Quatermass

Alas, your objective standard is not much of a standard. It is not just that there is disagreement – it’s that you are using other standards to interpret the bible. You used the bible and church tradition, and it appears you favored church tradition when choosing the more reasonable interpretation.

If you use other standards for interpretation how is this different than looking at, for example, geological evidence and using it to interpret Genesis? Any testable claim is subject to validation. But for some reason you seem to make the bible immune to such investigation. As a result you treat questionable claims like a global flood as unassailable truths.

I have read your responses to other posts and you never seem to acknowledge any argument that differs from your presupposition.

HRG

Just like you have assumed - equally arbitrarily - a theistic ethical framework: "evil is disobedience etc. to god X".

Any ethical, epistological or ontological framework has certain axioms; the presuppositionalist line of argument consists in privileging their own frameworks from attack by the same criticisms they freely deal out to others.

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Regards,
HRG.

Jack the Bodiless

Dave: I think we need to sort out some terminology before continuing.

You have stated that God is good, just, moral, and so forth. Furthermore, you have stated that God has these qualities by definition: that these qualtities stem from God's nature.

Unfortunately, this means that you are not speaking English. There is no dictionary definition of these terms which invokes the J/C God, or any other God. These terms DO NOT mean what you claim them to mean.

As I have already pointed out, the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is unjust. You cannot wriggle out of this, because the very concept of "justice" involves people suffering the consequences of their own actions. Similarly, if morality and ethical behaviour are defined in purely human terms (as they are, in every standard dictionary), you cannot claim that God is "moral" where his actions violate morality and cause harm.

Therefore I propose that we use prefixes to describe your terms. When discussing the Biblical versions of these concepts, I will refer to them as Bgood, Bjustice, Bmorality etc. When discussing the versions used by modern Christian theologians (the "omnimax" God), I will use Tgood, Tjustice, Tmorality and so forth. I will continue to use the normal English words when referring to the non-God-dependent English meanings used by atheists and most Christians alike.

And I'll post this to both threads (with a reminder that a thread specifically dedicated to presuppositionalism is still running <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000169" target="_blank">here</a>).


...Now, where do we stand?

You have no basis for good, justice or morality: the concepts are apparently incomprehensible to you. But you have bigger problems:

1. The contradictions between Bgood, Bjustice and Bmorality and Tgood, Tjustice and Tmorality.

2. The inconsistency of Bgood, Bjustice and Bmorality between different parts of the Bible.

3. The inability to make a consistent definition of Tgood, Tjustice and Tmorality which do not contradict the claimed properties of the omnimax God.

Given these problems, your attempt to attack the worldviews of atheists is futile. Even if our worldviews are false, yours is ALSO false. It fails the standards set by yourself: it is inconsistent, unjustified, self-refuting.

DaveJes1979

daemon

Dave: it is not a "slur" to argue for the facts. This debate (between Christians and atheists) has never been a debate where it is acknowledged that atheists harbor sincere doubts against God. Because of sin, you are self-deceived and you attempt to deceive others. I am willing to argue that no one can honestly harbor doubts about God's existence. The problem is ETHICAL in nature. It is not just that you need to be shown a few more facts or that I need to reproduce arguments in order to show you the obvious and intuitive.

Granted - this view certainly paints ALL of humanity in a bad light. But it is accurate - not a slur. I am willing to defend it rationally as such.


Jack the Bodiless

Dave: my argument, if you read back, was based on the fact that, since God is the necessary precondition of knowledge, one simply cannot in any honesty deny God's existence. That is because atheists DO have knowledge and use reason every day - but to do so they must borrow from theistic "capital" to do so.

If you want to tell me otherwise, then I eagerly await to hear how an atheist can account for science, logic, and morality - and interact with the issues I have raised here.

Dave: no, Christians hold that everyone- even Christians - deserve eternal punishment. Indeed, all have sinned against God. The reason why Christians will not see eternal punishment DESPITE the fact that we deserve it, is because of God's grace alone.

