Presuppositional Apologetics: More Q & A With Someone Who Has Lots Of Q, But Lost All His A….

Posted on May 28, 2011. Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Religion, TAG-Pressupposational Theology |

He Keeps Losing His A’s….Maybe He’s an “A-Hole”

I have been having a presuppositional debate discussion talking to  with Dan for the past two weeks or so, where he has continued to take the only tack that a presuppositionalist can take.  He has lots of questions, he has no answers.  TAG (Transcendental Argument for God) theology continues to be a combination of really good and really irrelevant questions  designed to question the basis of the atheist worldview.  It doesn’t positively argue anything, it just assumes that if a Christian can confuse someone with a competing worldview, that this makes Christianity true by default.  Those who play the presuppositional game will rarely answer your questions.  That is not part of the trick.  Answering questions would reveal how bereft their own worldview is, so the focus must always be on the competing worldview.

Dan’s last comment, where he dutifully dodged answering any questions about his worldview, proves this point:

I have too many questions that you NEED to answer to move on. Your refusal to answer such questions places the discussion in a stale moment and stalls the entire point I wish to direct the conversation to.

Truer words have rarely been spoken by Dan.  He does NEED me to continue to feed his script.  He DOES want to direct this conversation somewhere my questions would complicate.  If I refuse, I rob him of the fodder he needs to continue the semantic game that is TAG apologetics, but afford him the opportunity to imply that I lack the ability to answer.  The problem is that all these questions are new.  He never asked them before.  So my “refusal” is based on not answering questions never asked.  This post is designed to answer these new questions, and hopefully impel Dan to defend his own statements and beliefs.  That will never happen (see above), but one can hope….

Dan:

To say that source of all logic is the brain, begs the question of who’s brain? You see, in a sense-data environment, like you’re worldview claim of the brain, things are merely subjective. If we saw a table we would be both arguing the color size and shape of it because of our perspective. You would be screaming that its oval from your angle and I would be saying that its a circle since I am above it. We would exhaust our words discussing the color because of the way the light is shining on it (subjective). You would call it dark brown and I would be calling it light brown, etc. Same with time you could say the day is very very long and I would say, since I took a nap, it flew by very fast. Its all perspectives and subjectiveness. To say that logic originates only in the brain is nonsense! Sure, you could assume that since I had my eyes closed and was sleeping that time did not exist at all, or sped up to accommodate, or direct, the feeling of shortness. You could assume that cat that you were looking at suddenly leaped to another point of the room instantly since you looked away for a moment. But is that itself reasonable? You are claiming a sense-data ONLY world. But that alone is unscientific and illogical. There are things OUTSIDE of the senses (sense-data) that helps us understand our environment. Intuition and instincts to just name a few, as well as other things.

Dan continues the argument that logic exists independent of a logical being.  This continues to blur the lines between reality, facts, laws, and convention.  I have never said that logic is a convention, so his first question seems nonsensical.  Logic is a concept, a concept ultimately based on the reality it describes, only valid with valid facts, independent of their elevation to laws, and not at all concerned with whether men agree with them.  Like all concepts, they are abstract and live in the brain of beings capable of abstract thought.  Logic is inexorably tied to the material world.  If the reality that governed our universe were different, logic itself would be different or completely useless.  To use Dan’s analogy, there would be no use to even discuss logic in a world without material things, if there is no tables and no people to observe them, logic does not still float around in the æther.   Dan happily agrees that there is a well formed line between “sense-data” and logic, and this is good, because it really undermines his argument that reality and logic are easily conflated. If he accepts this well formed line, then it is possible to account for logic in a non-circular way in any worldview that can accept inductive reasoning.  Since TAG considers presuppositions to be necessary in any worldview,  I’m sure he wouldn’t object that the tentative acceptance of inductive reasoning is a valid presupposition.

To the red herring of subjectivity, Dan seems to disagree or be ignorant of the fact that logic depends on facts, and if a logical chain has subjective propositions, the conclusion will be subjectively true and logically contingent, given that logic was properly applied.  Just as you could have a logically sound argument with a false conclusion if a proposition were false.

Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past ‘success’ of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.

Well, Dan, if you accept that every worldview is contingent upon presuppositions, then obviously I don’t, or do so in a way that is no different then you do.  Are you denying now that worldviews are contingent on presuppositions?  So if your presuppositions are “virtuously circular” then you need to get very specific about how mine are less valid than yours.  If you disallow this, and call it argumentum ad ignorantiam, then you are the one who disavows inductive reasoning.  Unless you can show me how your presupposition guarantees universal, unchanging, immutable conformity in nature, which I’m really looking forward to.  Can a Christian take conformity in nature to the bank?

Did you use logic to have the brain come up with logic?

Again, logic is contingent on reality, not my brain.  As an abstract description of the properties of a material universe, the ability to reason is in my brain, but doesn’t pop up out of nowhere.  I didn’t “come up” with logic, so this question is nonsensical.

Does everyone, individually, manufacture logic to use it?

Wow, Dan.  Are you sure you’re not a materialist?  Manufacture? I suppose though, every person could individually test logic for consistency with observation, if that is what you mean.

Is logic universal to you?

As in true under any conceivable circumstance, or true under any circumstance I think I’m likely to observe?  I’m thinking you are conflating terms again…..

If so, how do you account for universal things?

I don’t strictly believe logic is universal in the sense that you think it is.  I also don’t think things can be called universal outside of abstract reasoning.  I also don’t consider this question well phrased,next…..

What observations of reality points to logic?

What observations of reality don’t point to logic Dan?  Come on.

Your position (the source of logic is the brain) opens up too many questions that need to be fleshed out before we can move on. This forum is too cumbersome, and time consuming, to do such a thing.

