Datheron

DaveJes1979,

But you have no backup for these claims. As I have noted before and on previous posts, you really cannot show me a counterexample whereby a godless universe does not provide a law of induction - in other words, you have not shown that an intelligible universe is dependent on a Creator, nor can you show this. Therefore, it is just an empty claim.

As for moral norms, society serves as an example of a norm without God and as an example against any God-lead ethical and moral norm. How is it that Christians could both support and condemn slavery? Or that they could invoke the Crusades, yet be disgusted by the slaughter? Or now, perhaps the divide over homosexuality? No, you may not appeal to the NTC (tm) fallacy again.

The same way that you can ACCOUNT for the origins of God.

Then again, what can't you accept about mutual acceptance, trust, and emotions? We aren't exactly the only animals possessing morals, so I do not see why you're denying any other attempt to explain morality other than God.

That's a whole bunch of baloney. I can make that argument for astrology:

The stars are in their objective positions, but I can subjectively translate what they "mean".

An objective basis is meaningless unless you can somehow make use of it in an objective manner. Since you already conceded that we can do no such thing, it's of no importance.

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

How do you know this? How do you know that sin isn't clouding your judgement on the basic elements of the Bible, or even God's word affirming that this is true? After all, Satan loves to play tricks.

You still don't see the problem with your position. You answer as if you hold this trump card of God's Word that you can use as an objective clutch and begin to unravel your sola scriptura. The problem is, that itself is a subjective claim; how am I supposed to know that you're really hearing the true words of God when thousands of others are claiming the exact same privilege? You cannot make yourself be distinguished from the crowd that makes the exact same claims...that's why your position is no better, and therefore false.

The whole point is that while you have your gripes about certain things being arbitrary, I'm saying that God himself is an arbitrary being, holding all those attributes that you're complaining about.

I mean, strip away all the loaded definitions and meanings of the term "God", and what are you left with? A being that is able to magically contain all the properties of this universe and is contingent to all contingencies. We may have arbitrary morals, but you're saying that God is a being who arbitrarily chose our morals. You're just clumping everything into this being, wrapping a few layers of holiness and mystery around the book, and then invoking circular arguments to make it seem as if your position is bulletproof.

THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD ACCOUNT FOR GOD'S DECISION OF MORAL NORMS.

What is there to criticize? What's the difference between you saying that God is necessary for induction, and me saying that my teriyaki chicken is necessary for induction? Where lies the specific counterexample that I have asked for, so many times, which shows that a godless universe cannot have induction? You make no effort to show your claim is true, and you wish for me to show that it is false? It's called "shifting the burden of proof".

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

Read above. Show me that order is impossible without God.

Hey, that's your area, not mine, remember? I'm trying to tell you that because everybody says differently, it's impossible to distinguish any truth from it.

No - eternity just means forever lasting. It says nothing about the ability to change or otherwise.

..........



Not if his nature is so perfect that it forces a particular set of interactions. Remember, you're making the claim that God cannot change, and that God doesn't need to change; furthermore, the guy's omnipotent. God does not need to figure out how to work things out, he knows in advance how to interact with every circumstance.

Um, if you haven't noticed, people argue all the time. What are we doing right now? I mean, does the concept of "debate" mean anything to you? Or how about the processes of how a democractic government create laws and regulations? Perhaps the day-to-day arguments that one may have with friends and family? Or perhaps the changing morality of society throughout history? How many examples do you need before you accept the fact that there is no "absolute morality"?

No, it implies that there is a standard by which everybody agrees with and works with to arrive at this point. Logic, for example, is such a system.

Here's a question for you - how do you scrutinize the Scriptures, and how certain are you of that system? Does your stance reduce to anything more than "I trust God to make this work for me"?

No - first of all, they don't share the same name. Secondly, they don't share the same physical existence. That alone is enough destroy any coherent attempt to rationlize "three beings = one entity".

Then show me God's words, and furthermore show me how you know these are God's words, when you readily admit that it is from his words that you are able to get your certainty.

