytheism still stands. If it were true - there would be no ground of truth because of the competing standards and gods. Any preference for one deity vs. another would be arbitrary. Thus, polytheism cannot be true.

Concerning Islam, I often use it as an example because of the fact that it is the only other monotheistic religion besides Christianity and Judaism that hold to an Absolute Personal Being.

Dave: even if those deities are likeable and if they cooperate with each other, one still is at a loss for a unified standard of good and authority who controls everything that comes to pass grounded in an eternal, perfect nature that carries ontological existence.

Dave: false deities cannot provide the necessary preconditions to account for science, morality, logic, etc.

Dave: their gods cannot possibly be necessary at all. A god that, for instance, does not have the attribute of omnipotence of omniscience cannot possibly account for an ordered universe where such things as logic and science can be justly conducted. You cannot simply throw up ANY concept of deity and hope it will be able to provide an account for non-arbitrary knowledge.

Dave: but Christ was foretold of in the Old Testament, and we, the church, are saved by the faith of Abraham.

Dave: the term "power" does not apply to logical impossibilities. No amount of power will negate the self-contradictory or irrational.

Dave: I don't know how it can be described as "dictating" or "controlling" when God is not compelled at all to answer our requests - especially when it is God Himself who has predestined our very requests.

Dave: God is not "static" since He interacts with humanity. But being able to change is a flaw - it implies that one is not good enough to accomodate rightly every circumstance.

Dave: we change because we realize that we are deficient in some area and need improvement. That is not so with God.


Dave: then on what basis is this agreement met? What is the justification for such a subjective set of rules?

Dave: once again, you are grounding certainty in human agreement. Of course, this certainly destroys atheism as well as a viable solution.

Dave: no, I already mentioned that basic doctrinal unity includes an affirmation of monotheism, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, authority of Scripture, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, the vicarious atonement of Christ, the 2 natures of Christ, the 2nd coming of Christ, etc.

Dave: they cannot be three beings, since seperate beings do not share the same attributes and nature.


Dave: no, I provided a meaningful basis of definition in the Scriptures. The Scriptures, being the charter of the people of God, are what define the church.

Dave: your confusion has caused you to celebrate a bit early. The Scripture's prescription is objective in nature. It is not "completely different" - only interpretations of the prescription, as such, as different.

Dave: that's a very facile charge to make, but I see no evidence of this ambiguity. More likely than not, it speaks of your own confusion and nothing more.


Dave: the validity of the Bible is a different issue - it still stands that, contrary to your criticism, our certainty is grounded on the Scriptures, not on particular interpretations of those Scriptures. You would do well not to go off on these sorts of tangents.

Dave: I certainly did not recognize any such decision as arbitrary. I gave (at least some of) my reasons (above) as to why the Christian God can provide the necessary preconditions of knowledge. For those who claim to be Christians, interpretations are not "arbitrary" since they must be grounded in and scrutinized by the biblical text.


Jack the Bodiless
Dave: the religions you just listed don't have an Absolute Personal Being at all! Having essentially no deity to speak of certainly does not help their situation.

Dave: I have never heard a Hindu describe himself as monotheistic. They grant distinct ontological status to each god - each has its own unique being. It is almost impossible to define Hinduism anyway, since there is no set theology (http://dalitstan.org/books/mohr contends precisely that if you want details). I also find "all is one" theories of knowledge to be problematic because it makes differentiating between particulars impossible.

Dave: Yusuf Ali has commented : "It is laid down as a basic principle regarding the Divine attributes that He does not resemble His creatures in anything, nor do any of His creatures resemble Him." This "wholly-other" abstraction is so hyper-transcendent as to be unknowable. This was the error of the abstract unitarian god of the ancient philosophers.

Dave: but you are trying to create a dichotomy between who God is, in nature, and His revelation. His revelation does not come about as some freak of existence that bears no relation to God's nature.

Dave Gadbois

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

But you have not given any reasons or arguments showing this claim is true. Furthermore, I have argued that we do not know whether it's possible to have knowledge without God, if he exists at all - do you know of an example where a lack of a God resulted in the impossibility of knowledge? If not, how can you make that statement?

Your "philosophical justification" amounts to a bunch of claims; they are all easily countered by asking you show show me the contrapositive - that knowledge is impossible without God, that morality is impossible without God, etc. You cannot.

....in which you're being trounced upon, to say the least.

I mean, it's fairly simple for me to show that non-followers of Scripture can still have knowledge and be moral - I'm an example, as well as most other atheists. I also argue that your religion has not done any better, and that you are as subjective as the rest of us; how does having some objective book when there's no possible way to use it properly constitute as having superior anything?

No, it actually does. If you are clouded by sin and humanity with the corresponding limits in understanding and knowledge, there is no possible way for you to discover the truth. You will always be misunderstanding God, not getting what he's telling you, or have sin twist his words. Once again, I'm amazed at the certainty of your position given the same position voiced by many others in the past, all of which have been proven wrong.