Dave: Christianity does not hold that the son owes the father any such thing! The son owes the father obedience only - not the reception of unwarranted abuse. But he does owe God everything - as the son is a transgressor of God's law, along with the rest of humanity.

[quote]
We did not consent to be represented by Adam. And proxy representatives are used in the real world only for pragmatic reasons stemming from our non-omniscience. [QUOTE]

Dave: it is precisely BECAUSE God is omniscient that He knew that Adam truly represented us. Thus, it is irrelevant that we did not give consent to be represented by Adam.

Dave: what I have been contending is that your atheistic framework is not justifiable - thus, it is not a foundation. I see no way for an atheist, who does not start with an all-good God, to non-arbitrarily construct an ethical system.



Quatermass

Dave: huh? My conclusion is based on a study of Scripture, not "tradition." Both Greg Bahnsen and I follow sola scriptura - Scripture alone as the rule of faith.

Dave: I don't hold up the Scripture as a "testable" claim - but rather the necessary foundation TO DO TESTING.

Dave: that's because I am looking for the justification of atheistic arguments. Of course one will conclude that Christianity is false - based on atheistic reasoning. My question is this: why should I trust in atheistic reasoning?


HRG
Dave: no, our line of argument avoid irrelevant forms of argument - such as critiquing another person's worldview based on presuppositions that a contrary to that worldview. This is what I see over and over again - but it only begs the more ultimate questions.

Which of our worldviews actually provides a foundation to account for ethics (or any other form of knowledge, for that matter), to begin with? I have 1. shown how ethics are rooted in God's nature - as eternal, perfectly good and just and 2. criticized historic atheistic attempts to ground ethical norms elsewhere (utilitarianism, evolution, etc.)



Dave Gadbois

daemon

Then I would suggest you start doing so rather than assert your theories determine fact.
You are mistaken. However, given that you believe me to be a liar, I doubt you will believe me. Thus, I fail to see how any fruitful discussion can occur so long as you continue to deny facts that, insofar as I know, only I have access to.
Accuracy actually has nothing to do with whether it is a slur or not. A slur it remains, and an unfounded one at that until you prove it.
Perhaps you should start, then.

Please prove that I believe in God. Further, please be clear in your definition of God.

Quatermass

Of course a person as well versed in epistemology as you should recognize that sola scriptura is impossible.

I once saw a TV evangelist who said, “we’re going to come back after this break and I want us to forget all the things we’ve learned about &lt;your favorite doctrine here&gt; and we’re going to see what the bible really says!” Amazingly enough, the bible said exactly what he already believed!

Show me a rational way of knowing whether I should follow the OT law as normative. This is important because when I see my neighbor carrying sticks on Sunday I get this divine impulse to stone her. I can’t trust your opinion because Bahnsen says you are the least in the kingdom for your bible denying teaching.

Which sounds like a good reason to dismiss your worldview as nonsense.

Actually you are looking for an atheistic argument that meets the requirements of your theistic presuppositions – do you see a problem here?

Jack the Bodiless

Dave:
Because of fundamentalist indoctrination, YOU are self-deceived and you attempt to deceive others. We honestly harbor doubts about God's existence. If you continue to argue otherwise, I will assert that you KNOW that your God does not exist.