I'm challenging you to show me how a completely and utterly subjective interpretative process can result in objective anything.

No - I'm said, quite simply, that the Bible is erraneous and is ambigious. You claimed otherwise, and now I'm showing you why this is true. If you wish to retract your statements, then do so, but don't act as if you didn't bring this upon yourself.

A grand claim for an empty argument. We're now onto the "God's doing it behind your back" statements.

Datheron

BTW, admins, is there any reason why this thread continues on this third page forever? Methought it should have flopped onto the 4th or 5th page by now, but it seems like it just wants to extend the third page to blissful infinity. Any particular reason?

Jack the Bodiless

No, you did NOT "define God according to His attributes", you sought to define those attributes as properties of your imaginary friend. Hence the argument that the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn was "good" and "just". Furthermore, there is STILL no demonstrated requirement for your imaginary friend to provide a "foundation" for anything at all.
Your dismissal of Hinduism is based on ignorance. How can anyone dismiss Hinduism as "squabbling polytheistic deities" without even being aware of its monistic character? It is symptomatic of your entire style of argument: building strawmen and setting fire to them.
As Datheron pointed out, many Christians make similar comments about the Christian God. So Christianity must be false, right?
Yet the Bible does not portray God as all-just (or even moderately just). There are many hundreds of Biblical contradictions, failed prophecies, historical errors and similar "fundamental discontinuities" in the Christian Bible (try <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">www.skepticsannotatedbible.com</a> or check out the II Library). The Quran is no worse in this respect.

Your bias is obvious: because you've "presupposed" that you MUST be right, you will dismiss all other worldviews for the most trivial reasons, while ignoring huge holes in your own. Where presuppositionalists excel, however, is in sheer arrogance: having done this, you then assert that your worldview is inerrant and all others are false as if this was established fact, and expect others to simply accept this!

And this is presented as if it was a new form of argument! The actual arguments for the existence of the J/C God are as weak as they have always been, and the holes just as big. Wrapping all this up in a bundle and attaching a "transcendental argument" label to it doesn't change the intellectual bankruptcy of the case. It's just an excuse for saying "I must be right because I define myself to be right", then making baseless assertions from there on.

DaveJes1979

Datheron

Dave: its not an "empty claim." I provided the Christian account of induction. I await either a rebuttal of that accout or an atheistic alternative. Same goes with moral norms.

Dave: merely telling me that moral norms exist does not provide an epistemic account for their existence. If, say, you are a materialist, you need to tell me how you can derive moral norms from what amounts to matter in motion. If you think the universe (or at least humanity) is governed by evolution, please tell me why one "must" practice certain ethical behaviors with such a worldview (guided by an impersonal abstract principle as that).

Concerning the moral problems of Christians - I do not deny that they are there (although I would find great fault with the examples you used). But the fact that Christians sin is in fact quite in line with what the Christian worldview expects. The sins of Christians is not a epistemic discredit to the worldview.

Dave: the term "origin" in relation to God is meaningless. It only has meaning to things which are contingent, non-eternal, and finite.

Dave: humanity has given me every reason to DISTRUST the moral constructions of humanity. To put it another way: why should I accept your system of morality of Osama bin Laden's? You are both only human.

Dave: Scripture, unlike the stars, are propositional in nature, and not open to THAT kind of interpretation. Secondly, this still discounts divine guidance.

Dave: you haven't justified such a view of knowledge. Both the subjective and objective dimensions of knowledge are necessary to correct cognitive belief. As a matter of fact - this conversation would be impossible without it.

Of course, I would point out that the acknowledgement of both of these dimensions of knowledge would create uncertainty with you simply because your worldview does not include divine guidance.

Dave: Satan is not more powerful than God - and God is providential in controlling history and establishing His church.

Dave: the way I "distinguish myself" is by arguing my position from Scripture.

Once again, you are making agreement with people the ground of certainty. This does not work either in the Christian worldview or the atheist one. I have no idea why you look for certainty in people.

