Datheron

DaveJes1979,

In the interest of shorter posts and less repetition, I will try to group together relevant parts of your post and respond to all of them in one fell swoop.

You're working off of an ad ignoratium fallacy here, which I should have pointed out to you a long time ago. Just b/c any other system is unable to come up with a good explanation does not make your theistic system automatically correct, nor even feasible. What I have been asking, all this time, is for you to know me that conscious omnipotence is necessary for knowledge. All you have done is assert this.

First of all, while you obviously cannot account for how one's epistemological axioms originate (that's a contradiction by definition), what I'm asking is for you to show me how your axioms relate to reality. Specifically, I'm asking you to show me how knowledge is only possible via a God with omnipotent and omniscient properties.

Also, you're completely correct in stating that a physical universe doesn't tell us anything about its order. If you would look at the universe, we have some very ordered instances (man-made objects, for example) and other very random elements (think of outer space). You're relying on the unspoken and unproven assumption that our universe, and specifically us, is anything special and tailor made from an ordered universe.

I find it ridiculous that you're still trying to make this claim. I have presented numerous analogies and examples showing why objectiveness cannot come from subjectiveness. You saying it does does not make it so.

But if we're not having meaningful conversation, then why do you bother talking with infidels at all? Why come to this board when you're already certain that you cannot "truly communicate" with us? Oh, the ironies of presuppositionism.

By a "certain language", I mean to draw an analogy between knowledge and language. We all communicate to each other via language, but there is no "standard language" implied there that has linguists search for some ultimate standard that does not exist. But regardless, we are able to communicate, contrary to your claims.

I point you to the excellent II BC&A forums for arguments in that area, where I expect you will find exactly what you're looking for. I'm not looking to change the topic.

First off, no, the scientific method is not scriptural. As a matter of fact, the method itself was not invented until some 1500 years after the Bible was compiled. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

And no, you cannot tell me that what you have is objective, as my argument throughout this conversation has demonstrated. I'm not saying that it's strictly subjectivism - outlined by your definition above - but I'm saying it's not objective, which is your criteria.



Incorrect. You do not have any say in "same fundamental doctrines[/b] when those are not agreed upon, nor can you even try to narrow it down to "Evangelical denominations" ala sola scriptura. That's the problem with the entire deal - you cannot tell me that you are correct in your views because you are in competition. That's the entire point of the argument. What you and a few other denominations may agree, others will reject and change. Saying that "we agree therefore we are correct" is a circular argument.

Odd? This is how we operate - there is "objective standard" to how our laws are created in a republic democracy, but rather an agreement between the people and the representatives. There is no standard language, but rather a system of agreed speech between individuals.

As for your Bin Laden comments, that's actually a very good point. You're automatically assuming that Bin Laden's morals are bad - why? Are the morals of any non-Christian bad, or does it pertain specifically to this guy of Islamic faith? In reality, we realize that while us in the west strongly disagree with what Bin Laden deems is correct, the middle east also has its reasons for thinking America "got what had coming". Trying to be black&white about this issue is the worst kind of false dilemma there is.

FYI, you are "choking up" - simply repeating what you've been saying all along without going through the clarification that I'm asking for. That I'm asking how God got these morals, how his attributes are necessary for certain things (rather than how God must have these attributes), and how his nature came to be; these are the questions that you're avoiding. This is the same argument that you put forth for the physical universe - we cannot assume things to be properly axiomic and therefore we invent God. If you can do the same of the universe, I can try the same with God.

---------

Well, that was exceedingly hard. I won't try that again. Rather, I'll just respond to parts that I think are important and aren't alterations of previous sections.

Peter Kirby

&lt;b&gt;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.&lt;/b&gt;

The Greek word 'Christiano' is found three times in the Bible:

Acts 11:26. "And the disciples were called Christians [5546] first in Antioch."

Acts 26:28. "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian [5546]."

