DaveJes1979

himynameisPwn
Dave: faith is not the exact opposite of knowledge. This is not at all the Christian understanding of faith.

Dave: your demand for "tangible evidence" is an arbitrary demand. God is not tangible, although His creation is. You say that "humans can only rely on what our senses and our instruments tell us." With what instrument can I test THAT very proposition???? This statement is self-refuting.

Secondly, I believe God exists because He is the necessary precondition for knowledge. Since God is omnipotent and providential over creation, this accounts for uniformity (thus logic and science) in the universe. Since God is all-good, and decrees good laws to men, this accounts for morality. I still await an atheistic alternative to account for these knowledge forms.

Dave: is this supposed to be an argument?


daemon

Dave: since you are attempting to reason without reference (starting with) God, in these very propositions, it follows that you have already estimated the competency of your own autonomous thinking which does not rely on God.

Dave: evolutionary "morality" cannot provide a framework for morality at all. It is descriptive only - it tells us how certain behaviors are/were evolved or selected. It tells us what IS or WAS - not what SHOULD be. There is no prescriptive ethical mandate.

Additionally, the evolutionary theory is based upon an oft-challenged empirical theory. Through what framework does one analyze the empirical data to arrive at "rightness", or "wrongness"?? Empiricism cannot get you to morality.

Dave: I do have induction specifically in view here. Although I would note that an ordered universe is necessary for any form of logic.

Dave: I have "proved" it by showing how the Christian worldview accounts for logic, and I have criticized the atheistic alternatives, showing that they could not.

Dave: true knowledge is unavoidable. Even if one denies that they have true knowledge - they are asserting that it is true knowledge that they have no true knowledge.


Quatermass
Dave: its not conjecture, because only through the sacrifice of Jesus, the God-man, does man have hope of satisfying God's justice in order to be forgiven.

Dave: indeed, sin does not modify the original decree. But sin does form the legal ground of judgment and damnation.

Dave: if Popper was right, then philisophical dialogue is at an unbreachable impasse. Kant thought otherwise - and posited that presuppositions can be argued for transcendentally -that is, they can be shown to be true if they (alone) account for certain knowledge forms.


Dave G.

Jack the Bodiless

Do you have this in a text file that you simply cut-and-paste from, or is it a mantra that you've learned by rote?

God is not the necessary precondition for knowledge. The Biblical God is neither "omnimax" nor uniform. God is not all-good and does not decree good laws to men. You have no non-arbitrary standard of morality. You have repeatedly been presented with atheistic alternatives to account for these knowledge forms.

And, yes, I too can play with cut-and-paste.

God is not the necessary precondition for knowledge. The Biblical God is neither "omnimax" nor uniform. God is not all-good and does not decree good laws to men. You have no non-arbitrary standard of morality. You have repeatedly been presented with atheistic alternatives to account for these knowledge forms.

God is not the necessary precondition for knowledge. The Biblical God is neither "omnimax" nor uniform. God is not all-good and does not decree good laws to men. You have no non-arbitrary standard of morality. You have repeatedly been presented with atheistic alternatives to account for these knowledge forms.

God is not the necessary precondition for knowledge. The Biblical God is neither "omnimax" nor uniform. God is not all-good and does not decree good laws to men. You have no non-arbitrary standard of morality. You have repeatedly been presented with atheistic alternatives to account for these knowledge forms.

daemon

Well, seeing as the possibility of any other form of thought other than "autonomous" hasn't even been established yet, I don't understand your complaint in the first place.

Secondly, I am at a complete loss to understand how it follows that "God" doesn't know X (for any X) if I do not assume "God" exists. You still have yet to establish any sort of logical link here, and as it stands appears to be non-sequitur.

I'd like to return to the first paragraph here, though--the idea of "autonomous" vs. "god-based" thought/reason. As far as I can tell, the presup position believes this argument is valid:

P1: If God exists, then logic/reason works.
P2: God exists.
C: Logic/reason works.

However, this argument has one major hidden assumption that must be made before it even makes sense:

P0: Logic/reason works.

As such, this argument is circular, and therefore logically invalid. It does not and cannot prove the validity of logic.

Now, being as this is the case, it appears that the premise "If God exists, logic/reason works" doesn't really mean anything--it might be true, but we have no way to determine whether this is or is not the case. Further, it is unnecessary--we already have reason working in our axiom set, regardless of whether we hold the idea of logic requiring God's existence to be true or not. As such, it does not appear that there is any difference between "autonomous" and "god-based" reason.

