Mageth

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).

Where, pray tell, is the "nobility" in allowing a father to abuse his children?

DaveJes1979

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.

Dave: without pretense, I sincerely applaud this insight. Indeed, there is no such thing as epistemic neutrality. If one sets out to "examine evidence" to prove God's existence - where exactly is the criteria? What is the methodology? Those things are utterly presupposition-laden. Already, you have assumed that you can come to true, reliable knowledge independently from God - precisely what God's existence entails is IMPOSSIBLE.


Mageth: Where, pray tell, is the "nobility" in allowing a father to abuse his children?

Dave: I sincerely understand your concern for the weightiness of child abuse. Such a reality is more than a philisophical plaything. But let me try to explain it again.

We have the same action/event (a child suffering)

But two different motivations behind the same event:

1. God's motive: to manifest his curse as a result of mankind's corporate apostacy.

2. father's motive: malicious, to inflict pain for its own sake, not stemming from any penal considerations.

Of course, the fact that the father's motives are evil will indeed condemn the father in God's eyes, and will lead to God pouring out wrath on the Father (barring redemption).

The profundity of the Christian position, however, lies in the fact that there is both meaning and hope behind the suffering we see in this world. There is meaning because of God's ultimate design - and hope because God's grace lays a foundation for suffering to one day end, evil be destroyed, and wholeness to humanity and the universe to be restored.

Dave Gadbois

Pomp

Jim Mitchell remains my favorite presup from these boards. I wish we had the <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> greamlin when he was around.

Mageth

Dave:

If god's design includes allowing child abuse, if the christian position finds meaning and hope in the suffering of a child, then the "profundity" of the christian position lies in its moral bankruptcy, inherent injustice and cruelty.

Already, you have assumed that you can come to true, reliable knowledge independently from God - precisely what God's existence entails is IMPOSSIBLE.

And god's non-existence entails is necessary.

Do you believe that one can't come to any "true, reliable knowledge" independently of god, or does this just apply to god-knowledge?

Do you believe in god just because or are there reasons why you believe in god? Have you always believed in god or did there come a day in your life when you, in your mind, decided that god exists?

daemon

Incorrect. I asserted that the behavior that you have attributed to God is one I usually associate with idiots. You incorrectly attributed my reason for disliking self-aggrandizement, I corrected you. It was not an argument.
You are incorrect in stating that "we realize" such nonsense in the first place. I thought my reasons were obvious from the above: I have a distaste for the behavior because it is indicative of personality traits I find unappealing at best.
Actually, it's possible to question the objectivity of God's "truth" even if one is not an atheist, so this seems to be a peculiar observation. No matter.
Again, you have an incredible leap of logic there. How does skepticism equivalate to epistemological suicide?
So why is it required that those standards be anything less than subjective, or rather intersubjective?
Are you claiming this as an axiom, or do you have some reasoning behing this definition?
You still haven't bothered to actually prove this. Please do so.
No, I said no atheistic presuppositions.
Nice assertions. Care to back them up?
How am I supposed to know this? Frankly, I think you're full of hogwash, and no entity calling itself God has bothered to inform me of such.
Okay, perhaps you didn't realize it, but you're saying here that you need to assume God exists in order to know of God's existence. This is known as a circular argument, and as such is fallacious.
So, when someone is raped, they deserved to be raped, right? And when someone is tortured, they deserved to be tortured, right?
If you mean that my reason does not derive the existence of a God, then I suppose you could be correct. However, none of my assumptions/presuppositions deny the possibility of it, so I wouldn't say that my presuppositions are inherently atheistic.
Oddly, most Christians disagree with you. Why is that?
See, Mageth? I told you he was a moral nihilist.
Perhaps if you had some proof of this, I might be willing to believe it. As is, I don't.
However, not one has yet succeeded in proving such, though I assure you, Jim tried very hard.

daemon

That's who I was thinking of! Thanks, Bastard.

sidewinder

All these Christian arguments about God are futile as Christianity is a false religion. Jesus was mistaken about his identity and his mission, and this is plainly evident from an objective reading of the Synoptic Gospels. Christians have no basis for their worldview.

Marduk

Deamon said:
"he 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."

Didn't Gauss or Goedel prove this ages ago?

J said:
"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 alternative explanation or justification for your distaste of "self-aggrandizement"??


Why does God deserve praise at all? Did he work or study hard for billions of years to achieve his abilities, overcome great obstacles, fears or stumbling blocks? It doesn't seem that way, sounds like he came with all the magic powers by fiat, like a rich child who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, big deal that's how he was made or is or whatever. Why praise such a being at all?
Amazing how much mileage Christians get out of a book of Jewish folklore.

daemon

Could be... I'm not that well read in philosophy. Nonetheless, this was a claim made by Jim Mitchell.

DaveJes1979

Megath: Dave:
If god's design includes allowing child abuse, if the christian position finds meaning and hope in the suffering of a child, then the "profundity" of the christian position lies in its moral bankruptcy, inherent injustice and cruelty.

Dave: I did not claim that there is meaning and hope in child abuse itself. God takes the evils that men do and uses them for His own righteous ends. If this is not the case, then suffering such as that literally has no meaning, and there is no foundation for hope.

Megath: And god's non-existence entails is necessary.

Dave: indeed. So you have reasoned in a circle, by using such an atheistic presupposition in the structure of your own argument.

Megath: Do you believe that one can't come to any "true, reliable knowledge" independently of god, or does this just apply to god-knowledge?

Dave: all knowledge, not just knowledge about God. Of course, non-Christians do have true knowledge. But our claim is that the non-Christian worldview cannot ACCOUNT for this knowledge. Thus, the non-christian must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to justify things such as logic, science, morality, etc. The non-Christian "borrows" because, no matter how much he tries to suppress it, he is a creature made in God's image.