1Pt 4:16. "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian [5546], let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

In all cases, 'Christian' was used by outsiders to describe the new cult. According to Acts, this
first happened in Antioch, perhaps where the large number of Gentile Christians made the new sect stand out as distinct from Judaism. The name of "Christian" is also found in the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian - never a flattering reference.

Anyway, if we are looking to the Bible to find out what "Christian" means, it looks like "Christian" means what outsiders perceive as the sect of Christ-followers. The Bible does not provide a descriptive definition of what it takes to be a Christian; this is just the name by which others describe a group. The names used within the group include 'saints', 'brothers', etc. -- but nowhere in the Bible is there a description of a certain faith that is required to be a 'Christian'.

best,
Peter Kirby

DaveJes1979

Datheron
Dave: the reasoning here is still cogent, because if my worldview can account for certain knowledge forms (such as morality) and the atheist cannot - it follows that I am right. Theism is necessary because atheism IN PRINCIPLE has no such account. The only alternative to grounding one's ethics in a perfectly good, non-contingent, personal Being is to ground it in subjectivism (leading to skepticism or "ethics" that are mere preference) or a purely material universe (the appeal to "evolution" is just a form of this) where one cannot go from "is"-ness to "ought"-ness. The atheist cannot, in principle, appeal to any other ground because of the inherent limitations of what the atheist universe includes.

Both parties bear burden of proof.

Dave: actually, the reason why I believe there is order is because one would only expect order under the Christian presupposition that there is a providential, omnipotent God who controls the universe to be ordered. The atheist has no such alternate account - which is why I wonder why they believe in such a thing (as they practice science, for instance).

Dave: I never said that knowledge is completely objective. I specifically pointed out that human knowledge is subjective/objective in nature- it carries both elements. You are (for unknown reasons) reducing the subjective/objective to be subjective only. I would also point out that you still have to demonstrate that subjective/objective forms of knowledge are uncertain.

Dave: I believe communication is possible because we are both made in God's image and thus we do have some common reference for knowledge. Now, sin certainly has obscured your knowledge - but this is no obstacle for God if He is pleased to grant you wisdom.

Dave: indeed, the linguist who does not use God as the reference point ARE looking for a standard that does not exist. How is it we can communicate with any effectiveness or common meaning unless there is such a thing? The atheist has no answer because they have no such standard.

Dave: then why did you bring up the topic? Just a cheap shot?

Concerning those forums in BC&A - they are no more cogent than anything I have read in the Skeptic's annotated Bible, and other such resources. The "scholarship" is laughable, as it is obvious that people have not even BOTHERED to consult the relevant academic commentaries and other such resources. It is an unsober polemic. I can only imagine that it would be compelling to those who are already atheists. It is little more than a forum for atheists to coddle their own biases.

Dave: the scientific method was FORMALIZED in the middle ages, but that does not mean that it was not practiced beforehand (it was). And even that milestone was the formalization of the method for natural and physical sciences - not literary interpretation. The science of biblical interpretation (which has been going on since the pre-Christ rabbis) is hardly new. So YES, the principle itself is Scriptural, since it uses the Bible as the authority at all steps of interpretation.

Dave: which ones are not agreed on?

Dave: wrong. Sola scriptura is necessary for consistent interpretation - otherwise traditions are allowed to intrude upon the authoritative rule of faith. I can expect ONLY disagreement with those who would intrude other sources of revelation beside Scripture.

Dave: how does that follow? Once again, you are making subjective agreement the criterion of certainty. I have no idea why this criterion is warranted.

Dave: that reasoning does not appear in my post at all. I don't ground certainty or rightness on agreement. I was simply pointing out your error that there is "no agreement".

Dave: this construct still does not tell us on what basis conflicting subjective opinions (within, say, a democracy) are decided on. You still are not going beyond "is"-ness (the fact that we SOMETIMES come to historical agreement) with "ought"-ness (the ethical criteria that form the basis of that agreement).

