Mageth

I'm beginning to agree with Thor Q. Mada on this one. I did want to point one thing out, though.

Dave said:

Dave: I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out. Child abuse cannot be compared to a punishment God doles out due to the crimes of men. Child abuse is against an innocent. God's wrath is not.

He also said:

ALL SUFFERING is a manifestation of his wrath. I thought that was clear from my last post.

So is the suffering of an abused child a manifestation of god's wrath? If so, it is a punishment god doles out, no?

Further, is the suffering of an "innocent child" afflicted with leukemia a manifestation of god's wrath?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is "yes", then my analogy stands, and is even strengthened because now god is a participant.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

Dave: it seems to me, then, that you were really an atheist the whole time. Only atheistic presuppositions could possibly lead to that conclusion.

No, not an atheist. I believed in god until a couple of years ago, so you cannot say that I lacked a god belief (the definition of atheism). No presuppositions led to that conclusion. Reason did.

Dave: you DO idolize things. God demands both service and praise from His creatures. Failure to do so constitutes idolatry - as you place your "faith" away from Him to an idol you have constructed. Usually, the idol is YOU, or a philosophy, or something.

Sorry, dude. I haven't constructed any idols and don't have "faith" in anything. And remember, I lack a god belief. God is a null hypothesis to me. For his "demands" have no meaning to me, he'll have to prove to me that he exists first.

BTW, Dave, I wanted to thank you for reminding me of my former beliefs. I used to believe a lot of the same stuff you do. Reviewing them as presented by you reminds me of why I don't any more.

daemon

From what I gathered from our former favorite presupper (though I forget his name), belief in God comes via a magical event that is not within human control (Holy Spirit gifts you with belief). Thus, you automatically switch viewpoints, and then become a Christian.
Presuppositionalism, as it has been argued before, relies heavily on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: people cannot choose to convert, so most who claim to have converted to Christianity--especially through their own cognitive facilities--are either deluded or dishonest. Thus, there is no form of true conversion that negates the presuppositionalist viewpoint.

Of course, this doesn't make the viewpoint much more than asserted truth by fiat.

daemon

I can answer this one for him, Mageth--there's no such thing as an innocent child. All is fallen; any form of violence, suffering, or misery is deserved tenfold.

He should just be thankful he's not in more pain!

(Note: I derive this from what I've seen of previous presuppositionalists. If I am wrong in characterizing your beliefs, DaveJes, feel free to correct me. In detail, though, please.)

Mageth

From what I gathered from our former favorite presupper (though I forget his name), belief in God comes via a magical event that is not within human control (Holy Spirit gifts you with belief).

Sounds like our old friend theophilus.

daemon

I think I know where he's going with this, too. If "Yahweh is cruel" or "Yahweh is improbable" logically derive from your presuppositional set, then your presuppositions are atheistic by his definition.

This relates to one aspect of the full presuppositionalist viewpoint that I do agree with: everyone has a set of assumptions/presuppositions which they use to relate to the world. Where I significantly disagree is as to what those assumptions are. For example, it was asserted that the validity of logic is derived from the existence of God. The problem here is that this argument must assume logic is valid in its assumptions, otherwise it is not a logical argument. Hence, it is either illogical or circular, thus logically invalid.

daemon

Maybe... I think he actually used a real name, though.

Pomp

Mageth,

No, not an atheist. I believed in god until a couple of years ago, so you cannot say that I lacked a god belief (the definition of atheism). No presuppositions led to that conclusion. Reason did.

Not to put words in our new friend's mouth, but he's a Xian presuppositionalist. If your reasoning led you to the conclusion that there is no god, then it necessarily was not based on the presupposition that the Xian god exists and, therefore, you were using some non-Xian-presupositionalist reasoning, which is equivalent, in his mind, to an "atheist presupposition."

DaveJes1979

daemon: What emotional outburst? Are you attempting to build another strawman?
I am simply pointing out that the behavior you are attributing to God is juvenile and offensive in people. Surely it should be moreso in a being that is allegedly perfect!

Dave: it seems quite emotional to me, when you use name-calling (calling God an "idiot) in your argumentation. Is that supposed to be a substantive part of your argument? In any case, your criticism of God fails because of the fact that you fail to make a distinction between God and man. What is juvenile in man may not be juvenile for God. Why is it "juvenile for man"? Well, simply because we realize that man really doesn't deserve such high praise. But such a condition does not apply to God - who does deserve it. Do you have an alternatve explanation or justification for your distaste of "self-aggrandizement"??


daemon: I find that unconvincing; as far as I am concerned, those are all simply subjective terms, and as such perfection is an arbitrary assignment.