Dave: how are non-contingent, infinite, perfect attributes "arbitrary"?? You seem to be using the word "arbitrary" in a very fuzzy manner.

Dave: no, God's morals and the moral decrees He issues to men are a reflection of His eternal, non-contingent nature.

Dave: I am just talking about ANY moral norms. How can you build a system of ethics when your worldview (if you are, say, a materialist) holds that the universe is only matter in motion?

Dave: because, as I pointed out, God is omnipotent and is providential in ordering history - thus accounting for the uniformity that must exist in order for induction to be a valid tool of knowledge.

You see, God's ability to justify induction procedes from the fact that He has certain attributes. You cannot simply insert "chicken" into the equation hoping it will work.

The atheist is left with nothing that will fit into the equation. If the world is just (using materialism as an example yet again) matter in motion - why assume that this matter or motion is ordered? Of if something impersonal orders the universe, how can this provide us with a moral order of any sort? And no- an appeal to evolution cannot help since evolution itself is a theory derived from inductive observation.

Dave: I don't know what you mean by "show me." Since I have argued that the atheist is left without an account of induction, it follows that order is impossible in any "example" of an atheistic world.

Dave: but God is also immutable - meaning He does not change. If He did, then one could not have an account of knowledge - since right today could be wrong tomorrow. Arbitrariness of the worst sort.

Dave: your statement that "[his nature] forces a particular set of interactions" is a bit ambiguous.

Dave: if there is no absolute morality, then ON WHAT epistemic BASIS do we come to agreement? If two people come together - in any sort of "democratic" process, and have disagreements - what standard do they look to in order to come to agreement. Your ethical system begs more questions than it answers.

Dave: then, for you, logic is certain. Although, hardly "everybody agrees" on logic. Modern philosophers have been known to explicitly challenge even the law of non-contradiction. That is essentially what all relativistic or subjective philosophies reduce to.

Dave: trusting in God is certainly a fundamental principle that I hold to in my philosophy. But to answer your questions specifically - scrutinizing the Scriptures involves reading it, interacting with the original languages, commentaries, scholarship, and church authorities - and constantly challenging my own premises, methods, as well as conclusions. This system if "certain" because it starts and ends with the Scriptures at every point.

Dave: false - Matthew 28 uses the singular form of "name" when referring to the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Dave: physical existence? You have your metaphysics screwed up here. God is not physical in nature. Secondly, the formula is NOT "three beings = one entity." It is three persons in one divine being.

Dave: go pick up a Bible at a local book store. Any modern translation will do fine, although I certainly do recommend the original languages as well.

Dave: that is the point precisely. God's words hold their own authority. All things are measured by them, and they are not measured by anything else. Without them, one cannot come to know God in a saving relationship.

Dave: I never claimed that the Bible is never ambiguous at ANY POINT. I was referring only to the major doctrines which I listed before.

Dave: the fact that God is providential over the cognitive functions of Christian is yet another necessary presupposition (a Scriptural one, at that) for certain knowledge. The atheist cannot have claim to such certainty on the terms of his own worldview- so I find this fact troubling for the atheist, not embarrassing to the Christian.



Jack the Bodiless

Dave: is this supposed to be an argument of any sort?

Dave: if it is not required, then please rebut my argument. If there is no non-contingent, all-good, personal Being in the universe, on what basis can you call anything "good" or "just" without appealing to essentially subjective claims?

Dave: I did not refer to Hinduism as such. That is how I characterized portions of polytheism in general. And I would disagree with your characterization of Hinduism as being "monistic" when, in fact, there really is no set theology in Hinduism.

Dave: I don't know what reputable Christian theologian would call God "unknowable" in the sense Yusuf Ali was talking about. Nor can one find a Scriptural foundation for such an idea (although Ali's comment is based on Quranic interpretation).

Dave: those things you mentioned are not fundamentally contradicting presuppositions.

