daemon

daemon23: Interesting theory; would you be so kind as to first define naturalism, and then to explain why it must presuppose itself to be proven?

theophilus: I'm really not here to teach philosophy, not that I claim to be qualified. No system of knowledge can "prove" itself. Otherwise, the thing that proves it would become the standard. People who want to "prove God," assume that there is something more "ultimate" than God by which his existence can be tested, i.e., their own intellect. You cannot use a naturalistic starting point to construct a test for naturalism and thing that you have done anything more than traveled in a circle.

My apologies, I assumed you were being a bit loose in your terminology, and meant by "proven," valid. However, I have yet to see a proof for Christianity which isn't self-referential--your complaint about naturalism--so why should this even be considered to be a criteria for the evaluation of a worldview?

Furthermore, you have bizarre ideas about proof that I do not share. I see no reason to see proof/evidence as being more ultimate than the thing being proven; why must this be the case? What does this even mean?

theophilus: Second, this is not about metaphysics; it is about the very possibility of knowledge. Knowledge, of any type, is impossible on a naturalistic basis because it has never been demonstrated that matter contains or can communicate knowledge.
daemon23: What does this mean? How does one demonstrate matter contains/can communicate information? It seems quite obvious that matter can and does convey information--take writing, for example, the simple arrangement of ink and paper in order to contain information in the form of human symbols.

theophilus: What do rocks say to each other?

Now, now, theophilus, no moving the target--it's already been hit. You did not ask about the intercommunicative ability of matter; it is far more than the simple conveyance of information. This is a leap beyond simple knowledge; why must all matter be conscious and capable of abstract symbol manipulation in order to convey information?

theophilus: Third, knowledge of anything requires knowledge of everything; a "fact" is what it is in relation to other "facts." You not only need to know each fact absolutely, but you need to know all facts absolutely in relation to each other before you can claim any knowledge.

daemon23: This is an arbitrary claim, and I can see no reason to believe it. Please prove this, as well as why approximate knowledge is inadequate to be considered knowledge.

theophilus: The statement is self-evidently true. If it is not, you should be able to disprove it.

Certainly.

I am not omniscient.
I know "2 + 2 = 4".
Therefore, omniscience is not a requirement for knowledge.

However, back up a bit here. If you were even correct in the first place, you wouldn't know anything either, unless you're claiming that you're omniscient. Where on earth did you get this nonsense from? Do you even think about what you're writing?

theophilus: There is no such thing as "approximate" knowledge in an epistemological system. You either have knowledge or you don't.

So why do you keep saying "certain" knowledge, if there is only knowledge? You are the one implying multiple forms of knowledge; I was simply trying to extrapolate what the other forms are via guesswork.

theophilus Christianity, on the other hand, has the creator's revelation which not only gives us information about him and his creation, but establishes the possibility of rational and empirical knowlege.

daemon23: Prove this. It is not sufficient to merely repeat this, but prove, firstly, that revelation even makes your questionable definition of knowledge possible, and furthermore that your personal version of revelation is preferable to the 33,000+ forms of what I assume you call false forms of Christianity, and the other revelatory relgions as well.

theophilus: This is pretty fundamental:
God, as the creator, has revealed himself in his creation, his word and his son. He has told us sufficient truth about the creation, himself, mankind and about our condition in order for us to know him and understand human experience.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question, theo: Please prove that revelation makes knowledge possible, and that your particular form of revelation is the correct form of revelation to allow knowledge. The above statements prove neither of these.

theophilus: Now, if you want to argue that the bible is not the word of god or that it is not true, you must first justify the standard by which you would judge it to be so.
So, what is your standard and how do you justify it without presupposing it?

In response to your question, reason is my standard, and it is assumed. Of course, you presuppose reason above the Bible as well, by your own arguments, as without reason the Bible and any revelatory information you might receive from your god are simply meaningless data, but I certainly don't expect you to admit that.