Dave: my worldview actually has a reason (unlike yours) to view them as bad - because God has commanded us not to take human life unjustly and because humans have value as images of God. You have deflected the challenge, and cannot provide an alternate account.

Dave: then you have proven my point exactly - the atheist does not have an ethical system that can lead to condemn nor condone any action, no matter how radical.

Dave: God never "got" morals. He always has been, eternally and non-contingently, moral.

Dave: if God's attributes did not exist as such, there would be in principle no reason for believing that the universe is ordered, or that such things as objective, universal morals exist. You would have to ground morals in contingent existents, or subjectiveness, and simple assume that the universe is ordered.

Dave: this question is unintelligible, as God did not "come to be".

peterkirby

Dave: in this case, the outsiders actually had an accurate perception of who Christians are. There is little doubt of who the true followers of Christ are during ages of persecution, such as what the early church endured.


Dave: I John 2:4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[2] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

I John goes on to list numerous other marks of a true disciple of Christ. To this can be added what Paul writes about the "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians, describing what a Spirit-filled Christian looks like. The list goes on and on.

Dave G.

ShottleBop

If reasonable minds can (and do) differ over the appropriate interpretation of the objective, how does divine guidance regarding its appropriate interpretation manifest itself? How do you know which of two--or more--possible interpretations is correct?

Peter Kirby

Dave writes: I John goes on to list numerous other marks of a true disciple of Christ. To this can be added what Paul writes about the "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians, describing what a Spirit-filled Christian looks like. The list goes on and on.

Except that Paul never uses the word 'Christian'. As I indicated, there are just three passages in which this word is used in the New Testament. The list doesn't go on and on; it stops at three. In none of these three passages is a definition of 'Christian' given. Rather, in these passages, 'Christian' is the word used by outsiders to describe a group.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bill Snedden

This statement would be humorous if it weren't so sadly mistaken...

Dave, do you contend that it is immoral to kill children? If so, upon what do you base your objection? As your "god" explicitly orders and condones the slaughter of infants, you can have no recourse to him.

In fact, it is the "Divine Command" theorist who has no ability or basis upon which to condemn or condone any action. Every possible depravity can be (and has been) excused by "god's will". With the foundation of ethics completely severed from direct human access and understanding, the ability to comprehend "what is moral" vanishes. This is an objective foundation?

Contrast that with Humanism. With human needs and desires as the foundation of an ethical system, human cultures and societies can rationally explore ethical norms. Science, reason, debate, and consensus allow humans to collectively determine what is in their best interests. As all of humanity shares a common goal (to survive and prosper), inter-subjective agreement is at least possible and the standard is directly accessible to every human because it is a part of who and what they are.

For the theist who posits the necessity of God to morality, there can be only one immoral act: disobedience to God's will. So, if God tells you to sacrifice your child (like Abraham or Jephthah), it's perfectly moral to do so; in fact, it's immoral not to do it. By your own argument, there's absolutely nothing wrong with slaughtering one's children, or even entire families at God's command. No matter the depravity, be it mass murder, slavery, or rape, you simply cannot condemn any of these actions in principle. There is nothing inherent in the actions themselves or their consequences that can render them immoral to you; they are only immoral if your "god" tells you that they are.

And this is your alleged foundation for human ethics? I can't imagine it being of very much use to us; after all, it has no necessary relation to who, what, where, or why we are. Your "god" must find it rather convenient though. I'm sure that slaves can be very useful.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

Do you even know what an an ignoratium fallacy is?

Ad Ignoratium: an argument that claims something is true (or false) because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Regardless of whether atheism or any other theism has any way to account for anything, you cannot automatically claim yourself correct simply because we do not know the answer. How does this not apply....?

Non-sequitur. The lack of a God does not in any way imply a non-ordered universe (by order, I'm assuming that you're referring to a universe with consistency).

Subjective, by definition, is uncertain. When you have subjectivism, you imply that more than one viewpoint exists - since certainty demands one viewpoint, any subjective element makes the entire viewpoint uncertain. It's not that hard to figure out.