Megath: Do you believe in god just because or are there reasons why you believe in god? Have you always believed in god or did there come a day in your life when you, in your mind, decided that god exists?

Dave: I do not remember a time when I did not believe that God exists. I have not always had an explicit reason or a formulated argument, although my theological training has prepared me to do so now.

daemon: You are incorrect in stating that "we realize" such nonsense in the first place. I thought my reasons were obvious from the above: I have a distaste for the behavior because it is indicative of personality traits I find unappealing at best.

Dave: and you find it unappealing because....??? I find vanilla ice cream unappealing. So what?

daemon: Actually, it's possible to question the objectivity of God's "truth" even if one is not an atheist, so this seems to be a peculiar observation. No matter.

Dave: of course one can "question" it. But I don't think such questioning can be sustained, as God is the only possible ground of objectivity.

daemon: Again, you have an incredible leap of logic there. How does skepticism equivalate to epistemological suicide?

Dave: I am not sure you understand my meaning of skepticism. It involves a rationalistic assertion - namely that certain knowledge is not possible (irrationalism). It is epistemological schitzophrenia of sorts. I find these types making statements that (explicit or not) boil down to such self-refuting statements as "there is no truth".

Daemon: o why is it required that those standards be anything less than subjective, or rather intersubjective?

Dave: if they are subjective only - what makes you think that they bear any correspondence or meaning to reality outside of the person (subject)? That is the downfall of subjectivsm. It does not bridge the "I believe" with the reality outside of the thinker.

daemon: Are you claiming this as an axiom, or do you have some reasoning behing this definition?

Dave: it is axiomatic to the Christian conception of God, yes. "God" carries no meaning apart from his nature or attributes.

daemon: You still haven't bothered to actually prove this. Please do so.

Dave: well, what else does the atheist ground their conception of meaning in that is not arbitrary? That is the challenge I have been sustaining all along. Atheists, since they have no God, have no universal to ground their knowledge in.

daemon: No, I said no atheistic presuppositions.

Dave: included in anyone's set of presuppositions, however, is either the denial or acceptance of the Creator.

daemon: Nice assertions. Care to back them up?

Dave: it follows from the way I framed my sentence, that there is no "third route". It is a binary choice - reasoning from God, or reasoning from something else.

daemon: How am I supposed to know this? Frankly, I think you're full of hogwash, and no entity calling itself God has bothered to inform me of such.

Dave: how are you supposed to know that God is worthy? Simply because, intrinsic to God's nature (and any meaningful defenition), God is the source of all WORTH. God has indeed informed you - in every fact in the universe. YOur atheistic presuppositions, however, will not admit of a theistic interpretation of any fact whatsoever.

daemon: Okay, perhaps you didn't realize it, but you're saying here that you need to assume God exists in order to know of God's existence. This is known as a circular argument, and as such is fallacious.

Dave: circular argumentation is not fallacious when dealing with ultimate epistemological issues. Circularity here, is unavoidable. So my ARGUMENT, then, is that to know ANYTHING - that God exists, or any other fact - one must presuppost God's existence. This is a transcendental argument (following I. Kant). It asks "what are the preconditions of knowledge". I have shown you how the theistic worldview accounts for knowledge - yet I have yet to hear how atheists can.

daemon: So, when someone is raped, they deserved to be raped, right? And when someone is tortured, they deserved to be tortured, right?

Dave: but an abusive father has no right to "dole out" justice in God's name, although God does often use the evils of men as an instrument of His justice (although sometimes God's justice is unmediated).

daemon: If you mean that my reason does not derive the existence of a God, then I suppose you could be correct. However, none of my assumptions/presuppositions deny the possibility of it, so I wouldn't say that my presuppositions are inherently atheistic.

Dave: they certainly do deny the possibility of it. You have already denied the possibility of it when you claim you can reason autonomously from God. Again, this very thing is impossible if indeed God exists. There is no breaking out of that viscious circle.

daemon: Oddly, most Christians disagree with you. Why is that?

Dave: ask them.

daemon: See, Mageth? I told you he was a moral nihilist.

Dave: how does that follow from what was said?

daemon: Perhaps if you had some proof of this, I might be willing to believe it. As is, I don't.

Dave: ahhh, you continue to ignore my statements - not even meaningfully interacting with them, and saying "where's your proof"? If you want to challenge one of the premises in my statements - go right ahead. But these sort of blanket, cop-outs do neither of us any good.

daemon: However, not one has yet succeeded in proving such, though I assure you, Jim tried very hard.

Dave: well, I am still waiting to hear how an atheist can account for induction or morality. What does the atheist assume such exists? I have shown you the theistic reasons.


sidewinder: All these Christian arguments about God are futile as Christianity is a false religion. Jesus was mistaken about his identity and his mission, and this is plainly evident from an objective reading of the Synoptic Gospels. Christians have no basis for their worldview.

Dave: plain evident,huh? We await even ONE evidence.

marduck:
Why does God deserve praise at all? Did he work or study hard for billions of years to achieve his abilities, overcome great obstacles, fears or stumbling blocks? It doesn't seem that way, sounds like he came with all the magic powers by fiat, like a rich child who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, big deal that's how he was made or is or whatever. Why praise such a being at all?
Amazing how much mileage Christians get out of a book of Jewish folklore.

Dave: the great thing about God is that he made the universe EFFORTLESSLY. I am far more impressed by someone who can pick up a stack of bricks without thinking about it - then a man of lesser stature who struggles and breaks his back in the process.


Dave Gadbois