theophilus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon23:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theophilus:
Gee, wouldn't life be a lot easier if we could just declare something and make it so?
Unfortunately, arguments take evidence not just declarations of victory.
In the first place, naturalism, of any stripe, has to presuppose itself to prove itself. So, no cigar there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<strong>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.</strong>

What do rocks say to each other?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<strong>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.</strong>

The statement is self-evidently true. If it is not, you should be able to disprove it. There is no such thing as "approximate" knowledge in an epistemological system. You either have knowledge or you don't.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<strong>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.</strong>

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.
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?

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

theophilus

Curious; very curious.
"knowing this is all there is," means knowing nothing.

Talk about pretense.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

theophilus

I have no need to slander anyone. I contend for the truth, not against people. As far as I've observed, it is the atheists who feel the need to make personal attacks.

I will ask you to explain how your statements here have any meaning since, from an atheist position, you cannot justy expecting me to subscribe to your personal standard of behaviour or arguing that your standard is any more correct than mine (or none at all).

You suggest that RW's deconversion is a "good" thing, but such a concept is only meaningful in a world where things can be known go be good or bad. I've yet to see an atheistic explanation for such a knowledge that rises about preference.

theophilus

Right! He's steped out of the "theistic illusion" into the absolute incomprehensibility of atheism. He's "still the same person;" actually, he's no person at all now. Hasn't lost anything; no indeed, he's gained absolute despair and skepticism.

GunnerJ

There is no "atheist postition" on right/wrong, good/bad, etc. just as there is no "aSantaist postition" on these matters. Atheism is the lack of a position. Get off it, you putz.

Gurdur

theophilus, just how do you mean this?

I've just contributed myself to a thread on the evolution of consciousness, and one on the evolution of morality, and I'm an atheist. Missed those? Such topics are common in any case.

Tercel

I'm sorry Theophilus, I did not mean any offence to you. But as you are no doubt well aware, the skeptics seem to have some major complaints about presuppositionalism. Thus they would no doubt be offended upon being compared to you.

True. But is there any reason one has to presuppose God, rather than using what rational faculties one has, and by using them carefully and cautiously recognising their limits, discovering God exists and then accepting the truth of him and his word and that he is the ultimate source of reason and final arbitrater of all?
It seems to me that if one is to presuppose things, one has little guidence about what to presuppose. That is to say, is there any reason the skeptic can not simply respond to you that they presuppose evolutionary naturalistic materialism to be true?

Thus to me, the most sensible course of action would appear to be to try to presuppose as little as possible (say that our reasoning abilities and senses are valid) and let any further propositions suggest themselves. In my case this had led to me accepting the Christian God, which in turn neatly gives a reason why my presuppositions were valid and so gives me a coherent world-view.

Tercel

HelenM

He's no person at all because he's become an atheist?

Atheists aren't people? Is that what you are saying?

love
Helen

Bill

AMEN!!!!!

== Bill

Bill

As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I will stack up my patriotism against anybody and expect to not look too shabby. I say that only because, while I've grown more liberal in my old age, I don't want anybody here accusing me of being a "bleeding heart."

But I too was once 19, and I at least understand what it is to get carried away with youth and idealism. The fact that Walker found himself among those who would willingly take advantage of him is perhaps not an excuse, but certainly a mitigating factor.

I suppose that other facts could emerge from this whole mess that would convince me that Walker has really earned a life sentence. But as things sit, I think that even putting this kid through the circus he is about to endure for the next year or so is a travesty of injustice. He joined the Taliban when the United States was not at war with the Taliban, and even Bush is distancing himself from the idea that all Taliban soldiers are automatically al Queda terrorists. Walker's main error seems to be that he bragged that he met bin Ladin, much as one of us might brag that we met a President of the United States. The way that the Taliban and bin Ladin were working together at the time, it would not surprise me to discover that most Taliban fighters eventually graduated from some bin Ladin terrorist school.

The real problem for the United States is that Bush has been totally two-faced through this entire mess. On the one hand, he wants to treat bin Ladin as a commander of a contingent of the Taliban who committed an act of war against the United States. Under this scenario, Bush justified invading a foreign nation which we were not otherwise at war with. On the other hand, Bush wants to treat everybody captured in Afghanistan as a criminal. Some probably are criminals, but my guess is that the vast majority are just fighters for the Islamic ideal.

The real problem for Walker is that he committed himself to a religious viewpoint which considers the United States to be the "great Satan," and yet he did not renounce his US citizenship. But we have opted not to try him for treason in any case. Instead, we are going to try this young kid on the idea that he was somehow part of a vast conspiracy to commit terrorist acts against the United States and to kill United States citizens here and in Afghanistan. In fact, it now appears that Walker never once committed any act against any interest of the United States, and surrendered with the rest of his unit into the hands of the Northern Alliance. If anybody is to blame for the violence in the prison that killed the CIA agent, it is the Northern Alliance people who failed to take adequate measures to disarm and subjugate the soldiers who surrendered to them.

Anyway, I would be willing to let Walker off with a sentence of "time served" after this circus plays itself out (so that we do get to hear if there is any evidence of any more serious misconduct). However, in return for forgiveness, I think that the usual conditions ought to apply:

• The person seeking forgiveness must make a statement admitting any and all wrongdoing for which forgiveness is sought;
• An adequate apology must be tendered, along with "making amends" as might be required; and
• A promise must be made to avoid further offenses to the common morality of mankind.

I don't think that simply forgiving somebody automatically is a good idea. I've seen far too many "Christians" who were effective crooks because the operated on the principle that, so long as they made it to church and asked forgiveness for their sins, they didn't have anything at all to worry about with respect to the life of crime which they chose to live. (I can provide gory details if needed.) An effective form of forgiveness needs to include all of the steps I've outlined above, including the promise to "go straight" and to "make amends" for past "errors." Otherwise, all you are doing is giving a crook an easy way out.

== Bill