My position has never been that the brain is the sole source of logic.  You know that.  You just pull-quoted my answer that logic is a set of rules that exist in the mind as a bridge between reality and abstract thought, and took out the part about reality and abstract thought.  I’m glad you have trouble defending your position in a forum like this, at least that gives you a built in excuse to run away.

Are you going to answer any questions Dan? I doubt it.  There are plenty you have ignored thus far, I expect that to remain an indication of the Uniformity of Nature.  Your only remaining course of action is to either claim victory by just waving aside my answers as insufficient (without defending that assertion, of course), or resorting to the old presuppositional stand-by of “Are You Certain?….If so, why?”

That one is a real argument winner.

UPDATE: Jason has an excellent post on presuppositionalism up at his site, addressing it from a different, more scientific, angle.  Check it out….

About these ads

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

15 Responses to “Presuppositional Apologetics: More Q & A With Someone Who Has Lots Of Q, But Lost All His A….”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

Before I address anything here, you LEFT OUT the last and thrust of my POINT I made. Here it is:

“Saying the law of contradiction (LOC) is a law of thought is erroneous.

“This belief is a subsequent result of psychological reflection, which presupposes the belief in the law of contradiction (LOC). ~Bertrand Russel, The problem of Philosophy, Pg.65

As Russel pointed out. Its a belief of things, its about things, not merely about thoughts.

Where you all are confusing things is although belief in the LOC is a thought, the LOC itself is not a thought, but a fact concerning the things in the world. George might have admitted this much, but that would be a huge step forward…so I doubt it. :7)

How can you test this?

If the LOC were not true but we were compelled to think it true, that would not save the LOC from being false. It stands OUTSIDE of thoughts. It shows that the law is not a law of thought.

We MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE.

Hope that helps.”

*I will address the rest later…its too nice of a day out not to enjoy it with the family.

First off Dan, the “thrust” of your argument appears nowhere in your 500+ word comment that I promised to address. Show me where you asked that question in the comment I promised to address. Are you conceding that the whole comment you sent me was insubstantial to your argument? The question you are now asking was asked days after I told you I would address your questions, in an entirely different comment. Get over yourself. I didn’t leave it out (in all caps no less), I didn’t respond to it because the comment you stuck it in wasn’t addressed to me. “In response to sinned34″ and your words “sinned34 et al” seem to imply that it was directed elsewhere.

I’m not going to have to answer this question, since it is still not directed to me. It can’t be. Because if it were, it would be coming out of nowhere.

Would you like to show me where I ever stated that any logic comes solely from the brain?
Where did I specifically disavow the connection between logic and “things”?

You are shadowboxing again. You are not reading anything I am writing, you are saying “Atheists think X, so George thinks X” when nothing in my words makes any statement of the sort. In fact, my statements in the last thread as well as this post consistently contradict the opinion you insist that I hold.
I am convinced that you skim comments and posts for keywords and phrases that you jump on without bothering to comprehend what is actually being said.

The answer to your “thrust” is in my comments on the last thread and my post here. Read it. Understand it. I won’t repeat it for clarity.
Enjoy your long weekend Dan. I hope the kids are well.

Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past ‘success’ of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.

>>Well, Dan, if you accept that every worldview is contingent upon presuppositions, then obviously I don’t, or do so in a way that is no different then you do.

The difference is what you’re appealing to, as the source for justifying your ability to reason. You’re not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

You use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one’s reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same things as you: “I know that my reasoning is valid because it is tested every day.” But since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong. Please try again.

>>So if your presuppositions are “virtuously circular” then you need to get very specific about how mine are less valid than yours.

My appeal is not virtuously circular, as yours, is because of my source of knowledge. God. My appeal is OUTSIDE of the same plane, or realm, we’re in. I appeal to the infinite eternal realm as the source of knowledge instead of your temporal realm of never knowing anything entirely. New knowledge may be in the future, but you will never KNOW that. You’re not omniscient, so knowledge can never be fully known. Huge difference.

Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.

Also, the Bible is not circular logic either, as I said in the past.

* (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)
* (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout.
* (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God.
* (4, from 2 and 3) Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so God must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)
* (5) If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)
* (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.
* (7, from 2 and 5) Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.
* (8, from 7) This someone is God.

What we see here is not an instance of circular reasoning, but two different arguments, only partly deductive, for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings in question.

So it (begging the question) is formally logical in this case, and in fact logically valid – that is, the conclusion does follow from the premise – they are tautological.

Logic says the Bible is Supernatural, after all.

>>My position has never been that the brain is the sole source of logic… You just pull-quoted my answer that logic is a set of rules that exist in the mind as a bridge between reality and abstract thought, and took out the part about reality and abstract thought.

You claimed: (these are <a href="http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/presuppositionalism-solving-a-headache-with-a-lobotomy/"<YOUR words)

>>3. the source of reason and logic, then, is in our brain, but dependent on the input of reality

>>4. If I wish to prove reason and logic, I must appeal to the source of reason and logic. [the brain]

You INDEED said the brain the SOURCE of logic. You believe you must appeal to your brain (logic) to account for logic,… viciously. Care to NOW, in light that you admit that your brain is NOT the source of the laws of logic, account for logic? We agree that there are laws of logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws, how you know they are valid, and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now? In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason, or laws, because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

>>Your only remaining course of action is to either claim victory by just waving aside my answers as insufficient (without defending that assertion, of course), or resorting to the old presuppositional stand-by of “Are You Certain?….If so, why?”

Well that was shown to be wrong. NOW, care to account for logic WITHOUT being viciously circular? Let me guess, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning, which is viciously circular. That one is a real argument winner. Wheeeee.

Oh there is more,

>>I’m not going to have to answer this question, since it is still not directed to me. It can’t be. Because if it were, it would be coming out of nowhere.

Do you agree that point I made? We MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE.

