Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Interesting how much this presuppositionalist stuff contradicts the standard Christian view that "we'll find God if we search hard enough" (with the corollary that those who found nothing "weren't really looking").

The presuppositionalist doesn't look. In fact, he's convinced that looking is futile. He merely assumes that God exists, then closes his mind to any possibility that he could be wrong.

Interesting how your remarks exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the presuppositional argument. I know you have been around these pages for some time, so this is unfortunate. Comments on this board often reflect a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of what they presume to criticize.

The "standard Christian view" does not say anything like your quote. In fact, it says the exact opposite. The scirptue is clear that man is confronted by God's power and deity through the created order, including his conscience.

We suppress this knowledge because we do not want to acknowledge God's authority over us.

When unbelievers "look" for God, they are looking for a god who will satisfy their demands before they'll acknowledge, i.e., a god who will be under their authority.

But unbelievers cannot live consistently with their atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview because it provides no basis for making sense of life's experiences. So, they must adopt the product of the Christian worldview which does make life understandable and makes knowledge possible.

You also misrepresent the presuppositional argument. All knowledge systems require some "presupposition" which is the foundation for the system and which cannot, itself, be examined by another presupposition. This is true for theists and atheists alike.

The test of a presupposition can only be performed indirectly, i.e., does it make knowledge possible and how successfully does it explain life's experiences.

The true Christian presupposition is that God and his word. The atheist presupposition devolves to some form of pure empiricism or rationalism.

God, because he is the creator, has comprehensive knowledge of his creation and has communicated that knowledge in his word. To those who recieve this communication as absolutely authoritative, it becomes the means of a restored relationship, through Christ, to the creator from whom we were alienated because of our rebellion. To those who do not receive it it becomes a witness against them for their wilfull rebellion.

I'm sure someone will object to my injecting doctrine here, but the continued and pervasive misrepresentation of Christian beliefs require it.

Now, if you want to criticize my arguments, you should at least know what you're arguing about.

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron
Well, no reply to the above question, so here goes my analysis of the problem.

It is either true that God told me you were full of it, or it is not. I could have lied, after all. However, there is also the possibility that I only believe that it was God telling me it and I otherwise hold it as true. Clearly, you will be unable to distinguish that case from the situation where I point-blank lie about it.

Now assume that I adopt the same stance as you: I presuppose that this message is from God and that God's word is true. You, being a good xian, will (of course) be forced to conclude that this God is the same as yours because your theology is One God only. You can no more claim it to be Satan, because I could just as easily claim that Beelzebub was the guy whispering in your ear and - according to your own reasoning - there would be no way to distinguish who was who because there is, after all, only subjectivity according to you. But if it's all subjective, how could you know who was right?

So: either God has spoken to me and you are utterly wrong; or you are in a position where - because you presuppose that God and his Word are true stuff - you are unable to tell whether it really was God talking to you or not; or you retract this 'objectivity does not exist' argument because at the end of the day, you are still attempting to attribute the voice of God in your head to the God of the scriptures by objective means; or it's possible to believe stuff that's actually false; or you're a liar.

Interesting, huh?

No, duh!

This is so full of ignorant comments (literally, not perjoratively) that I was tempted to say that your name is only half true, but I decided that that would be uncharitable.

The God in whom I believe and whose revelation of himself in creation and scripture is the foundation of my knowledge does not lie, nor does he contradict himself. Your comments require both.

Before you post again, at least try to think first.

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Terrier
Jobar, I�d be delighted to see Theo in E/C. But meanwhile, may I take these bits here? Oops, looks like I have!

Hogwash.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. You will find that even most creationists do not deny that bit. Search for Peter Grant and Galapagos finches.

Did you read this link before posting it here? It does not support your contention, at all.

"3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. ]i]Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events]/i]?

IMHO, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.

Most of the reports, especially the recent reports, can be found in papers that describe experimental tests of hypotheses related to speciation. Usually these experiments focus on questions related to mechanisms of speciation

Please cite references for Darwinian gradualism meaning �constant speedism�. Other than that, you are utterly wrong.

Please cite references where Darwin ever said "Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

An these pictures prove what? Were these skulls all found in the same location in sequential order of development?

Now. Get into E/C. Or else shut up about stuff of which you are ignorant. [edited by Wyz_sub10]

TTFN, DT

This line of argument developed in response to my contention that there is no such thing as "objective" evidence. If you want to strictly segregate the threads, then you'll have to chastise your atheist friends for positing science as providing "objective" evidence.

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron
God has just spoken to me and told me that you are utterly and pathetically wrong in every respect imaginable. Discuss.

Why don't you make a meaningful attempt at refuting my statement instead? Discuss.

Oxymoron · 03-13-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The God in whom I believe and whose revelation of himself in creation and scripture is the foundation of my knowledge does not lie, nor does he contradict himself. Your comments require both.

My God does not lie either. You are therefore utterly wrong. As a monotheist, my God and your God must be the same. So you are either utterly wrong or your interpretation of God's word is utterly wrong.

