daemon

Must I correct your terminology yet again? It is incorrect to say that I have presupposed anything about "God."
Your argument has no foundation. You may have argued that God's existence is the necessary precondition for knowledge, but you have yet to provide any sort of reason to believe that premise. Further, you have not proven that I have any true knowledge at all, so I request that you prove that as well.
Congratulations. You've succeeded in proving nothing.

DaveJes1979

Jobar
Dave: my argument for God's existence has been argued along the lines of the fact that He is the necessary precondition of knowledge. This follows from certain attributes He posseses. His omnipotence, providence and His own order account for order and regularity (thus, logic, induction, science) in the universe. His non-contingent goodness and justice accounts for moral norms. Etc. Any supposed revelation cannot "just say anything" if it is incoherent with the attributes just listed.

Dave: these are some nice, sweeping, unsupported generalizations.

Dave: could it be that sin causes division?

Dave: that's because you have, a priori, ruled out the possibility of His existence.


Quatermass
Dave: sola scriptura is not meant to have "predictive value" in the sense you are talking about. It is meant to be an objective standard for telling us who God is and what we are obligated to do.

As for my Catholic, Pentecostal, and Methodist brethren - they do disagree with me on many points, but we all hold to the same fundamental tenants of Christianity. I will see them on the other side of eternity in paradise.

Dave: your criticism of Calvinist soteriology in no way operates as any form of reasoning against "sola scriptura [being] meaningless." How do you maintain that assertion?

Ssecondly, you have not given me any reason why God's predestining acts are "nonsense". And the camel? Come on.

Dave: you are assuming that I have to be capable of expositing (perfectly) the Bible in order for the Bible to be non-contradictory (objectively). How in the world does this follow???

Secondly, why is there "little point" to there being an objective meaning. There would be "little point" only if we did not know that the Holy Spirit is the agent by which the objective and subjective elements are brought together.

Dave: induction is "confirmed" in human experience? How does one go about doing that? The only way of doing that would be to USE (and assume once again) induction. Utterly circular.

So the question remains - WHY does one assume such a thing? Why, when you look out into the world, do you assume that there is order if there is no One who has the ability to order it.


HRG
Dave: why is there no "inherent" meaning in parables or allegories - if the author has a definite intent in both? What about simple, didactic statements such as "the Lord is one"?? Or the laws (like the Mosaic law)?


Dave: this is all based upon your first statement - that there is "ordinary behavior". How do you know that anything is "ordinary"?? This already assumes that there is order. Why assume that there is such order?

daemon
Dave: the statement that prompted that response demonstrates otherwise.

Dave: God's existence is the necessary precondition for knowledge because only His existence can account for such thing as moral norms (because He is non-contingent, personal, eternal, and perfectly good and just); His existence alone accounts for logic (such as induction), since His providence, omnipotence, and order accounts for order in the universe. I await rebutal and an atheistic alternative account of these forms of knowledge.

Dave G.

Quatermass

But as you have pointed out and I have demonstrated – sola scriptura doesn’t “tell” us anything, it is just another one of your many presuppositions that says that the bible is the final authority. If the bible is flawed then sola scriptura is flawed. You have not attempted to prove that the bible is infallible – in fact your position would not attempt to do so – it is just assumed.

I would be pleased if this reflected tolerance on your part but I am afraid there are Calvinist semantics at play here. If you emphasize “brethren” then you could just as easily have said “my infidel brethren” and all it would signify is those whom God has chosen. Let me reword the question. I have a friend who is looking for a Christian church to attend. I told her you thought Christians are mainly in agreement and any church should suffice. Would you agree? Would you recommend she go to a Catholic, Pentecostal, or Methodist church? I mean, if there are huge areas of agreement, you’re not going to sweat the small stuff are you?

Most Christians rightfully reject the Calvinist notion of predestination as intolerable. They do not just see it as a mystery but a mistaken view that makes a mockery of the notion of a just god. Presbyterians added a declaratory statement to the Westminster Confession to correct this twisted doctrine. The fact that you accept it whole-heartedly says to me that you have no problem with logical contradictions or using the bible to support virtually any doctrine. This has implications for sola-scriptura.