Nonetheless, I find these sorts of sweeping generalizations to be unconvincing. Whenever I challenge non-Christians to just give me ONE, or a handful of the BEST, more irrefutable "contradictions" or "errors" or what not - they always come up either empty-handed or with examples that it takes me 0.5 second to explain.

Concerning the skeptic's annotated Bible- I have indeed perused it. Man, is that supposed to be reputable scholarship? Most of the things it brings up are INSTANTLY refutable. It is obvious that whoever authored or compiled it did not seriously interact with Christian commentaries at all. Maybe it coddles your own philisophical bias by putting those things together, but don't expect anyone else to be compelled by it.

Dave Gadbois

Jobar

If every poster on a thread quotes every paragraph of every previous poster, and replies to it extensively, the length of each page becomes huge.

And yes, this is a gentle hint to all here, particularly Dave and Dathron, that you do *not* need to reply to every single sentence written by your interlocutors. For one thing, it makes my job considerably harder, and for another, it makes the conversation impossible to follow!

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

No - you have provided a Christian claim of induction and morality, with no reasons whatsoever that I should believe what you say. I keep on asking you why it is necessary for induction to require an omnipotent being, and you cannot seem to give me anything other than by definition.

...and telling me that God exists does not provide me an account of his existence. The only difference between that and your argument is that you have just defined God to be unaccounted for.

On the other thread, posters have repeated told you and demonstrated how such a feat is possible without God. Considering that a minority of the world is actually Christian and far less "true Christians", I would say it's amazing so many people have "discovered" and furthermore agreed to a set of ethical norms. BTW, such a set the cornerstone of civilization.

No - the sins of Christians is merely an excuse in order to have their worldviews actually reflect reality. You have this perfect God that makes man in his image, and you have this book with these instructions that are supposed to make you superior and objective. Then we remember that reality really isn't like that, and so sin is injected into the whole mess.

...by your definition of something that you prostulate to exist, which, as I have said multiple times, is futile.

And why should I trust your system, when you are only human?

Yes, I said YOUR system, for it's a system you have derived, subjectively, from a book. If only God would just be quick and divinely present his system in a much better form (i.e. better than a 2000-year, horribly translated and ambiguous, contradictory and laugable book), then you might have an argument. Since he doesn't, and you're just one of millions that claims he has, we either have millions of liars, millions of Gods, or none.

It matters not what kind of interpretation, just as long as I get the point across that subjective interpretation of an "objective" matter results in subjectiveness.

And once again, you, like many others, claim to receive divine guidance. Tell me what makes you stand above the rest, and why should God go through you instead of these other people. Also note that circular arguments are not allowed.

You have not done anything but claim this to be true. I'm simply saying that as long as we have an agreed system to work with, we are in good shape. This is precisely how language works.

BTW, if this conversation is indeed impossible, does not the fact that I am able to have this conversation without absolutity contradictory to that position?



But you have yet to establish that you've actually been talking to God and not Satan all this time.

I mean, how many times does this theme have to be repeated before it starts clicking? All God is is a conglomeration of the basic axioms we have about the universe, personified and made into a single entity. He's, in effect, "a step back" from our basic assumptions about the material universe, and instead of labelling logic and physical reality as axiomic, you label God as axiomic. And just as you can make claims (and note that they are nothing MORE than claims) about this supposed deeper although unnecessary contingency on our universal axioms, I can ask the same of God.

I don't know why you look for certainty, period. Tell me when you find that "certain language" to converse in.

No, I'm using it in a very simple manner, perhaps so simple that you're not used to having your God labeled as such. You say that since I do not have a foundation for my morals, they are arbitrary. I'm saying that God doesn't have a foundation for his morals, so they're arbitrary. Of course, you're choking up because in a mere mortal like myself shouldn't make judgments on great immortal God, right?

Uh huh. Tell me what this meaningless phrase actually means, then.

"Only matter in motion" produces neurons in your brain that create thoughts, emotions, and specifically morals.