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Now. I have gone through Theo's posts from the last several pages, and extracted some of the most egregious errors. Some of them have been well addressed by others, but since it helps to have many different expressions of complex ideas I'll add my own few cents' worth.

If the scientific "method" is inherently flawed, i.e., based on a logical fallacy, no amount of "self-correction" changes that. Without knowing the fundamental nature of reality from the outset, science can never arrive at knowledge at all, let alone coming close to "truth."

You have not demonstrated any logical fallacy. And as has been pointed out to you in many ways, scientific knowledge makes no claims of Ultimate Truth. You can't or won't get that into your head, it seems. Your statement above shows it; "...the fundamental nature of reality... " And again-

I'm sorry, I guess you weren't paying attention. The logical fallacy is called "asserting the consequent," i.e., the inductive method. I gave two examples and even quoted Russell. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

In order to make any authoritative statement, science would have to have a comprehensive knowledge of all reality and all possiibility. I hope you will acknowledge that it doesn't.

See? "*Comprehensive* knowledge of *all* reality." "*All* possibility." "*Authoritative* {=absolute or ultimate} statement.[/b]

See what? Facts do not exist in isolation. They exist in context of other facts. Why don't you refute my argument?

I don't "suppose" anything about God. I only know what he has chosen to reveal about himself in the bible. I know he is logical because his creation, including human intellect, reflects his character.

So, a presupposition is not a supposition, eh? Theo, all you are saying is that you believe what you believe because you believe it, and no evidence will ever change your mind.[/b]

It really shouldn't be my job to have to educate people here. You claim to "know" that there is no God and yet you don't understand the nature of epistemology, at all. A presupposition is the "pre-condition" for intelligibility. It is not arrived at by direct examination or "proof." That would assume a superion "test" which would make that the presupposition. If you want to challenge me on this, why not do some homework on the nature of presuppositions.

You really can't see that you have it backwards- that God's character reflects human intellect because he is a creation of human intellect?

And you know this how?

The scientific method does not operate in a vacuum. It is based on certain assumptions, unprovable, about the nature of reality, the reliability of sense perception and intellectual processes as interpreters of data. Therefore, every scientist operates as a philosopher and every scientific statement has a philosophical aspect.

True enough. We *have* been telling you this, you know. But the only *unproveable* assumption we make is that we aren't brains in bottles. And, the more knowledge we accumulate, this possibility becomes less and less likely- because we don't see any discontinuity in sensory experience- some glitch in the information being inputted into our disembodied brains. The longer our senses stay self-consistent, the more unlikely solipsism becomes (without, note, ever becoming absolutely impossible!)

The "only" unprovable" assumption you make? Like that is a triviality. It is the most significant assumption you can make and everything that derives from it is suspect.
You have missed my point. I do not deny that atheists have knowledg: I deny that they can explain having such knowledge based on their worldview, i.e., naturalistic/materialism.
Why not do something really meaningful to the argument and show me how such knowledge is possible?

The fact that God's communication is mediated through and comprehended by my intellect does not establish the authority of that communication.

I accept its authority as the necessary pre-requisite for all knowledge, so I cannot prejudge it by some other standard.

Its authority establishes the trustworthiness of my experience, not the other way around.

The question is, how does your presuppositon, your own cognition, provide any basis for knowledge, seeing it cannot validate itself?

Gibberish. You experience God's communication (or so you claim); you don't God's communication experience! You are using precisely the same assumption we do- you are trusting your senses to tell you what that "authority" is, every time you read your scriptures.[/b]

Operationally, we all use our senses from the moment we are born without making any assumptions about their reliability. I am arguing against an epistemological "system" which claims to derive knowledge about the true nature of things through empiricisml/rationalism alone. Even dogs operate by their senses, but we would not ask a dog to explain the meaning of life.

That is simply wrong, Theo. We realize through our pursuit of philosophical concepts that all our experience of reality comes through our senses. We even have a name for the idea that there is no actual reality outside our own sensorium- solipsism. That should be sufficient proof that we do *not* simply assume, unexamined, our philosophical foundations.

I misspoke (miswrote?) there. Most people funciton without without any consciousness of having an epistemological system. If you ask them if they "know" things, they would say yes. If you ask them how, they would respond with some form of empiricism/rationalism. However, the fact that you consciously make this presuppositiondoes not change my argument. I'm glad you see that empiricism always ends in solipsism. So where does that leave you?

I think that you are the one making unexamined assumptions here. And, like many (perhaps all) believers, the thought of examining those presumptions is so frightening to you that you go to incredible, irrational lengths to avoid it.

As I explained numerous times (see recent post here), presuppositions are not examined "directly" (what would you use to examine a presupposition? Hint - another presupposition). They are examined by their ability to make sense of experience. All I've ever asked if for someone to show me how an atheistic worldview based on a naturalistic/materialistic presupposition can give such an explanation.

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oxymoron
My God does not lie either. You are therefore utterly wrong. As a monotheist, my God and your God must be the same. So you are either utterly wrong or your interpretation of God's word is utterly wrong.

Monotheism does not require belief in the same god. Christians, Jews and Moslems all believe in "one" god but, contrary to popular opinion, they do not believe in the "same" one god. Christians believe in the God who exists as an ontological trinity and who became incarnate in the man Jesus Christ and died to save sinners.