Dave: you consider them "subjective" because you, as an atheist, deny that God's truth is objective. Since I have found that atheism does not "really" have an alternate objective ground to base their knowledge on - subjectivism is the end result. And subjectivism leads quickly to skepticism - and epistemological suicide. My assignment is tautological - but not arbitrary.

daemon: That's one of the most impressive non sequiturs I've ever seen. Congratulations.
Now, perhaps you'd like to try to explain how denying the "perfection" of God makes nonsense of history... ?

Dave: because meaning (in language, or when history is considered) presupposes that there is a standard of some sort. These standards are "perfections", or attributes of God. The Christian claim is that any attempt to ground one's knowledge of interpretation of reality (or attempt to find meaning) in anything other than God's nature - as the standard - leads to skepticism. If one abandons God's perfections, then one cannot (in any non-arbitrary fashion) derive meaning from history.


daemon: Actually, I have no atheistic presuppositions, though it is certainly arguable that my values and ethics are atheistic. However, I see no relevance to this fact.

Dave: no presuppositions? That is philisophically laughable. No epistemic neutrality exists. Either one grounds one's knowledge and starts with the Creator - or one attempts to do so in a pale imitation. Ultimately, the imitation fails. Existentialists ground their knowledge in themselves. Empiricists ground their knowledge in empirical data, etc. etc.

daemon: Well, that's a big if right there. If he were to inform me, I might be inclined to believe him and do something about it. He has yet to do so, however.

Dave: well, if you are going to criticize God, you need to take into account everything that God's existence entails (such as the fact that He is worthy). But your argument did not do any such thing. And God has indeed "informed" you of His existence throughout nature, in yourself, and in every fact that exists. You fail to "see" him because you interpret all of these things through your atheistic presuppositions. Of course you are going to fail to see him!

daemon: No, it wasn't. So, if I understand you correctly, people suffer because they are disobedient, and therefore deserve it. Correct?

Dave: yep.

daemon: You implied that they were equivalent by stating that my objections to the Bible were based on atheistic assumptions, then backed that off to non-Christian. They are not necessarily the same. I should note that further thought has made me realize, however, that none of my assumptions are inherently atheistic, per se. Rationalistic, yes, but not atheistic.

Dave: hmmmm..labeling yourself rationalistic doesn't help us out much. I consider myself to be a theistic rationalist. Your rationalism, however, is distinctively atheistic.


David Gould
Presuppositionalism is a wonderful thing.
It actually makes me wonder how a presupossitionalist believes the conversion process works: if I have to adopt a Christian worldview in order to become a Christian, isn't that kind of circular?

Dave: yes, it is circular. All worldviews are ultimately circular. Of course, we believe that conversion works by God changing someone's presuppositions, subjectively speaking. Objectively speaking, we argue for Christian presuppositions transcendentally - by showing that our presuppositions are NECESSARY preconditions of making knowledge and reality intelligible. Usually, this is shown by comparing the theistic account of induction, or morality, and asking the atheist for such an account. In this thread, I am using history.

thor: Come-on guys, DaveJes1979
and Bender are religious fanatics, capable of flying planes into buildings. Reasoning with them is a usefull as talking to a wall. Ignore them. They are not worth the effort, because they have lost the ability to learn. They are stuck in ideas and dogmas of a long bygone time. They are medical case studies.
If you could change them it would be a miracle. Since we don't believe in miracles , the picture is pretty static. This is thegreatest problem of our planet. "Stagnation in a belief from the past with values from the past".
Give-up!!

Dave: interesting little rant. But it only goes to show that you are not dealing with our actual argumentation. Except mindlessness like THIS from my Fundamentalist brethren.

Posts: 104 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Mageth: I'm beginning to agree with Thor Q. Mada on this one. I did want to point one thing out, though.
Dave said:

Dave: I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out. Child abuse cannot be compared to a punishment God doles out due to the crimes of men. Child abuse is against an innocent. God's wrath is not.

He also said:

ALL SUFFERING is a manifestation of his wrath. I thought that was clear from my last post.

So is the suffering of an abused child a manifestation of god's wrath? If so, it is a punishment god doles out, no?