Disagree? Then show me it's impossible.

[quote]<strong>Dave: because, as I pointed out, God is omnipotent and is providential in ordering history - thus accounting for the uniformity that must exist in order for induction to be a valid tool of knowledge.

You see, God's ability to justify induction procedes from the fact that He has certain attributes. You cannot simply insert "chicken" into the equation hoping it will work.</strong>[/qutoe]

And still, you have yet to justify your claim that an omnipotent God is necessary for induction. Until you do, I can insert anything I like and still have the same result. I just have to make different claims (perhaps "being fried justifies the existence of induction as an epistemological tool", hm?).

First off, note that most of what we have discovered about the universe is a result of observing the system at work.

Second, please stop beating your strawman. Atheism and materialism are two different things. Evolution and materialism are different things, and you're not even using the term "evolution" correctly.

And finally, why assume it has to be unordered? I mean, this flies in the face of all common sense. You've given a sample space of one Universe, and somehow you can make claims on whether something is possible or otherwise?! How can you know what is and is not necessary?

You have not "argued" that induction is impossible for an atheist. You have claimed that induction is impossible for an atheist materialist evolutionist, and you have not backed that claim up with anything more than divine appeals.

How does God changing alter the properties of knowledge?

BTW, I am arguing that God is arbitrariness of the worst sort. Thanks for giving me another phrase to use.

Really. Perhaps it has to do with the ambiguous definition and nature of God?

And your ethical system begs to be so simple-minded that it loses touch with reality.

For example, a debate occurs on these boards. If the opponents agree that logic is a good tool as the standard for correctness in the argument, then logic becomes the basis. On the other hand, there are times when a theist throws out logic and appeals to the supernatural, which then means there isn't any basis for agreement, since there is no agreement. Yes, it happens.

It's like asking on what common language two people must have to talk. I never said they could converse all the time. You're saying that they all really just speak one language.

Which is, of course, the very epitome of a subjective process. If there are philosophers that challenge logic, then all the better; it shows that even our basis is subjective, as I claimed.

On the other hand, your claim is so simple that it does not reflect reality in the slightest. In no point in history was there an extended period of time when ethics and morals were universally agreed upon, and then found to be "objective".

No - you're merely trying to find a correct context in which the scriptures fit, which is standard Biblical scholarship.

Do you realize that by challenging your own methods, premises, and conclusions, you are following the scientific method, which is not scriptural and therefore not absolute (according to you, anyway)? How can you "trust" this half-assed, non-objective process to scrutinize an objective piece of work, hm? Using the subjective to discover the objective? Again?

Woo hoo. So "Father, Son and Spirit" is now a "name" instead of "names". Not only does it have bad stories and morals, it also has bad grammar.

Then tell me what Jesus was. Oh, right, he was a physical being, while God and the Spirit were not. Heh.

And I don't really care how you define it, or what terms you're using. The point is, none of it makes sense, and all you're doing now is making more claims that they do, in some strange and mysterious fashion, in one form or another.

By golly, if God's Word comes in 500 different flavors, no wonder there are thousands of denominations.

More presuppositional bull. You derive authority from the words, and you define that their authority be absolute and greatest. You're basically saying that you're right because you defined yourself to be right - this has been identified with presuppositionism time and time again.

Please go back and read the exchange.

Dath: 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?!

Dave: 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.

So yes, you did try to respond.

And as to what you thought you might have said, no, you cannot agree on that either. Like I have mentioned, salvation is a hot topic which very little is agreed on other than belief in Jesus. Through faith? Through works? Through fate/predestiny? All are popular, all can be derived from the Bible, and all are supposedly Christian.

Please tell me why providental God is a "necessary presupposition". While you're at it, tell me why God is a necessary presupposition to anything. You've been giving me answers amounting to "he just is!", and in presuppositionism, I suppose that that's the best one can do.

Datheron

Oh, so it's the # of posts per page, as opposed to the # of lines?