I do not deny that "your god" may have told you something, be he is not my God.

As I said, why don't you think a little before rushing to post?

Oxymoron · 03-13-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Monotheism does not require belief in the same god. Christians, Jews and Moslems all believe in "one" god but, contrary to popular opinion, they do not believe in the "same" one god. Christians believe in the God who exists as an ontological trinity and who became incarnate in the man Jesus Christ and died to save sinners.

Er, I think it's more than "popular belief". Historical fact, more like. Are you now saying that there are several Gods?

Quote:

I do not deny that "your god" may have told you something, be he is not my God.

No. He is the One True God.

Quote:

As I said, why don't you think a little before rushing to post?

Less patronisation, more logical argument would keep things civil. If I'm wrong, you'll be the first to know. If I'm right...

theophilus · 03-13-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
I just have to jump in on this one (and, as always, pardon my dyslexia, as it's late and I probably won't have time to spell check everything before the 120 minute deadline).

This demonstrates the problem with just "jumping in" without reading previous posts. If you had, you'd have seen that:
1. I don't support "Creation Science" because it grants legitimacy to unbeliving epistemology.
2. I was only offering an example of a design hypothesis for sake of discussion.
3. This whole evolution/desin argument arose (I didn't start it) as an attempt to establish Science as a rebuttal to my argument against "objective" evidence.

Now, if you'd like to go back and read my arguments from the start, maybe we can talk.

I apologize if I sound unkind, but it is difficult to be ganged up on by people who either don't understand or misrepresent my arguments.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-13-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Interesting how much this presuppositionalist stuff contradicts the standard Christian view that "we'll find God if we search hard enough" (with the corollary that those who found nothing "weren't really looking").

The presuppositionalist doesn't look. In fact, he's convinced that looking is futile. He merely assumes that God exists, then closes his mind to any possibility that he could be wrong.

Interesting how your remarks exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the presuppositional argument. I know you have been around these pages for some time, so this is unfortunate. Comments on this board often reflect a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of what they presume to criticize.

I have debated many presuppositionalists. closing the mind is the fundamental characteristic they ALL share.

Quote:

The "standard Christian view" does not say anything like your quote. In fact, it says the exact opposite.

This view is commonly stated by many Christians. If you dispute it, take it up with them.

Quote:

The scirptue is clear that man is confronted by God's power and deity through the created order, including his conscience.

We suppress this knowledge because we do not want to acknowledge God's authority over us.

Yes, that is what the SCRIPTURE says. But the Bible is baloney. You will not consider this. Your mind is closed.

Quote:

When unbelievers "look" for God, they are looking for a god who will satisfy their demands before they'll acknowledge, i.e., a god who will be under their authority.

Not quite. I will not believe that a deity exists unless I see evidence (I fail to see how this places God "under my authority").

But the Biblical God cannot exist, due to many mismatches with reality.

Quote:

But unbelievers cannot live consistently with their atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic worldview because it provides no basis for making sense of life's experiences. So, they must adopt the product of the Christian worldview which does make life understandable and makes knowledge possible.

This statement is false. It is a lie you tell yourself, a comforting lie that convinces nobody else.

Quote:

God, because he is the creator, has comprehensive knowledge of his creation and has communicated that knowledge in his word. To those who recieve this communication as absolutely authoritative, it becomes the means of a restored relationship, through Christ, to the creator from whom we were alienated because of our rebellion. To those who do not receive it it becomes a witness against them for their wilfull rebellion.

That is the fiction, yes. But you cannot simply make it true by asserting it.

Quote:

Now, if you want to criticize my arguments, you should at least know what you're arguing about.

I know EXACTLY what you are "arguing" about, Theo.

Quote:

The God in whom I believe and whose revelation of himself in creation and scripture is the foundation of my knowledge does not lie, nor does he contradict himself. Your comments require both.

Yes, he does, according to the Bible itself.

Quote:

God has just spoken to me and told me that you are utterly and pathetically wrong in every respect imaginable. Discuss.

Why don't you make a meaningful attempt at refuting my statement instead? Discuss.

Oxymoron's statement is just as valid as your own.

Quote:

As I explained numerous times (see recent post here), presuppositions are not examined "directly" (what would you use to examine a presupposition? Hint - another presupposition). They are examined by their ability to make sense of experience.

Correct. The check is the presupposition that our senses and reason are reliable. We can then use them to judge if another presupposition is correct. The Bible fails this test.

Quote:

All I've ever asked if for someone to show me how an atheistic worldview based on a naturalistic/materialistic presupposition can give such an explanation.

I have yet to experience any failure of the atheistic worldview of metaphysical naturalism to account for experience.

Why do you keep alluding to a "problem" that does not appear to exist?

Theo, I can give many examples of the failure of the Christian worldview to account for various aspects of the world we experience. Some of them are best dealt with in the E/C forum. Biblical errors and contradictions can be addressed in the BC&A forum.

My worldview has no such problems. Therefore it is superior to yours.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.