Rather, you have to show that anything through a subjective filter can somehow retain a touch of objectiveness; you also have to show how you can subjectively determine what that objective element is.

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

I'm asking, rhetorically, how communication can occur without an objective standard, with the expected answer being that there isn't one. You're saying that there must be a standard because otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate. Didn't I say this was circular reasoning in the last post?

In a sense, yes; it gets rather boring trying to tell you the same thing 20 times in the same post for 10 posts. As for whether you think their scholarship is credible or otherwise, I would suggest you actually go and debate before you make such comments. To notconsult "relevant academic commentaries" is the entire point of unbiased scholarship; what commentaries there are are obviously Christian-centric, so it obviously makes sense not to use them.

No, it does not.

First off, formalization is a very important part of the process - it makes the process itself objective and standard. Otherwise, who's to say that a certain level of scutinization is sufficient?

Secondly, you cannot use the Bible at "all levels of interpretation". There must be a point where you begin outside the context of the book to begin to make sense of it in the first place. I mean, to put forth a very simple example, by what means did you learn the language to read the Bible?

The entire point is that you cannot tell me what is certain. You can only say that you're certain, but others are also certain of what they think are necessary to be Christian, to be a believer, etc. The Catholics, for example, are certain that God wants a church with an established hierarchy and loads of tradition. They are as certain as you are, and they claim to have the same divine guidance as yourself. What, then, gives your position any advantage?

And you're arguing circularly for the objective criterion that simply isn't there. We have agreed, throughout civilization, on what "is", as you put it. Conflicting subjective opinions are put to debate, are argued, sometimes forced upon others or put to a vote. You are looking for "the right answer" when none necessarily exist.

Not quite. We condemn and condone on agreement between individuals; which is why while it's alright to have handguns in the US, it's required in Switzerland, and restricted in Canada.

You're looking at these issues as if there is some ultimate standard that must exist, as if there is some God-given standard to adhere to. I'm showing that lots of opinions exist out there, and you're coming back and telling me that some objective standard must exist. This is perhaps the 10th time I've told you that this argument is circular.



And I can say the universe did not "come to be", nor did morals, or any other attribute that you give to God. Simple enough.

Typhon

Sigh.

I had to rub my eyes, discouragedly, as I goggled at the fact that yet another theist was blathering on about how you can't have morals without god. I suppose I should not be surprised, but it is wearisome.

If they can't understand the existence of human morality outside of a religious context, then they really aren't trying. It's akin to showning someone a picture of a building, circled in red on a map, with a huge "X" on the spot, a big arrow pointing to it, and a neon sign blazing above it, and having them blink myopically and say:

"What map?"

Come on now, it really is no big mystery folks. Human "morality" can be found in human behavior, which is a product of evolution and our needs as a social species. To deny its existence, or claim that it only works if some silly deity is out there ordering the naturalistic universe, is as bad as saying in our day and age that illness is caused by demons. You might as well argue against a heliocentric system while you're at it.

Perhaps however, this is why theists can't seem to see it. I've noticed a blind spot for many of the religiously minded, where science and especially, biology is concerned, one of its cornerstones being of course, their much hated foe, evolution.

However, they can (and will) argue all day, well into the night, and on into the pale blue skies of morning, and not change the fact that morals are the product of humans and their societies, both of which in turn are the product of evolution and our naturalistic requirements as a social species.

Hell, altruistic behavior is not even limited to primates. It appears in all kinds of social animals, such prairie dogs, social insects, birds, vampire bats, cuttlefish, and a wide variety of others.

As morality and morality systems exist, and do so in accordance with what we know and expect from a naturalistic world and biology, the burden of proof that morality requires a god in the equation firmly lies on the ill-equipped backs of theists who claim such nonsense to the contrary.

I can understand why they would try to squirm away from this heavy load, as there is little chance that they can do so, considering they can't even muster up any decent evidence for the existence of their gods in the first place.