Whoops - I had assumed it was the latter, which is why I usually reply in full (in Koy's vocab, a "point by point deconstruction). I'll take note of that from now on, though. Thanks, Jobar.

Jack the Bodiless

Dave: You don't seem to understand how arguments work.

If you were content to merely state that you believe that God is necessary, you might have a defensible position. But you have repeatedly stated that God IS necessary: so necessary that a godless Universe is impossible. To refute such a statement, it is not necessary for me to prove that a godless Universe is possible, or that we live in a godless Universe: I merely need to point out that your assertion is without foundation.

I have an invisible dragon in my garage. This dragon has the magical ability to speak only unerring truth: he has assured me that he does have this ability, and that the J/C God cannot possibly exist.

I await your rebuttal.
The SAB is intended to be a complete reference of ALL Biblical errors, contradictions and so forth: and some are better than others. Your approach is typical: deal with one and dismiss the rest.

On the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000284" target="_blank">The Biblical God is NOT "omnimax"</a> thread, I have given you Biblical PROOF that your God is NOT "eternal and unchanging": he is non-omniscient, he changes his mind, he regrets his own past decisions, he REPENTS.

You have seen it. You refused to address it.

Metaphysical naturalists have a Universe grounded in unchanging natural laws: you have a Universe grounded in the passing whim of a fickle, indecisive God. You have no adequate foundation for anything at all.

DaveJes1979

Datheron
Dave: my claim was asserted on the basis of the fact that God's existence entails that He is omnipotent, providential, and ordered Himself. He controls and orders the universe Himself. Thus, I have reason to believe that the universe is ordered. I have yet to see an atheistic alternative.

Dave: one does not "account for" one's presuppositional epistemological commitements. One uses those commitements to account for varying forms of knowledge.

Dave: sorry, but things like appeals to evolution cannot account for morality. Evolution (if true) could only tell us what WAS (history), not what IS, or WILL BE (which assumes an ordered effect from the past), nor what SHOULD BE (an ethical system).

Dave: sin is hardly a concept conjured up for the sake of our apologetics. It is foundational to the Scriptural understanding of man and reality.

Dave: whatever. I have still rebutted your criticism reguarding God's supposed "origin".

Dave: your cheap shots (completely unsupported) about a "horribly translated" book (you can get the original languages if you'd like) hardly do you any credit. Please demonstrate the contradictions, and tell us why, precisely, it is ambiguous or laughable.

I am not telling you to subscribe to "my system", but to God's system as revealed in the Scriptures. You keep shifting back to personal interpretations, my interpretation, or disagreements as the reference points - rather than what I am actually telling you to refer to. Scripture.

I would also point out that I am in agreement with 99% of those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians on the historic and fundamental tenants of Christianity. Although me and my brethren might have some differences, we all believe in the same God. Not "a million gods".

Dave: no, subjective interpretation of the objective results in subjective/objective knowledge. There is nothing inherently uncertain about this form of knowledge.

Dave: I believe all of those who hold to the Gospel (millions of us) receive divine guidance.

Dave: I find it absurd that you are relegating certainty in me understanding YOUR language rather than in God's language. Sort of a double-standard.

Dave: I don't mean "impossible" in that sense. I mean that having a MEANINGFUL conversation (where effective communication occurs) would be impossible.

Dave: it that were so, Satan would be more powerful than God. But this is not conceivable under the Christian conception of God.

Dave: those "claims" are proven by the fact that they account for certain knowledge forms. You seem to consistently misunderstand the place these claims have.

Unfortunately, your attempt to appeal to logic and "physical reality" as itself axiomatic fails. First of all, it does not account for moral norms or any workable system of knowing such norms. Secondly, to posit a "physical reality" does not give us any idea of whether or not we should expect such reality to be ordered, chaotic, knowable, or not. To posit merely the existence of logic does not entail the humans could know it. You have a long way to go.

Dave: because certainty is inevitable. Even if you say something is probable - you are already assuming some form of more certain criteria to judge what is and what is not probable.