Like the argument I make above, I'm saying, quite basically, that having a subjective church is the weakness of the scheme, and that you are mouthing off an objectivity that you can never hope to get.

BTW, "definitive matters" - I'll leave that up to your other thread to deconstruct.

Of course, we know that with an omnipotent God, there is no reason why he shouldn't do away with sin. No doubt it's for some higher incomprehensible purpose.

But that's beside the point. Sin, once again, becomes the centerpiece of all the problems with Christianity, which harkens back to the argument that it is not a superior system. How are you so sure that your views on God are correct, when "sin" (that is such a vague and horrible description) has clouded so many others, even in the light of God's revelation?

But all worldviews do not try to step beyond their bounds, unlike yours.

Furthermore, what is God but the ultimate arbitrary being? I have argued with a theist (Tercel) on this matter, and he concluded that his argument - that God exists because a greatest possible being must exist - is not that convincing nor strong of an argument. The reason is simply that "what gives God his attributes"? What makes him good, instead of evil? What makes him designate certain morals? Why did he create the universe and us? What makes love desirable? They are all arbitrary. If we are to take your argument, strip away all that nonsense about knowing God and what he is, all we'd have left is some thing that knowledge and morals and other stuff comes from.

But your designations are arbitrary as well. Why does it that knowledge must stem from God? Why does anything have to stem from God, when we're here as living proof otherwise? Presuppositionism, by far, is the ultimate arbitrary position for it invokes a definition which is justified circularly.

...which you have not demonstrated is necessary for the existence of the universe.

Argh, more circular argument. I'm asking:

How am I to know that your position is more truthful than any other position?

The answer is, I cannot; therefore, your position is arbitrary. You have not established your position, therefore you cannot claim that other positions contain "false deities".

And you cannot simply throw up ANY concept of a necessity without giving us reasons to believe this is true. Once again, I challenge you to find an example of where the absence of God would produce an unordered universe - the simple contrapositive to your claims.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

But there are obvious fundamental differences in the two belief systems, correct? Certain basics which cannot be reconciled, that the church agrees on?

Or have you taken another step back and reduced that list of stuff that all Christian/Jews believe in?

But it is not a logical impossibility to change one's nature - we do so all the time. Moreover, if you're trying to define logic as what God can and cannot do, then it's again a circular definition.

So are you admitting that God does not have to be merciful?

But there is no one state good enough to accomodate any circumstance. One would have to change states in order to do that, even given that the states are already known to God.

God is static in the sense that he cannot change, not that he's a frozen block of ice.

It has nothing to do with deficiency but more to do with adhering to the situation where it is logically impossible to contain all the solutions needed to "solve" a particular circumstance.

Mutual agreement. What is the justification for our set of laws? What is the justification for communication?

It only destroys atheism if you presuppose that certainty is only possible solution.

Speaking of which, if you're so clouded by sin as millions of other Christians, just how certain are you of your position?

Heh - I would check up on that list. I'll make a note to ask ex-preacher just exactly how many of those are believed by all "Bible-based Christians", but don't expect too much.

So you're saying triplets are one being, or that God cannot be just one being? Name is an attribute, to say the least.

But as I said, even based on Scriptures, we're given tons of denominations that are supposedly so because of sin. There are different versions of the Bible with different translations, different denominations telling us what the Bible really means, and different ideas on what God's revelation means. Who's right?

Which is all we're after. It's the results that matter, not the theoretical hogwash behind it.

Nice deflection of the argument, but good thing I remember what I was saying, hm?

So your claim is that the Bible is inerrant; furthermore, it is not ambigious. I present the case of Genesis, where the creation of the universe is depicted to be done in 7 days. First off, if we are not to know that earth itself took a few billion years to create, then it can be easily seen (and was so confused by past interpretations of the Bible, even today in YEC's) to mean it actually took 7 days. Now, assuming that the Bible follows what science has told us of the evolution of the planet and the universe, we're forced to conclude that each "day" actually means anywhere from a few million to a few billion years, depending on what which day and what God decided to do on that day.

How is that not ambigious?!

I would not do well? Hm, I see that I have been asking that question for a while now, with no adaquate response from your side showing me that an objective basis means anything when you have to subjectively appeal to it. The challenge still stands, and unless you can muster up something feasible, I think I'm quite well off, actually.

But like I said - the Biblical text is ambigious itself. Answer to the question about Genesis first, and then we'll see just how you're scrutinizing the Bible.

ShottleBop

Actually, Genesis says it took only SIX days . . .

Jack the Bodiless

You obviously need to work on your definitions. The only possible justification for declaring God to be "the necessary foundation for knowledge" is to define the word "God" to mean "the phenomenon which acts as the necessary foundation for knowledge". But now you're defining God as an "Absolute Personal Being"!

These two definitions are NOT synonymous.

