Vorkosigan

Funny. My wife has the same complaints about me.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Quite a choice you've given us, chembot or christbot.

Vorkosigan

And aren't you a forum member even though you completely disagree with the mission statement? Why does it need to be changed, then? What would you suggest be substituted that would cause every member to agree with it?

BEANO

Vork,

Quite a choice you've given us, chembot or christbot.[/QB][/QUOTE]

that's a very interesting point, vork. however, if your a naturalist, there is no choice at all. whether you're a "chembot" or a "christbot" is not a "choice" one has made, but the end result of a natural process. yet from the christian veiw, the fact that one refuses Christ lends credence to the doctrine of the "sin nature" of man, and our intellectual rebellion against the creator.

the point i'm seeking to make, however, is much larger-that being that ANY attempt at autonomous reasoning (no matter what the school of thought-be it naturalism, platonic duelism, monism-take your pick) renders UNINTELLIGIBLE any reasoning at all. we all assume the use of our reason in any kind human inquiry-be it science, philosophy, or something much more mundane like investigating why the car won't start on a cold day. my point here is that the christian world-veiw is the only system that can make sense of why we assume such things, while the other systems are undermined by there own inconsistancies and/or arbitrariness.

have you ever read any david hume? if not, i suggest you do-it's fascinating. if so, how would you answer the problem of induction that he raises?

Philosoft

BEANO,

Can you provide any reason why your version of presuppositionalist Christianity should be of greater explanatory power than naturalism, other than that you can manipulate supernatural entities to explain anything?

BEANO

greetings, keith,

Disproving 'God'?

(I was under the impression that unless something had been proved--or at least was supported by some pretty strong, non-contradictory, independently verifiable evidence--rational people didn't have to believe it.)

what i'm doing is using a transcendenetal form of argumentation-that is to say, that the judeo-christian God is nescessary for any 'rational thinking' at all, and pointing out the impossibility to the contrary. one cannot "PROVE" anything without this most basic underlying assumption.

for instance, you would demand of someone proposing a particular veiw to have strong non-contradicting, independently varifiable evidence. but i would simply then ask you-why? the "law" of non-contradiction is meaningless apart from the christian system-that is apart from a non-condratictory God creating non-condracting beings (man) and setting those beings in a non-contradicting universe. i would turn your argument around and ask why it is-on your worldveiw-that we should not contradict ourselves?

furthermore, what you and i would grant as "evidence" will depend wholly on, and be governed by the presuppositions we bring to that evidence. let's take the resurrection of Christ from the dead. now a christian may veiw that as strong evidence for the existence of God, but the naturalist doesn't NEED to grant that as evidence at all-because after, strange things happen in the universe, and some day we'll have a law-like, natural explaination for how people come back from the dead.

the problem for the naturalist is that he is already using baseless, unproven assumptions (assumptions that leech off the christian worldveiw) to reject the christian worldveiw! you yourself ASSUME that something needs to be non-contradictory, but have you proven that? if you say "yes, it's supported by the fact that it is non-contradictory" then you have begged the question. if you say "no", then you had better revamp your epistimology.

beano.

Clutch

Again, Beano, I missed the bit where you argued that there is any problem whatever for naturalism?

So far we have your assertion that there is a problem. Fine. I'll take it as a datum that you have asserted this. Is there any reason to think it's correct?

BEANO

hi john 3,

No, we havent discovered the Higgs-Boson yet but that doesnt mean we cant make rational conclusions based on sensory data. Though I geuss that depends on your definition of what "rational" is.[/QB][/QUOTE]

my question is: what is the basis for believing that we can make rational conclusions based on sensory data? the notions assumes something about the nature of reality that is made non-sensical apart from the christian veiw of the nature of reality. you are assuming that we can draw such inferences, but what needs to be true in order for us to make sense of that assumption?

as far as a definition of what "rational" is-again you raise an excellent point. in all non-christian systems of thought, "reason" is far to ambiguous for us to use as some kind of epistomoligical standard.

beano.

xeren

Yes, we are just "bio-chemical robots" happened upon by stimuli, and yes, we are guided by deterministic forces. But that doesn't mean that we can't come to correct conclusions about out world.


You still haven't explained HOW naturalism destroys our foundation for things like science and philosophy.

And even if it does, how do you know it is the Christian god that is giving us the foundation why not ZEUS?

BEANO

hi philsoft,

Can you provide any reason why your version of presuppositionalist Christianity should be of greater explanatory power than naturalism, other than that you can manipulate supernatural entities to explain anything?[/QB][/QUOTE]

sure. first, let me point out that the application of ANY presuppositional veiw (and EVERYONE "presupposes" a network of beliefs to support other beliefs) allows us employ certain assumptions that govern our way of veiwing reality. take the case of naturalism. this veiw PRESUPPOSES the non-existence of the supernatural, and thus, will use it as a basis for rationalizing everything. i used the example of the resurrection of Christ from the dead already, but i'll us it again here. the christian might say that it is strong proof of God's existence (as you say, "manipulating supernatural entities to explain anything"), but the naturalist doesn't have to grant that. he could very well say that "strange things happen in the universe and someday we'll have a natural, law-like explaination for how dead people come back to life (manipulating NATURAL entities to explain anything).

my point is transcendental in nature-that is, the christian veiw of reality is necessary to our making intelligible not only reality, but our EXPLAINATION of it. of course, again, i don't expect the naturalist to grant this either, for in a naturalist universe there is NOTHING that "transcends" the natural order. therein the problem lays, for if NOTHING transcends the natural order, then sense and non-sense (both a part of this order) are equally valid. if you protest to this (which i agree you should), then you'll need to propose a basis for WHY a protest is in order-given a naturalistic veiw of the universe.

you asked for a reason why christianity should have greater explanatory power, but then go on to say "OTHER THEN..." i daresay that by the naturalistic conditions you've set to limit my explaination, you have shown your pre-commitment to naturalism. i need to ask-WHY would i not be allowed to maniplulate everything by way supernatural entities if i should choose to do so? what is the basis for your imposing such a restriction?