.T.

DaveJes1979

ShottleBop
Dave: the text of Scripture is the arbiter of this question. There is no outside authority to Scripture.

peterkirby
Dave: those outsiders, in this case, are using the word accurately. Secondly, it does not matter if the term "Christian" is being used specifically in the verses I mentioned. Those verses are referring to the true spiritual followers of Jesus - which is what counts.


Bill Snedden

Dave: its not necessarily immoral to kill children.

Dave: your argument is incoherent: you argue that "depravities" are "excused" by God's will. YOu have already assumed your own (humanistic) critieria of what is a depravity or not. God's will is what defines this. Ethics is not "severed" from human access/understanding. God's revelation is the basis of this understanding.

Dave: the existence of terrorists, tyrants, and dictators have demonstrated that "all of humanity" does not have such a common goal of mutual surival - oftentimes they are concerned only with personal survival. Why should I choose your ethical system above theirs?

Dave: "what they are" is oftentimes tyranical dictators. You have to go beyond a descriptive account of ethics (what is) to a prescriptive account (what should be) to have any meaningful morality.

Dave: indeed. The only thing that makes something right or wrong is that it violates God's laws. Is this an argument?

Dave: it does have a necessary relation to us, since we are made in God's image.


Datheron
Dave: because this is a binary choice. If atheism cannot account for knowledge (in principle), and theism can - theism wins. One cannot simply claim ignorance on fundamental philisophical questions like this, unless one is ready to admit to arbitrariness.

Dave: I am not talking about "implication" (whatever you mean, precisely, by that) - I am talking about an epistemic account. What is it that could possibly account for order in the atheist universe?

Dave: but my scheme is not purely subjective. It is subjective/objective in nature. And you have not provided rationale for your assertion that subjectivity leads to uncertainty (since you are, a priori, assuming that certainty is based on agreement). Of course, such an idea is self-refuting, since not everyone would agree with that statement.

Dave: our subjective "filter" comes into contact with objective reality through the mechanisms that God created in human faculties, as we are made in God's image.

Dave: its only circular if you are unwilling to admit the possibility of communication.

Dave: that is only assuming, a priori, that the Christian worldview is false.

Dave: formalization is irrelevant to actual usage of a given principle. Formalization comes about only when certain types of scholastic scrutiny are needed.

Dave: I simply mean that the Bible is the arbiter and final authority at all points of interpretation - in presuppositions, methodology, and conclusions.

Dave: you seem to (via strawman) be grounding certainty in mere CLAIMS of certainty, rather than the substantive content that backs those claims.

Dave: is what you just typed the "right answer"? Talk about a self-refuting epistemology.

Dave: it is circular, which I am not ashamed of. It is justified, however, because it actually gives rise to meaningful knowledge. Your scheme does not. Under your scheme, I have every reason (epistemically speaking) to reject your scheme!

Dave: you are confusing my transcendental (epistemological) argument, concerning ACCOUNTING for morals, with the cosmological argument (things being caused, coming into being).

Typhon

Dave: immorality can also be found in human behavior, as a supposed product of evolution. So you haven't provided a basis for choosing any given behavior over another.

Dave: I don't deny the existence of "moral" (in a sense) atheists. I just deny that they can justify their morality philisophically.

Dave G.

Jack the Bodiless

It's interesting to view your own entirely non-Biblical objection to human sacrifice in this regard.
Only to a Christian psychopath. Not to sane people.
Bifurcation fallacy. Metaphysical naturalism and Christian theism are only two of an infinite range of possibilities.

Incidentally, I recently posted a list of nineteen logical fallacies commonly used by presuppositionalists (on the <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> thread). I note that you have already used most of them!
Exactly the same thing that accounts for order in the mind of your God.
No, you merely have an additional level of "justification": the dictates of an imaginary sky-daddy. Who, unfortunately, suffers from a host of mental illnesses (notably bipolar disorder).