If the law of contradiction (LOC) were not true but we were compelled to think it true, that would not save the LOC from being false. It stands OUTSIDE of thoughts. It shows that the law is not a law of thought. The brain is not the source of logic. So again I ask, what is the source of logic? Reality? If so, how?

It was also quite telling that you did not include THIS argument into this post here. Its where we showed you the point that, “just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T). I don’t have to go any further than that as it exposes the nonsense of saying that the law of non-contradiction is based on observation.”

To which you said that LAWS of logic was merely subjective.[?] You said,

>>”My logic has absolutely no effect on reality, so whether or not I observe non-contradiction has no bearing on whether or not something can exist as both A and “not-A”, and the fabric of the universe and my worldview need not change if I had information that something exists that is self-contradictory. ”

I guess this is where you threw out your entire point of “dependent on the input of reality” part of,

>>3. the source of reason and logic, then, is in our brain, but dependent on the input of reality

So yea, you are in quite a mess here. Need a broom? :7)

Dan,
First, I deleted your double comment. I suppose that you accidentally posted it twice. I didn’t notice anything different in the two, if there was something changed from one to the other, let me know.

The difference is what you’re appealing to, as the source for justifying your ability to reason. You’re not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

No Dan. You still don’t get it. You continue to play the conflation game. Now you want to conflate “what created reason” with “what makes it valid”. I presuppose very few things in my worldview. Yet every single thing that I presuppose is falsifiable. It could turn out that I could be wrong about EVERYTHING I know. At least my worldview allows that. You seem convinced that if you create an unfalsifiable worldview base on assumptions that have no testable quality, that the certainty that results is somehow proof that it is correct. You are using sloppy logic if you think that making me admit that I might be wrong is proof that I am wrong, or that your certainty is proof that you are right. I might be wrong, yes, but I am logically more right than you, so if I am wrong, you are beyond wrong. And yes, I can prove that.

You use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one’s reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same things as you: “I know that my reasoning is valid because it is tested every day.” But since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong. Please try again.

Again, I don’t need to try again. You need to start proving your assertions. My reasoning is not “viciously circular” because it doesn’t depend only on my thoughts. As I have asserted, logic is contingent on constant verification in reality. If reality ruins my presuppositions, then I need to change them. A person with invalid reasoning doesn’t test his reasoning against only his reasoning, but against a reality that doesn’t care about his ability to reason it. You still are not addressing anything I am actually saying. You are applying things to my worldview that don’t apply to my worldview. You are shadowboxing.
If I reason that “a split second before I am hit by an oncoming car, time will stop and I can move out of the way”, that is certainly invalid. Would I be able to go through my whole life with that assumption? If I never test it, yes.
So you need to show how our presuppositions and logic are never tested in reality, where they exist independent of evidence to the contrary.

My appeal is not virtuously circular, as yours, is because of my source of knowledge. God. My appeal is OUTSIDE of the same plane, or realm, we’re in. I appeal to the infinite eternal realm as the source of knowledge instead of your temporal realm of never knowing anything entirely. New knowledge may be in the future, but you will never KNOW that. You’re not omniscient, so knowledge can never be fully known. Huge difference.

Do you have reasons for believing God exists? Yes?—> So you reason about the source of reason. No?—->So you admit that God can never be reasoned.
Unfair question?—>So you appeal to reality to ground your presuppositions. As do I.
Again, you need to explain to everyone here how certainty in an unprovable proposition is better than confidence in a falsifiable proposition. How does this make your point? “I am certain and you are not” is not evidence of truth. It is evidence of certainty. Prove to me that certainty is equal to truth.
Oh, and Bahnsen is wrong. He can’t account for inductive reasoning in a Christian worldview. If so, how?

Your 8 point proof for trusting the bible is not even worth considering:
1. Many things in the bible have been proven false, and require exegetical apologetics to square with reality. The firmament, the moon as a source of light, creation, the flood myth, the story of babel, each has very specific issues with reality unless you discount science. Where the bible agrees with history and science, it does so because it documents events contemporary to its authorship or describes things that are obvious.
2.What? Seriously? Argumentum ad ignorantum much? You argue against this exact assumption in my worldview. In yours, it is peachy?
3. I’ll grant you that some things in the bible would demonstrate a God, if they were true. Of course, so does every religious foundational text…
4. Since (2) rests on a fallacy you yourself discount, 4 does not follow from (2) & (3)
5. I have granted that where the bible is true, it is true on contemporary historical documentation and self evident details, neither discounts human authorship
6. Since (1), (2), (4) and (5) are false, this is a false conclusion from false premises
7. Hence there is no need to assume God exists at all
8. Maybe, but I doubt it. The facts back me up.

You INDEED said the brain the SOURCE of logic. You believe you must appeal to your brain (logic) to account for logic,… viciously. Care to NOW, in light that you admit that your brain is NOT the source of the laws of logic, account for logic? We agree that there are laws of logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws, how you know they are valid, and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now? In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason, or laws, because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