Secondly, I am not sure what you mean by "certain language." Language is a medium of knowledge, not knowledge itself.

Dave: when you say that "God doesn't have a foundation for his morals", you are forgetting the fact that God IS the foundation. We look for nothing beyond His attributes and His very nature.

From now on, you may want to postpone your victory dance and making an ass out of yourself by assuming that I'm going to be "choking up".

Dave: it simply means that, since God is good and just - His decrees will be good and just also.

Dave: then why object to Osama bin Laden's morals? You have not given us a basis on which to disagree with him beyond personal taste (our own neurons).

Dave: is being fried involve being omnipotent, ordered, and providential over the material world, and all of history? You see, God accounts for induction by His ATTRIBUTES. You cannot just insert anything you like into the argument and hope it works. What attributes does "being fried" entail, and how does it give rise to order in the universe?

Dave: my point is that you cannot assume one way or the other - whether or not there is order. Your assumption is unjustified unless your worldview can account for one or the other.

Dave: but the materialist or evolutionist shares the same defect as any atheist. Their worldviews cannot account for the knowledge forms I mentioned in principle. The atheistic worldview, in general, does not posit the existence of anything that could even theoretically justify those knowledge forms.

Dave: if God changed, the properties of knowledge would change since knowledge procedes from His attributes. Goodness, for example, is good because God is good. If God changed, then good would be bad, and bad good.

Dave: and I am asking WHY we should believe in such a thing as logic. Or WHY one would assign certain moral values to one act, rather than another. Why should I adopt your system of ethics of Osama bin Laden?

Dave: you are assuming, once again, that objectivity is based on subjective agreement. This is rather odd.

Dave: prove it.

Dave: this "scientific method" is scriptural, because it uses only Scripture. Yes, I am subjectively interpreting the objective - but this does not lead me to believe that this is an inherently uncertain procedure (especially since we posit divine guidance). You fail to see that subjectively interpreting the objective is not "subjectivism" - which entails no standard beyond the individual existent.

Dave: there is nothing in Greek grammar that demands anything different.

Dave: Jesus' divine nature does not have a physical existence, although His human nature does.

Dave: OK, I really have to correct this "thousands of denominations" myth. There are only on the order of dozens of major Evangelical denominations (Bible-believing, sola scriptura). Any further breakdowns of categories are not based on theological difference, but mostly jurisdictional and political. Even the theological differences that do exist between the major camps (Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, Congregational) does not negate the fact that we believe in the same God and the same fundamental doctrines and tenants of the Gospel.

Secondly, there is not a single doctrinal division that has arisen from translational issues. Doctrinal debate exists at the level of the original languages.

Dave: we are saved through all three. Election is by predestination- which is prior to the other two. We are justified by faith alone. We are sanctified by works after justification. There is no major evangelical camp who denies any of these things - even though there is debate as to the nature of God's predestination (a non-essential).


Datheron
Secular Web Regular
Member # 3538
posted May 27, 2002 07:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, so it's the # of posts per page, as opposed to the # of lines?
Whoops - I had assumed it was the latter, which is why I usually reply in full (in Koy's vocab, a "point by point deconstruction). I'll take note of that from now on, though. Thanks, Jobar.



Jack the Bodiless
Dave: my argument proceeds the same as it would with THIS universe. If God does not exist, knowledge is impossible. Only God can account for moral norms, since He is non-contingent, perfectly good, eternal, and personal and has made His decrees known to man in revelation. Only God can account for logic, since God is omnipotent and providential and thus has ordered the universe, given men competent minds and made logic possible. I await an atheistic alternative- in any universe.

Dave: I would first ask how this dragon can possibly be the necessary precondition for knowledge, such as moral norms or logic. Then we'll talk.

Dave G.

ShottleBop

. . . but, if reasonable minds can (and do) differ over the appropriate interpretation of the objective, how does divine guidance regarding its appropriate interpretation manifest itself?