Dave: well, this is confusing the issue a little bit. But suffice to say, God does indeed allow some earthly fathers to abuse their children as a part of His curse on mankind. Of course, God's purposes are noble (the distribution of his justice) where as the earthly father's purposes are not (the son did not deserve such treatment from his father, and the father's intentious were malicious only).

daemon: Further, is the suffering of an "innocent child" afflicted with leukemia a manifestation of god's wrath?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is "yes", then my analogy stands, and is even strengthened because now god is a participant.

Dave: if you are aware of the Christian doctrine of original sin - you would know that there is no such thing as an "innocent child" in God's sight.


Mageth
No, not an atheist. I believed in god until a couple of years ago, so you cannot say that I lacked a god belief (the definition of atheism). No presuppositions led to that conclusion. Reason did.

Dave: that "reason" is distinctively atheistic reasoning, though. And I know that you did not consider yourself, formally, an atheist - but you were not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, otherwise you would not have "converted".

daemon: Sorry, dude. I haven't constructed any idols and don't have "faith" in anything. And remember, I lack a god belief. God is a null hypothesis to me. For his "demands" have no meaning to me, he'll have to prove to me that he exists first.

Dave: under my defenition of idolatry - you certainly do have idols. You obviously have "faith" in the atheistic worldview you have built up, and your own ability to reason autonomously from God. Your faith is just as distinctive as the Christian faith. I would also point out that your demand for "proof" is arbitrary since God presents proof in every fact that exists. Your presuppositions, however, simply don't allow any such interpretation of the facts. An atheistic paradigm will simply not admit of that.

daemon: From what I gathered from our former favorite presupper (though I forget his name), belief in God comes via a magical event that is not within human control (Holy Spirit gifts you with belief). Thus, you automatically switch viewpoints, and then become a Christian.

Dave: that is part of the picture - the subjective side anyway. But the Holy Spirit does not add any content to the objective testimony that already exists. The Holy Spirit, metaphorically speaking, opens the eyes, hearts, and minds of people so that they can see that testimony.

daemon: Presuppositionalism, as it has been argued before, relies heavily on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: people cannot choose to convert, so most who claim to have converted to Christianity--especially through their own cognitive facilities--are either deluded or dishonest. Thus, there is no form of true conversion that negates the presuppositionalist viewpoint.
Of course, this doesn't make the viewpoint much more than asserted truth by fiat.

Dave: the main reason we deny conversion from Christianity is because we realize that Christianity is a presuppositional commitement. If someone "leaves" Christianity - it reveals that their presuppositions are actually atheistic in nature. Of course, we believe that people convert TO Christianity because God can change our commitements.

daemon: I can answer this one for him, Mageth--there's no such thing as an innocent child. All is fallen; any form of violence, suffering, or misery is deserved tenfold.
He should just be thankful he's not in more pain!

(Note: I derive this from what I've seen of previous presuppositionalists. If I am wrong in characterizing your beliefs, DaveJes, feel free to correct me. In detail, though, please.)

Dave: actually, you hit the nail on the head. Presuppositionalism is embedded in Reformed Christian theology (also known as Calvinism), and original sin is part and parcel of the worldview.

daemon: I think I know where he's going with this, too. If "Yahweh is cruel" or "Yahweh is improbable" logically derive from your presuppositional set, then your presuppositions are atheistic by his definition.
This relates to one aspect of the full presuppositionalist viewpoint that I do agree with: everyone has a set of assumptions/presuppositions which they use to relate to the world. Where I significantly disagree is as to what those assumptions are. For example, it was asserted that the validity of logic is derived from the existence of God. The problem here is that this argument must assume logic is valid in its assumptions, otherwise it is not a logical argument. Hence, it is either illogical or circular, thus logically invalid.

Dave: well, you have some of that right. Not all circular argumentation is fallacious. In "pure" logic it certainly is - but not when one is discussion epistemological systems and such. Circularity is unavoidable then. That is why Kant's contribution of the transcendental argument is significant - it allows us to "prove" our presuppositions. So we ask, "which of our worldviews/presuppositions allows for/accounts for ______" Traditionally, Christians have argued that only the Christian worldview can account for knowledge of any kind - science, logic, morality, etc.

Hope that helps clear up some of the issues.

Dave Gadbois

Mageth

Fortunately, I was never a xian presuppositionalist.

My view is that I examined the evidence rationally(without presupposing that god(s) do or don't exist) and concluded that there is no substantial evidence that god(s) (and in particular the xian god) exist.

But perhaps the idea that "I can rationally determine to my satisfaction whether god exists or not by examining the evidence" is a presupposition.