Your Attention Deficit Disorder is clouding your ability to comprehend. Let’s try another analogy, since this has helped in the past:
Dan: You can’t account for peas with the existence of peas, that is viciously circular! God made peas.
George: Peas come from pea plants, with the help of sunshine, soil, and water.
Dan: Come on! I have pea plants right here in this box. None of them have grown peas! Not one!! God made peas.
George: I said they required sunshine, soil, and water.
Dan: No you didn’t!!!! You said they come from pea plants. If they can’t come directly and independently from a pea plant, you are WRONG!!!! Boo ya!!
George: Seriously? I never said peas come from pea plants without anything aiding the process.
Dan: But you said they come from pea plants, so you lose! LOOOSSSEEERRRR!!!!
This is the conversation we have had thus far Dan. This is it. I say that logic requires an observable reality and a brain capable of reason. You think God makes thoughts and lets them float around in the aether, until He decides to direct a thought to your brain. And once again, since you are certain, it must be so.
Logic has laws. I never said it didn’t. Those laws hold in our observable reality. We both agree. The formal way we express them through language and the transfer of ideas is an abstract expression of the reality that they describe. They are abstractions. They are abstractions that express things that always hold true in observation, that we might apply them to things we do not observe. The ability to process, apply, and speculate with logic rests in the brain. The abstract concept that is logic comes from the brain as a set of rules that hold in reality.
I presuppose the continued consistency of reality. This is an entirely falsifiable presupposition. Reality can prove me wrong, yet it never does. So I continue to suppose it in light of the available evidence. You are right that I have presuppositions, you like presuppositions, so this ought not to be a problem. I’m glad I can suppose that reality will remain consistent, that laws of nature, science, and logic will not bend at a whim. In other words, I’m glad I’m not a Christian. If I were, I would have to expect that at any time, reality might change in ways that make reason and logic moot, or that defy natural law. I would have to constantly question the validity of inductive reasoning. Since I have a worldview that makes very simple and falsifiable presuppositions, I can both feel quite comfortable in knowing that the future will play out in pretty consistent ways, and that if this ever isn’t the case, I won’t have to make up excuses. I don’t only think that my worldview is the best one to account for our observable reality, I think yours is forced to come up with an entire field of theology to square the circle, namely apologetics. That you think that randomness, matter, and motion is all there is to my worldview just shows the breadth and depth of your ignorance of science, history, logic, and reality in general.

NOW, care to account for logic WITHOUT being viciously circular? Let me guess, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning, which is viciously circular. That one is a real argument winner. Wheeeee.

Back to the old “I told you how you think, now defend the worldview I projected on you” tack. Again, I don’t need to appeal to my reason to test my reason, I can appeal to my observations of reality, which you clearly said in an earlier comment was not part of logic or reason. Would you like to try again?

Do you agree that point I made? We MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE.

No. I don’t have to agree that the relation between reality and logic is not dependent upon thought. Because it is. If it weren’t, I would be unable to think of things that I have never apprehended, and this is a fundamental property of logic- that one can apply rules from reality to things that are possible, and test them for contingency. The “properties of things” is not the definition of logic. It may be how we create, test, and refine it, but it is not logic proper. You conflate once again. If logic were independent of thought, then it would be available to every creature capable of observing things.
Besides, if you are going to argue that logic is entirely independent of thought, then it is not circular for me to account for it with thought. You have conceded to the fact that my worldview depends on no circular reasoning. Thank you! Next….

If the law of contradiction (LOC) were not true but we were compelled to think it true, that would not save the LOC from being false. It stands OUTSIDE of thoughts. It shows that the law is not a law of thought. The brain is not the source of logic. So again I ask, what is the source of logic? Reality? If so, how?

Are you arguing for me now? If it were not true, but we believed it true, then it would be false. Yep. Just as any law of logic that applies to things could be disproved by the properties of that thing. Just because I have a thought, doesn’t necessitate the logical contingency of it. Our thoughts are the source of good logic- if those thoughts conform with observable reality, but that doesn’t mean that every thought is good logic. Logic is the thoughtful application of observable rules to unobserved things. The properties of observable things govern the laws of logic, not the other way around. We are essentially saying the same thing, just that I claim that logic needs a being to think it, because it is an abstraction of reality, and you think that logic is the laws of reality and are immutable and will always hold. You are conflating natural law with the laws of logic, and I consider that premature. We know that many natural laws do not hold at the level of quantum mechanics, for example.

The source of reason and logic is in the brain, dependent on the input of reality, bad logic and absurd ideas are also from the brain, which Dan evidences with every idea that spouts from his little head. Logic and reason are abstractions of reality that are thought by people, those thoughts that remain consistent across all observation are said to be laws of logic. All logic is thought, not all thought is logical, at least not in any formal sense.

To which you said that LAWS of logic was merely subjective.[?] You said,

>>”My logic has absolutely no effect on reality, so whether or not I observe non-contradiction has no bearing on whether or not something can exist as both A and “not-A”, and the fabric of the universe and my worldview need not change if I had information that something exists that is self-contradictory. ”

I guess this is where you threw out your entire point of “dependent on the input of reality”

I want you to follow your logic here. How does that quote show that I think logic is subjective? Explain. Be sure to include how saying that my logic has no effect on reality is contradictory with it being dependent on the input of reality. Peas are dependent on the sun, does that mean that they necessarily have an effect on the sun? Not sure what you mean here. I’m guessing that you are now conflating the LOC with my entire worldview, but I need you to spell that out to properly respond.

The mess is yours, Dan.

Georgy,

(corrected bolding error)

>>First, I deleted your double comment. I suppose that you accidentally posted it twice.

Well once again you were wrong.

>>I didn’t notice anything different in the two, if there was something changed from one to the other, let me know.

Much like you don’t notice many truths, your error was obvious.

Your very first hint should have been this

“Georgy,

(needed to correct a link)
Do you use your reasoning…”

It was to correct this:

“You claimed: (these are YOUR words)
>>3. the source of reason and logic…”

Thanks for missing truth again. If you were mistaken about this very small thing, is it possible that you are wrong about other larger things? Moving on.

>> It could turn out that I could be wrong about EVERYTHING I know.

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

>> At least my worldview allows that.

WRONG!!!!

>>You seem convinced that if you create an unfalsifiable worldview base on assumptions that have no testable quality, that the certainty that results is somehow proof that it is correct.

This is where you are making Howard huge assumptions yourself, again. You do not see there is possible evidence for God because, wait for it, according to you its not possible to have evidence for God. If you are in fact an atheist in terms of your views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with your naturalism, or atheism. We need not go further.

Now restate your conflicting mantra, “It could turn out that I could be wrong about EVERYTHING I know.”