Your Calvinist soteriology says that by decree (independent of whom they are or any action they would do) God predestined a finite and fixed number of men and angels for everlasting life and a finite and fixed number for everlasting death. The notion that this doctrine can be reconciled with justice is nonsense – as are your comments about deserving anything or being held accountable for anything. How many non-elect humans and angels will be in heaven? None. What did they do to be non-elect? Nothing. Gulp.

Not at all. But if it is impossible to determine what your objective standard has to say about the list of actions and topics I gave, then it is a weak standard. In order to make judgments about issues we all care about, you have to bring in other standards. By bringing in other standards you show that the bible is only part of your foundation.

Of course, all Christians maintain that their (dissimilar) interpretations were given to them by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit as teacher is as meaningless as sola scriptura. These are claims used to bestow authority on human opinions.

Both of us assume that we are not just brains in jars and that our senses are somewhat reliable. If this is circular then we share it. How come you presuppositionalists apply complete skepticism to others views but not your own? It seems there is less chance for induction to be used reliably in your worldview since gods and devils are out to purposely deceive you in addition to the weaknesses inherent in your senses.

DaveJes1979

Quatermass
Dave: how does it follow that sola scriptura doesn't "tell" us anything? It is not meant to elucidate the content of Scripture, only describe the nature of Scripture - a description which is necessary to such elucidation.

Dave: my preference, obviously, is that your friend attend a Reformed church of some sort. Minor doctrine is still important, although it is non-essential.

Dave: I find it quite confirmatory of my Calvinism that an atheism should reject it. I also note that no real argument was presented against my position - just critical assertions.

Dave: indeed, they did nothing to be non-elect. But it does not follow that they do not bear guilt - because they actually committed sin (thus worthy of just wrath).

Dave: what "other standards" do I supposedly bring in? Even if I supposedly did do such a thing - it would only prove that I am deviating from sola scriptura. Thus, your criticism would not be directed at sola scriptura.

Dave: the fact that the Holy Spirit grants guidance does not entail that we would even expect agreement. Nor is the HS an objective stamp of approval of any kind. He does the work on the subjective side.

Dave: well, since God does NOT deceive us (God, by nature, cannot lie), we have reason to believe that those who seek after Him are not deceived. I believe my senses are reliable because God created them as such. But you have no such account to justify those assumptions from your worldview.

Dave Gadbois

himynameisPwn

Dave, what is the basis of your belief that God exists? Faith or science?

Quatermass

If the bible is fallible then sola scriptura is a recipe for ignorance.

Having spent some time with members of reformed churches this stills rings untrue to me. I checked out some reformed sites and did a search on Catholic. My findings there lead me to suspect that if you mentioned the words “Catholic” and “brethren” in the same breath at your reformed church you would be feeling the business end of the authorized version up the side of your head! This seems way too ecumenical for a Calvinist. Kudos if it reflects your opinion, but I think you are probably being deceptive here.

Actually I pointed out that most Christians reject your Calvinist view. It also helps if you read my whole post before accusing me of not supplying arguments.

If they were non-elect before they even existed then guilt and sin have nothing to do with it! If they are non-elect they were created for destruction. You honestly don’t see the nonsense of this doctrine?

It is NOT a fact that the Holy Spirit grants guidance (sorry, but the bible tells me so, is not equivalent to fact: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something). Your description of what we should expect from the Holy Spirit’s guidance sounds surprisingly like what we should expect if there was no Holy Spirit. But then that’s true of religion in general – God is mysteriously absent.

You seem to have a real problem distinguishing between fact and belief! You BELIEVE that God does not deceive but the bible doesn’t seem to limit him in such ways. He supposedly created a world in 6 days that appeared to be 4.5 billion years old. He supposedly flooded the whole earth but left no evidence. He supposedly made it seem like pharaoh was a hard-hearted guy. He supposedly taught in parables to prevent people from understanding. He supposedly sends strong delusion so men believe a lie. He supposedly made promises like the end is near. And since bad supernatural beings can supposedly disguise themselves as good supernatural beings, who could possibly know if they are being deceived or not?