Furthermore, it is "obvious and intuitive" that children are innocent, that we cannot be held accountable for the sins of Adam, and that no mere mortal is capable of committing any crime that deserves eternal punishment. The very fact that we DO have a "moral sense" indicates that the Biblical God (if he existed) cannot be moral. Therefore God CANNOT be the source of morality (unless he enjoys being loathed).
This is not a FACT, Dave: it is a FALSEHOOD. Your God is NOT the necessary precondition for knowledge. Saying it doesn't make it so. You are trapped in your own definitions. Sure, if we define the word "God" to mean "the necessary precondition for knowledge", then God IS "the necessary precondition for knowledge". But, again, you are not speaking English if you do that. "God" already has a meaning: and, in this context, it apparently means the God of the Bible, a fictional character who doesn't actually exist.
You have it backwards, as usual. Knowledge and reason are evolved faculties, there is nothing remotely "theistic" about them. In fact, the Christians stole logic (and the concept of the "logos", the Word) from the pagan Greeks. You are attempting plagiarism.
We have done so: EVOLUTION accounts for it. You have failed to provide any reason why our account must be incorrect. And let me AGAIN direct you to the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000169" target="_blank">What's the deal with presuppositionalism</a>, where presuppositionalism has been dissected and discussed, and I have also outlined the non-circular axiomatic basis of the naturalist worldview.
He does not owe his existence to his father? Um, ever heard of "sperm", or "sexual reproduction"? And the son is NOT a "transgressor of God's law". Again, you are lapsing into gibberish. You are discussing Bjustice, not justice. He has Btransgressed, not transgressed.
I hereby declare that Adam does not represent me. There, that wasn't difficult: I have escaped from Original Sin without having to nail anyone to anything. And your omniscient God knew all along that I would make that declaration.

...Come on, man, THINK! Who DECIDES whether Adam represents anyone? Who makes the rules? According to you, GOD DOES! This has nothing to do with omniscience, God MADE A DECISION to punish the innocent for the sin of Adam!
The foundation of my ethical system wasn't constructed by me: it EVOLVED. It is therefore non-arbitrary, rooted in the objective truth that certain instincts are beneficial to the survival of the species and others are not.
Indeed. Why DID you trust in atheistic reasoning? Without atheistic reasoning, you wouldn't even be able to find your own backside with both hands (where in the Bible does it say that you HAVE a backside? where in the Bible does it say that you HAVE hands?). Without atheistic reasoning, you would never have determined that the Bible exists, nor would you have been capable of reading it. Without atheistic reasoning, you could never have become a Christian. What you call "atheistic" reasoning is simply the axiomatic assumption that perception and reason are reliable: the axioms that form the basis of all knowledge. If you don't trust it, then you are insane.
1. False. Ethics contradict God's nature: God is (at best) perfectly Bgood and Bjust, or perfectly Tgood and Tjust, depending on whether you're referring to the Biblical God or the Theological God. There is no correlation with "good" or "just".

2. "Criticized", yes, but not refuted. In fact, you seem to be saying that atheism "must be wrong" because it means that human values don't matter to the rest of the Universe: you have established that atheists don't believe in a universal intelligence, a God. Well, duh...

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

Thor Q. Mada

Mu,

You see what you have done?? I mean your simple question has lead to loss of sanity by some, and out of proportion outburst from others, as if this is a religious forum. We are indeed sharing this planet with a lot of mad mothers.

Scary. I never knew this innocent forum was actually monitored by the inquisition. I am in trouble too!!

HRG

It is interesting that you do not notice the fundamental flaw of your position. Even if we took God's word as the standard of truth, we - as finite humans - must first determine what God's word is. There are many competitors for that post; maybe the winner is the Bhagavad Gita ? IOW, we need evidence to be convinced that a particular text is not an impostor.

To make this determination, we cannot use any particular religious text, because we need to be assured that it actually is the word of God before we can take it as standard of truth and interpret our facts accordingly.

For instance, how would you resolve the question whether Maccabee is part of the Bible - without an arbitrary presupposition ?

Even more, this determination requires that we assume naturalism. Otherwise we could never be sure that any text has not been supernaturally changed over the centuries, or that the photons which reach our eyes correspond to the actual text of the Bible.

HRG.

daemon

Just as a note, Jack, I don't think it is correct to say that Dave is actually attempting to deceive anyone--it seems quite possible that he honestly believes it to be the case, and deceit implies intentional misinformation. Given that, I believe it would be better to say he is misinformed or mistaken, rather than accuse him of malice.