>>You are using sloppy logic if you think that making me admit that I might be wrong is proof that I am wrong, or that your certainty is proof that you are right.

No, its valid to show how your logic is flawed though. Read above statement. You claim that you could be wrong, yet your worldview DEMANDS there is no evidence for God. Otherwise you would not be an Atheist.

>> My reasoning is not “viciously circular” because it doesn’t depend only on my thoughts.

The source of logic (according to you).

>> As I have asserted, logic is contingent on constant verification in reality.

So the laws of logic are indeed OUTSIDE of the mind?

>>If reality ruins my presuppositions, then I need to change them.

Are you CERTAIN you have the power to do so? If so, how?

>> A person with invalid reasoning doesn’t test his reasoning against only his reasoning, but against a reality that doesn’t care about his ability to reason it.

A person with invalid reasoning? You? Anyway, a person that is in DENIAL about his reasoning and reality feels that his reasoning about reality is valid. Hence the need for presuppositional apologetic techniques. To reveal that error.

>>You still are not addressing anything I am actually saying.

How about giving an example instead of barely asserting this point?

>>You are applying things to my worldview that don’t apply to my worldview. You are shadowboxing.

For example…

>>If I reason that “a split second before I am hit by an oncoming car, time will stop and I can move out of the way”, that is certainly invalid.

How can you be certain about this, or anything, standing in your worldview? Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.

>>Would I be able to go through my whole life with that assumption? If I never test it, yes.

Would you be right? Remember you said “that is certainly invalid.” So how is that possible?

>>The source of reason and logic is in the brain, dependent on the input of reality, bad logic and absurd ideas are also from the brain, which Dan evidences with every idea that spouts from his little head.

Oh I see now. Its simple. You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty. Same with laws of logic. If the brain is the SOURCE of laws of logic then the laws ONLY exists inside the brain. That absurd notion is what you are ascribing to. That is not the case. If you claim that you CANNOT have laws without the brain then they are NOT laws at all. You’re being absolutely absurd here. Explain yourself.

>>Again, you need to explain to everyone here how certainty in an unprovable proposition is better than confidence in a falsifiable proposition.

Unprovable proposition? That is your injection not mine. To me its simply provable. Does that make it more valid? It sure does! That is why you MUST DENY that it is. Otherwise your worldview breaks down quickly.

>>Prove to me that certainty is equal to truth.

Again, one cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.

>>2.What? Seriously? Argumentum ad ignorantum much? You argue against this exact assumption in my worldview. In yours, it is peachy?

Touché. This was an attempt in reasoning without revelation. I pulled it from my old evidentialist methodology from my past. It might have been a mistake, and might even violate the presup apologetic method. Sue me. I have since improved on this Epistemological reasoning to incorporate presups. Forgive me for trying to relate to your reasoning, to help your reasoning. It, of course, backfired.

>>4. Since (2) rests on a fallacy you yourself discount, 4 does not follow from (2) & (3)

Not so fast. I do not discount reasonable assumptions. Do I? I assume you are capable of being a logical person. Is that wrong? :7) No, you’re discounting my premiss 1 to come to your premiss 4 so then yours breaks down from there.

Its not that I discount assumptions. I discount unaccountable assumptions. Science makes certain assumptions and are right sometimes. They also make assumptions, like multiverses and evolution, that are not valid.

For example, if I were to ask “On what do you base the certainty that gravity will not change?” You would, as you have here in the past, be forced to answer with “On the basis that every day that I have been alive gravity has been constant.” That is all you have right? (brain is the source about reality) But with that logic, you have just proven that I am immortal. Its unreasonable. You see George, every day that I’ve been alive, I haven’t died, therefore I will never die. You would be begging the question again. Gravity, like laws of logic, exists OUTSIDE of the brain. Its reasonable. Understand?

>>5. I have granted that where the bible is true, it is true on contemporary historical documentation and self evident details, neither discounts human authorship

Moving goalposts? No, those SPECIFIC points do not discount human authorship but many other things do. What you have done at premiss 5 is called a taxicab fallacy.

>>6. Since (1), (2), (4) and (5) are false, this is a false conclusion from false premises

They are not false, you assume as much for your premises.

>>7. Hence there is no need to assume God exists at all

Hardly, your unsupported and uncountable assumptions lead you astray.

>>8. Maybe, but I doubt it. The facts back me up.

Thanks for showing evidence that denial is all you have. :7)

>>Your Attention Deficit Disorder is clouding your ability to comprehend.

I will not argue that hard against that point. :7)

>>Dan: But you said they come from pea plants, so you lose! LOOOSSSEEERRRR!!!! This is the conversation we have had thus far Dan.

Hogwash! First, I made the point that if you refuse to address my question its a loss, to the debate, by default. (to get you to address my points) That in NO WAY means that I am calling you a loser in a derogatory sense like you’re trying to elude to. I love you too much to just let you go believing you’re right, when its a dire position. I could just go play with my kids instead. No, I value you (soul) too much to just ignore the situation. Perfect love is a constant confronter after all.

>> I say that logic requires an observable reality and a brain capable of reason.

Dude!!! Laws of logic do not require a brain to determine its truth. Its like saying gravity does not exist outside of the brain. Its absurd.

>>They are abstractions.

No, they are not! Human laws are abstractions, universal and natural laws are not. You might be confusing this with a Metaphysical point. Look at the laws for gravity. What you are postulating is that humans existed BEFORE the universe. Since the universe was created with the LAWS that make up what we call “gravity”, the universe existed BEFORE humans.

Maybe it is easier to understand if I said that logic and truth stands independent of anyone’s presuppositions. To say otherwise would make logic and truth a variable, they are actually the constant here.

It’s not that atheists cannot explain why logic is valid, it is that they profess worldviews that simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. They are doing something, which, if their worldview were true, would be impossible for them to do, and THAT is the contradiction as evidenced here.