You say that your senses are reliable because God created them as such. It seems you have just shifted the need to justify back a step and then claim that no proof for the existence of God is required. Popper, addressing the problem of induction you raise, would say it’s irrelevant to try to justify any theory or belief – so you could be asking the wrong question altogether! What view is preferred and why? Assuming the existence of God seems more problematic than claiming induction as an axiom. There are evolutionary explanations of how induction is hard wired into our brains. All seem preferable to the baggage your Christian God brings to the party!

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

DaveJes1979

himynameisPwn
Dave: faith is the necessary precondition of justifying science in the first place. So I would say faith. Faith is the necessary foundation for reasoning or knowing anything rationally at all.

Quatermass

Dave: of course, I don't believe it is fallible. I accept it on its own terms because of the fact that it, apart from any other writings, gives us a coherent foundation to know and be reconciled to God.


Dave: well, I don't know that many of us use the "authorized version." That's really a Baptist thing. The reality is that we do have Catholic brethren (that fact, my Reformed brethren would agree on) - who are Christians DESPITE the egregious doctrine that Rome formally teaches. I would also point out that Rome's errors stem from its rejection of sola scriptura - so this is to be expected.

Dave: why does sin have "nothing" to do with it? Indeed, it has nothing to do with election, but sin has everything to do with the basis of judgement and damnation.

Dave: of course, with atheistic presuppositions, I do not expect you to take into account the Holy Spirit. But my worldview does - so you are critiquing my worldview on your own terms, rather than on the Christians'.

Dave: actually, the Bible says that "God is not a man, that He should lie."

Dave: of course, it only "appears" this way if you, a priori, rule out creation ex nihilo.

Dave: of course, you rule out the Bible as evidence, and you also have ignored the ancient flood accounts from other cultures, as well as the geologists who DO believe that there was such a flood. You also are assuming that inductive scientific inquiry into history carries so much certainty!

Dave: none of that is lying, however.

Dave: SO THAT men believe a lie - not that He Himself lied.

Dave: the end is near. Of course, "nearness" ought to be understood in Jesus' own frame of reference - that is, redemptive-historical terms. Jesus had entered in the last age (the church age), so it is presently the "last days".

Dave: actually, the apostles gave us criteria to test the spirits with - the teachings of Scripture.

Dave: no, I have showed that, given Christian presuppositions, knowledge is possible. That is, itself, the proof.

Dave G.

himynameisPwn

Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge. How can the opposite of knowledge lead to knowledge?

Now, since theres no tangible evidence for God(unless you can show otherwise that conclusively proves that its God and not nature), Im assuming your faith is blind faith, which I define as belief without tangible evidence. So, you presume God exists with no basis at all, because humans can only rely on what our senses and our instruments tell us.

So, my point is, don't argue for God, because you have no logical basis to back anything up.

According to the bible, Id assume God's purpose is that of a child who creates his lego town. Build it, play with the little lego people, kill them because they are stupid and destroy their town. Seems like every other bible story to me.

daemon

No, I'm afraid you are quite incorrect. There is no logical necessity established.
Okay, as to the first (morality), there are several competing theories that are atheistic. I find the idea of evolutionary morality to be quite plausible, and as such consists of an alternate explanation of moral norms.

As to the latter, I don't see how your "explanation" accounts for logic. It appears that you mean induction rather than logic.

Regardless, this is not a proof that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. Again, please prove it.

Further, as I have already asked, please prove that I have true knowledge. Until you can do both of these, your argument remains foundationless.

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

Quatermass

Not fact – conjecture.

More nonsense. Non-elect = damned, sin in no way modifies the original decree.

Our knowledge is flawed as you use Hume to point out. Popper in discussing Hume’s problem of induction addresses the notion that ultimate presuppositions cannot be justified or proven.

Welcome back to the battle and the empirical world; your presuppositions are conjecture, and as with all theories and knowledge are open to criticism.

Your proof is irrelevant. Your CP theory is conjecture and subject to all the criticisms you have up to now tried to ignore.