I hereby define God as "the phenomenon which acts as the necessary foundation for knowledge" AND "Datheron's teriyaki chicken".
No, they do not. We have a forum on non-Abrahamic religions, and there are several Hindus present. Go there, and get an education.
Yes, this is typical of the overblown hyperbolic nonsense that many theists spout: rather like the even more nonsensical Christian doctrine of the "omnimax" God. But Yusuf Ali's opinion does not negate the "fact" that Allah has revealed his will in the Koran: there is something about Allah that Allah wishes us to know.
I am not "trying to create" the dichotomy: I am drawing your attention to the dichotomy that already exists. You have arbitrarily assumed that because a particular tribe of Bronze-Age goat-herders invented a fictional character, and others have subsequently credited him with certain properties that they consider necessary, that this character must therefore necessarily exist.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]</p>

DaveJes1979

Datheron
Dave: I DID give reasons - specifically, I noted that only a theistic worldview can account for moral norms, and for the law of induction. We account for moral norms in the eternally good and just nature of God. The law of induction is accounted for in God's providence - as he has ordered the universe. How does the atheist worldview do so? I still await answers.

Dave: this debate is not over who can be moral or not (I agree that atheists can be moral)- you are missing the point altogether. Perhaps this is why you feel you are doing so well. My challenge is this - how can the atheist worldview ACCOUNT for morality.

Dave: I am not sure what you mean by "subjective church." I simply affirm the truth that there is both an objective and a subjective dimension to knowledge. The subjective end can only do you good if the objective end is reliable and justifiable. As Christians, we know that it is God who, through His providence and work, brings the subjective and objective ends together.

Dave: God will one day do away with sin, but He has obviously not planned for that to be now.

Dave: sin clouds the lives of all believers - but not to such a point that the basic message of Christianity is lost. We have sufficient knowledge unto salvation - which is why Evangelicals (those who affirm the authority of Scripture as such) do agree on the fundamentals. That is precisely what God has promised.

Dave: how, precisely, is that "all arbitrary"? Indeed, God is the foundation from which knowledge and morals come from. That is the whole point.

Dave: how are we "living proof otherwise"??? Once again - these designations are not arbitrary, but they are necessary presuppositions to account for knowledge. If this is not so, please tell me how the atheist accounts for moral norms.

Dave: still waiting for you to provide an alternative account to justify morality or logic (the law of induction, specifically). Why do you assume such things exist? Either that, or at least TRY to criticize my account of knowledge from God.

Dave: the absence of God in ANY "example" would produce an unordered universe - since one would have no way of justifying the existence of order under such conditions. In other words - why does the atheist expect or assume that there is order in this world, or any other?


Or have you taken another step back and reduced that list of stuff that all Christian/Jews believe in?

Dave: it is a logical impossibility for an eternal Being to change.

Dave: you are right - God could have destroyed all of humanity if He would have been pleased to do so. But He has extended His mercy in the form of promises.

Dave: not at all. Circumstances only necessitate that God's interactions change - not that his nature changes.

Dave: but by what means do we come to "mutual agreement" if two parties come to the table with varying opinions? This does not answer the question at all.

Dave: certainty is inescapable for everyone. To even claim that something is "possible" presupposes some more certain criteria which determines the possible from impossible.

Dave: the more I scrutinize myself from the Scriptures, the more certain I get. I will work my hardest to understand, and trust in God to do the rest.

Dave: the Trinity is not "triplets". Once again, the doctrine teaches that God is three centers of self-consciousness that share the same Being/Nature/Name/Essence/Attributes. That means that the Father is good. The Son is good. The Spirit is good. The Father is perfectly just. The Son is perfectly just, etc.

Dave: you have constructed a wonderful proof that we should not trust denominations or people. Therefore - trust God's words.

Dave: once again, you are assuming certainty is derived from the subjective, rather than the objective (which you eschew as hogwash).

Dave: considering that the mode of creation is not a central tenant of the faith - I think you have missed the point. Some parts of Scripture are indeed difficult to understand. But the vital tenants of the faith are not. On the difficult matters, we have reserved Christian liberty for those we disagree with.

Dave: I would not expect an objective foundation to mean much to you, since you do not realize that it is God who guides us subjective human beings to come in contact with the objective. Again, God's existence is necessary for these things to come together.



Jack the Bodiless
Dave: no, I have defined God according to His attributes (his omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, justice, etc.) in order to demonstrate how we can come to knowledge - and justify my claim that He is the necessary foundation. Only if God is all-powerful and providential can He order the universe (thus justifying logic and induction), and only if He is all-good can He authoratatively issue forth moral decrees.

Dave: this reply is certainly devoid of substance.

Dave: but if Yusuf Ali's "opinion" is representative of Islam (in my studies, I have found that it is), then there exists a fundamental contradiction in Islamic theology - Allah can't be known or described, but the Quran makes Him known!!!

Dave: YES, you HAVE created a dichotomy. God's nature and attributes will be tired into and be reflected by His revelation. If God is all-just, yet overlooks sins in the Quran(Islam again!), there exists a fundamental discontinuity. This introduces presuppositions which do not comport with each other - destroying the hope of any coherent worldview.

Dave Gadbois

fcs25

You don't believe in a god but you do believe in reincarnation?Did I miss something or are we just trading one silly superstition for another one of equal stupidity?