All this is besides the point, however, and not even part of my questions about your supposed proof. This is supposed to be about the nonsense that you constantly allege atheism entails, and the supposed superiority of Christian presuppositionalism. Try to stick to the subject.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]</p>

beachbum

Just what is do you mean by this "absolute despair and skeptacism" bullshit?

theophilus

That is correct, except you forgot the comma.

beachbum

Hello Proud Atheist

You are 100% right on. Don't you think that just by definition a 'miracle' would be something that would totally astound everyone who comes in contact with it? Now if I were to cut someone's head off and they then got up, replaced their own head and commenced talking ot me I tould think that that just might be a miracle. Watching David Blaine, the magician levitate doesn't even make most people think it is a miracle. But let the underdog win the Super Bowl and that has to be a miracle.

Sorry I got to rambling. Yeah a miracle would have to be awfully big to be a miracle in my book.


ps. You really live in New Guinea? I have read a few sociological and anthropological works about Papua and it seems like a most facinating place.

Stan the curious beachbum

beachbum

Rainbow walking

Best wishes. You have a very extended family of well wishers here. Let us know if you need anything.

Stan

Metacrock

Nice of you Stan. Since you guys are taking him off our hands, here's a list of things he'll be needing that he's left behind with us:

1) unconditional love
2) people who would be willing to die for him if worse case senerios of persecutation came true
3) eternal life
4) unconditional forgiveness for all past deeds going back to earliest days (and forgiveness in such a way that all wrong doings are truely forgiven not just imagined to be forgiven).
5) At least the possibility of divine healing
6) people who don't even know you but are willing to devote at least 4 minutes to concentrated wishes for his best interest should the need arize.
7) people who are willing to come get you anywhere anytime for any need 24-7.
8) People who actually like you for youself regardless of corny jokes.
9) regular source of pot luck dinners.


O by the way, does this mean that you guys like him now?? because for all the time he's been posting on Sec Web he's been an object of total derision and scorn. I've some of the most humiliating and insulting things said about him over and over again for no better reason than that he dared to have his own view point which differed from that of the atheist hoard mocking him. But now, magically, suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, he's been trasnformed into a worthy person with this wonderful "extended family."

Ok I hope RW will let me know if he is able to ever barrow money from any of these great extended relatives. My family has been financially by chruches many times, when atheists start giving money to other athesits who need it maybe we'll start to see if they really have anything like a family. In the mean time I think its remarkable how he changed from being the worst object of scorne to a wonderful guy over night like that.
Take good care of him now.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Haran

Rainbow Walking,

You don't know me, but I've read your testimony and it really meant alot to me. I also indirectly know many of your Christian internet friends and have seen them express their deep care for you. They and I hope you find your way back and wish you only the best.

You mean a lot to God, rw. A lot...

Sincerely,
Haran

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

daemon

Nope, sorry, we atheists can love unconditionally as well. Unless you're saying you guys aren't going to love him anymore, in which case, that's not very unconditional.
Perhaps, but it's not as though that's any real sacrifice to Christians, is it?
promises, perhaps; empty words, in the end.
Ah, laying in the guilt already.
Well, he's also giving up on the possibility of getting boils for believing in YHWH, too, so it really evens out.
Wow. Gosh. A whole four minutes wishing. I'm impressed.
Oh yes, I forgot, us mean-ol-atheists, we have lumps of coal where our hearts should be, harrumph, harrumph.
*sigh* That's not Christianity, that's called friendship. Atheists can have friends, too, you know.
Okay, you got me there. Unless, of course, the freethinker societies do something of the like.

I'm impressed, Meta, not a day goes by and you're trying to reel him back in with guilt and lies. Jesus must be really impressed with your hatred and cruelty.

HelenM

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

daemon

To tell the truth, I don't know if I like RW or not. I don't know him very well, haven't read too much of his writing. However, I do know that deconverting can really hurt, and I want to offer my support to him in what I'm sure will be a trying time, made no less hurtful by bile-spewing Christians like yourself. Just because you have no sympathy for your fellow humans does not mean all of us must stoop to your level.

I've stood up for you before, Meta, but never again.