Dave, if you could establish one, I'd be more than interested in seeing it.

The theory of evolutionary morality is, indeed, not a framework for morality, but rather is an explanation of why morality exists. As you have asked for an accounting of moral norms--which I interpreted as being a reason why morality exists--I believe I have provided what you asked for. Apparently you believe this not to be the case; what, then, do you mean by an accounting of moral norms?
You have asserted this to be the case, but you have not proven it.

However, what do you mean by an "ordered" universe? What other form of universe is there?

You have done no such thing, nor have you shown that logic must be "accounted for" for knowledge to exist. As I hold the premises of the value of logic and reason to be axiomatic, in order to show that my (atheistic) viewpoint does not account for logic, you must show that these are not properly axiomatic.
This is not an argument, but again, an assertion. Please prove that I have true knowledge.

Quatermass

Amusing – perhaps you should end each of your replies with “thus saith the Lord” since you have such a firm grasp of the “facts”! Sorry Dave - it’s all conjecture.

Really – so tell us about infants who die. This seems to be a sticking point with Calvinists. It is so foreign to the idea of justice that an infant would be damned that some Calvinists get soft and allow for a get-out-of-hell-free card. But this seems inconsistent with the notion that God decreed who would be elect and non-elect. Whose sin forms the legal ground of judgment and damnation for a non-elect infant Dave?

Why would you assume that Popper, if right, puts philosophical dialog at an impasse? Popper says all theories are conjecture. This means you actually have to try and compare your theory with other views instead of retreating to your unassailable assumptions. Your stubborn refusal to entertain alternate explanations seems to be the real impasse here.

A theory can never be proven to be true but we can give reasons why a theory is to be preferred over another. Your CP theory seems unfalsifiable. Can you give a couple of examples of something that would show your theory to be false? I hardly see how, since by definition, there can be no contrary evidence admitted by your view.

Popper admired Kant but thought his positive use of the transcendental argument to be his gravest mistake. The only proper use of the transcendental argument, Popper stated, is the negative use because the argument always amounts to the claim that the theory in question is the only possible one.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Quatermass ]</p>

hinduwoman

Well now, why would a perfect Being like God need to demonstrate his perfectness?
Can it be He was bored to death without an audience to appreciate his sterling qualities? Perhaps that is why He goes round insisting that man can be saved from hell only by believing in Him.

jenn

Dave,
People like you are the reason why I stopped going to church. After my son died from Leukemia I had a couple of "Baptist" ministers come by the house and say the same thing you did.
IF there is a GOD....the only way he would have let that poor boy suffer (for 4 years)is this.
We come here to experience negativity and suffering for a "REASON".What is the reason? There could be a number of them, and I have no idea and neither do you. ALl you know is you are SCARED and have to believe in something to keep you going.I try not to hate people like you because when I die, I would like to be at peace. People like you think you have all the answers, but quite frankly, are shaking in your boots!!

jdawg2

just a quick thought...

But um...it seems kind of odd to me that to become a "Christian Presuppositionalist" or whatever, you have to first read the bible (a natural process), assume that the words on the page are not twisted around (either by humans editing it, or maybe a demon or something twisting around the photons emitted), and that the words on the page correspond with words that you have been taught while growing up (once again, a natural process), and you also have to assume that the words are actually true.

So if one has to assume other things before even becoming a "presuppositionalist", well...it's not really a presupposition anymore, is it?

daemon

According to previous presuppositionalists, and Mr. Gadbois has confirmed my understanding of it, Presuppositionalists do not begin by reading the Bible, but rather by the magic influence of the Holy Spirit. This causes the initial presuppositions. Thus, the Bible is not true because it says it is true, but rather because it has been revealed to them to be so.

Presuppositionalism pretty much boils down to madness as worldview; the voices in your head are heralds of truth, to be believed over your own reason.

Mr. Sammi

Well not the best of my topics...

I have always seen the argument cropping up concering pain and suffering. Here is a final curve for all you who wish happiness.

GOD I am so happy it hurts, it stings, I cringe. IS this love pain?

I am so much in love, so much in love, MY girl is at my side all the time, everytime she goes to pee, I miss her, I miss her so much, it hurts, it hurts.

All you dis-satisfied people out there, one micron of rejection can bring a rush of paim. The way you turn your lips when we kiss, you are not looking into my eyes, your eyes are closed...

One thing George Bush Sr. had right - pleasure and pain, ah so did Gibran.

SO the plan is to enjoy while you can. Do unto others what you would like for yourself...

Sammi Na boodie ()