>>This is an entirely falsifiable presupposition. Reality can prove me wrong, yet it never does.

Wrong, all you can claim is “Reality can prove me wrong, yet it never has thus far” as the problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past. The Christians would say that we have a sovereign God who controls the universe who allows us to do science and such. Even if I would grant that you could account for the validity of your reasoning (which I do not), all you could ever hope to justify is that 2 + 2 HAS EQUALLED 4, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that it will continue to do so?

Am I still writing? Whew…

(To be cont’d)

Dan,
I am aware that in your alternate reality everything is exactly what you say it is. The problem is that outside your little delusional bubble, the world keeps turning because of physics, and not because God is a Harlem Globtrotters fan; Unicorns never existed, they didn’t just miss the Ark by ten minutes; and oddly enough, words have context and meaning that doesn’t bend to your will.
I can be certain that my worldview is workable and correct. I don’t have doubts. Making the statement “It could turn out that I could be wrong about everything” is not a concession of doubt anymore than “It could turn out that the rapture could happen tomorrow” is saying that I believe the rapture is going to happen tomorrow. I have no reason to doubt my worldview, and you have said nothing so far that proves it unsatisfactory or unreliable. In this respect, I am certain. What I am trying to get at in that sentence (one I was well aware you would jump on) is that my worldview is based on easily falsifiable presuppositions. There are a million and one different ways you could prove me wrong about everything, and the fact that you have been woefully incapable of doing it gives credence to the certainty I have. Your presuppositions, on the other hand, leave you in the precarious position as a Christian of either admitting that my worldview is copacetic, or admitting that you cannot have give any logical reasons for believing in God. They leave you in the precarious position of disavowing my ability to use inductive reasoning, yet accept that your worldview actually nullifies the ability to be certain of any physical and natural laws. All this wrapped in a package of presuppositions that are not just contradictory with your argument, but completely unfalsifiable.

On the point of the use of the word “certainty”, though, I must concede that I misused the word slightly in a colloquial sense where it was more appropriate to use the term “certitude” in describing your opinion of the truth of your worldview. You do not have certainty, though you surely believe with certitude that you do. Claiming certainty does not make something certain, it at worst shows that you are incapable of questioning your own convictions.
>>

Thanks for missing truth again. If you were mistaken about this very small thing, is it possible that you are wrong about other larger things? Moving on.

I would reciprocate this question to someone who both conceded that he misused a logical fallacy and called me by the wrong name in his follow up comment. If you were mistaken about these very small things, and the spelling of “premise” for that matter, is it possible, Dan, that you are wrong about other larger things? (I assume you want to move on before someone points out the glaring fallacy of your logic in that statement. ;) )
>>

This is where you are making Howard huge assumptions yourself, again. You do not see there is possible evidence for God because, wait for it, according to you its not possible to have evidence for God. If you are in fact an atheist in terms of your views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with your naturalism, or atheism. We need not go further.

Now restate your conflicting mantra, “It could turn out that I could be wrong about EVERYTHING I know.

Wow! That first bit really shows your gigantic ignorance. My worldview certainly allows for evidence of God. Do you have any? You know, other than bald assertions and sloppy apologetics. I’m listening. As near as I can tell the whole of your “evidence” relies on me presupposing the bible is true, or else all the evidence falls apart. As Jason said earlier, this is equivalent to insisting that I presuppose the truth of “The Fellowship of The Ring” before you can prove to me orcs exist, and then faulting my worldview for disallowing the presupposition. I don’t presuppose that God cannot exist, I just ask that there be sufficient reason to make a leap to the supernatural, then an equally good reason to make the leap to a personal God, then an equally good reason to believe that God to be the one that is described in the bible. You call that unreasonable, but you would have to to hold to your worldview. I just hold my worldview to a more rigorous standard. You know, like defending it- something you have been unwilling and I bet incapable of doing.
Again, you use bad logic to close off your paragraph. I can be certain about my worldview and still admit that my worldview is falsifiable. Not conflicting. Moving on then….
>>

You claim that you could be wrong, yet your worldview DEMANDS there is no evidence for God. Otherwise you would not be an Atheist.

That sentence is logically false. My worldview doesn’t demand that there is no evidence for God. My worldview gives me the tools to evaluate evidence in a way that is fair. My worldview could easily allow for a God, given sufficient and unambiguous evidence. The logic of the statement “An atheist must affirm their is no evidence for God” is wrong, and sloppy. An atheist must affirm the insufficiency of evidence, not the absence of it. Poor Dan. Having logic issues so many times in one comment.
>>

Are you CERTAIN you have the power to do so? If so, how?(To change your presuppositions)

I don’t have the power to change my worldview? Are you CERTAIN that this question makes sense? If so, how?
>>

Anyway, a person that is in DENIAL about his reasoning and reality feels that his reasoning about reality is valid. Hence the need for presuppositional apologetic techniques. To reveal that error.

A person that is in DENIAL about his reasoning and reality feels that his reasoning about reality is valid. Hence the need for him to embrace presuppositional apologetic techniques, to keep the denial alive and kicking.
>>

How can you be certain about this, or anything, standing in your worldview? Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.

Could God reveal some things to us through miracles? Because the definition of a miracle is the bending of things we consider certain. Could there be a rapture/Armageddon, and could we know when it will arrive? Because a rapture or armageddon seems to be a major difference from five seconds before it happened. And us not knowing when it will come seems like a steaming pile of uncertainty. If I assume your worldview I have less cause for certainty. Inductive reasoning would be absolutely impossible. Deductive reasoning would be absolutely impossible. I’m not the one who presupposes the truth of a book chock full of the manipulation of physical and natural laws. You have “proof” that you can’t expect anything to remain constant. I have proof that in any respect that we can measure, constants are constant. Try again, Danny Boy…
>>

“On what do you base the certainty that gravity will not change?” You would, as you have here in the past, be forced to answer with “On the basis that every day that I have been alive gravity has been constant.” That is all you have right? (brain is the source about reality) But with that logic, you have just proven that I am immortal. Its unreasonable. You see George, every day that I’ve been alive, I haven’t died, therefore I will never die. You would be begging the question again.

Oh my. No wonder you are so confused! You really have no grasp on the application of logic. Is life a constant? Do we plug information into logic without any pertinent facts? Really? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard, and really shows the weakness of your entire position. If you can’t answer your own question here then you lose on sheer stupidity. Poor Dan, more bad logic in a comment designed to highlight the superiority of your logic. How’s that workin’ for ya? Next….
Right now Dan, you got some homework to do. You have rested your entire argument on a series of fallacies and poor logic. You have no reason to trust that things will be the same five seconds from now, in fact your presuppositions require you to doubt it. To top it all off, you are attempting to redefine a word that has a very specific and unambiguous meaning:logic. Look it up. It is already taken. You can’t arbitrarily change it. You have nothing.

Gregory, (cont’d)

>>Back to the old “I told you how you think, now defend the worldview I projected on you” tack.

Pot meet kettle. It was Smart who made the point. “The “arrogance of atheism” is manifest by those Atheists who presuppose the truth of their system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, all the while denying for the Christian the inverse thereof because the only presuppositions the Atheist permits in the field of debate are his own. Again, the issue is not about Atheists insisting that theistic claims be supported, but rather how they insist those claims get supported.”

>>No. I don’t have to agree that the relation between reality and logic is not dependent upon thought. Because it is.

Just understand that the person who wrote, “We MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE.” is the same Atheist who wrote the essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”

>> If logic were independent of thought, then it would be available to every creature capable of observing things.

Huh? If a creature is capable of observing things, how is that independent of thought? Dude, does not “observing things” denote thought? Or how can you claim that laws of logic are not available to other thinking creatures? Please explain.

>>Besides, if you are going to argue that logic is entirely independent of thought, then it is not circular for me to account for it with thought. You have conceded to the fact that my worldview depends on no circular reasoning. Thank you! Next….

If something is independent of thought, how can you account for it with thought? I think you are confusing yourself further. You might need a break from all of this. :7)

>> Just as any law of logic that applies to things could be disproved by the properties of that thing.

Huh? You lost me.

>>Our thoughts are the source of good logic- if those thoughts conform with observable reality, but that doesn’t mean that every thought is good logic.

So how is “good logic” determined? Did you reason that your reasoning is valid? So you use your reasoning to test your reasoning, which is viciously circular again.

>>Logic is the thoughtful application of observable rules to unobserved things.

We are getting closer. Observable rules? So prescriptive rules are observable. Fine! Now, how can you account for observable rules like LOC within your worldview?

>> We are essentially saying the same thing, just that I claim that logic needs a being to think it, because it is an abstraction of reality, and you think that logic is the laws of reality and are immutable and will always hold.

OK, so you wake up every morning wondering if the LOC still holds for that day? So what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?

>> You are conflating natural law with the laws of logic, and I consider that premature.

And here you claimed that natural and logical laws were, in reality, observable. So now they aren’t? So then, its your claim now that laws are not laws at all?

Poor Dan, wading into bad logic to try and poke holes in my logic. I dealt with most of what you try to deflect dealing with here in my answer to your first comment. I’ll just deal with a few glaring issues in this comment.
>>

Just understand that the person who wrote, “We MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE.” is the same Atheist who wrote the essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”

Point? Do you have one? Need I necessarily agree with every atheist on every issue? Or should I just do what you do and say that Russell is not a real atheist? I don’t have to disavow him, because nothing I have said contradicts this pullquote. Your interpretation of it contradicts me, not the quote. I have never made any statement to the effect that my logic can create reality, and that is what this quote is about. By apprehending reality we are creating thoughts that when properly vetted become the foundation of logic.
>>

Huh? If a creature is capable of observing things, how is that independent of thought? Dude, does not “observing things” denote thought? Or how can you claim that laws of logic are not available to other thinking creatures? Please explain.


If logic requires no thought and is in fact just observable reality, as you claim, then anything that observes reality is using logic. If you consider logic to be observation, then you have really lost your dictionary. Really. Look it up. Read a book or two.
Everything else….asked and answered.

Wow, Dan – never mind the broom, we need a shovel to handle what you’re giving us here.
You just don’t get it. You try to question our use of logic to validate our reasoning and think that you’re immune from the same set of questions. Your answer for the source of what you believe to be truth is a deity outside your realm of existence that you cannot even prove exists. You buy into the notion of a self-revealing god in nature and that’s all you seem to need to make reality happen for you, but that’s not evidence for the rest of us.

Your 8 points are flawed by the very first statement. The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify? How would you be able to verify that ANY of that was true? Even if ANY of it was true, one would be an idiot to assume that it would be truthful throughout, so that happens to discredit the remaining statements built on these two assumptions.

Ultimately, you come to the conclusion that the bible is true because it says it’s true. Yet this seems to elude you as you pretend to have access to logic and reason beyond what any of us can know or experience. Is that really all you’ve got? *snicker – I thought you were going to bring your “A” game.

zqtx,

>>You try to question our use of logic to validate our reasoning and think that you’re immune from the same set of questions.

Not so. I DO account for my reasoning. Its just not viciously circular, like the atheistic worldview that you have. Denial of truth does not make truth.

>>Your answer for the source of what you believe to be truth is a deity outside your realm of existence that you cannot even prove exists.

Not so. Its very apparent as to the existence of God. Denial does not erase evidence. What method do you use to prove something anyway? Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?

>>You buy into the notion of a self-revealing god in nature and that’s all you seem to need to make reality happen for you, but that’s not evidence for the rest of us.

And there’s the rub. As I just said, just because you do not accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. Also, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. We are not here to bend things to fit in that very tiny and narrow box of yours. Truth is still there, even if denied.

>>Your 8 points are flawed by the very first statement.

According to who? You? Is truth objective or subjective?

>>The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify?

Yes, as a small quick example is when the Bible speaks of the Corinthians we find evidence of the city of Corinth in Greece. Verified. When the Bible speaks in great details of things in a place called Babylon . When unearthed in Iraq, we find all the descriptions of things spot on and accurate. On and on, without a flaw. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, we see how cherished and accurate the Hebrew Tanakh was. On and on.

>>How would you be able to verify that ANY of that was true?

As you would find anything else. An example is in a court of law, things are found out to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Jesus was even placed on trial. Would you like to guess the verdict? I will say, there was Overwhelming Evidence! :7)

That being said, as a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist’s contempt toward God.

>>Even if ANY of it was true, one would be an idiot to assume that it would be truthful throughout, so that happens to discredit the remaining statements built on these two assumptions.

Yes, we understand, baby with the bathwater. That DOES NOT happen to discredit anything. The Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. It has been evidenced over and over again. NOW, it can only be denied.

>>Ultimately, you come to the conclusion that the bible is true because it says it’s true.

WRONG! The Bible is true because it does indeed make that claim, but then it goes to prove itself internally and externally. Also, God revealed that truth so that we are “without excuse” about His word. Not to mention, that any denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity.

“A denial of Bible truth necessarily implies a denial of the Truth of truths that yields to the rejection of all the products of truths which is logically equivalent to the denial of the summation of all the different facts of Science, Philosophy and Religion.” ~Periander A. Esplana

BTW, Periander A. Esplana was the one who asked these three questions (Three Unanswerable Basic Questions)

1. How do you know that you really know what you pretend to know?
2. Why is there something (or order) rather than nothing at all (or chaos right now)?
3. What are your reasons behind your belief that truth is more preferable than deception, right is better than wrong, and good is higher than evil?

Care to try?

>>Yet this seems to elude you as you pretend to have access to logic and reason beyond what any of us can know or experience.

Nope. You certainly have access to that same logic and reason, you just deny, deny, deny in trying to account for it.

>>Is that really all you’ve got?

Nope. Not at all. But, its obvious you do not need more for your failed conclusions. :7)

>>I thought you were going to bring your “A” game.

No need. The softballs I am throwing out is enough for this audience. Let me know when you wish to join the majors though. :7)

DAN,

So that’s your whole argument? You just simply sit back and claim that non-believers simply deny the truth? When pressed for any evidence to support your definition of truth you simply claim that your proof doesn’t have to comport to logic as we know it. You keep saying that the bible is true whether we deny it or not and that is simply laughable and wrong.

To make your argument – assuming the bible is evidence for god and believing that god exists is question begging. We are not here to bend things to fit in that narrow box or your belief system. Long story short, your evidence for your “truth” is lacking. To claim the bible is without flaw is absurd, yet it is the foundation of your belief system. You readily proclaim that you are a Christian, but yet fail to recognize you are just another follower of the Christian religion. This is truth, even if you choose to deny it.

To answer your unanswerable questions, based on your truth:

1. I know what I really know what I pretend to know because god told me.
2. There is something because god made it so. God didn’t make nothing.
3. The reason behind the belief that truth is better than deception is because god likes it that way.

See how easy that was?

In your world, you say that denial of the truth of the bible leads to absurdity. At least that helps explain the rationale behind many of your statements, insane as they might be. As for Mr. Esplana, I would like to see him explain how he knows what he claims to know about science, philosophy and religion based on your argument against George.

zqtx,

>>So that’s your whole argument? You just simply sit back and claim that non-believers simply deny the truth?

You are confusing my argument with an observation. I gave you too much credit to identify the difference. :7)

>>When pressed for any evidence to support your definition of truth you simply claim that your proof doesn’t have to comport to logic as we know it.

Bare assertion? Try “For example…”

>>You keep saying that the bible is true whether we deny it or not and that is simply laughable and wrong.

Bare assertion? Try “For example…”

The Bible is indeed true because first it makes that claim and then proves it internally. If that wasn’t enough then we find ample extra-biblical evidence. Remember, its all overwhelming evidence. At least I am trying to provide you with some reasonable evidence to back my claims up. You? Just, deny, deny, laugh. Whatever.

That being said, I may be doing you a disservice by going thus far with you. You question God, you want to be seated in the Judges chair, much as the same as Eve did. Because that is the problem in itself. You see God is the Authority, not us. If we are evaluating God to see if He is worthy of our following then we placing our authority over God’s. Van Til said it this way “If God’s authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God.”

You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is “self”. You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don’t realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God’s Word then you begin to understand Him.

>>To make your argument – assuming the bible is evidence for god and believing that god exists is question begging.

Wrong! The Bible is evidenced to be truthful. Its claims are about God being the Creator. Its truth is evidenced and obvious to a reasonable mind and denied by one that is not.

>>We are not here to bend things to fit in that narrow box or your belief system.

Nice come back, who is your ghost writer? No, you’re confusing me with an Evolutionist. .

>>You readily proclaim that you are a Christian, but yet fail to recognize you are just another follower of the Christian religion. This is truth, even if you choose to deny it.

Are you speaking of denominations? Because I do not belong to any denominations. After all, the mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. If you are chiding that I am a Christian then yes I belong to a religion that is from the Creator. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God, and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term “Justification.” They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation. Howard Huge difference. A buddy pointed out “A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a “discipline” which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified… In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their “religious” efforts to God to “save” them. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions [try to] make themselves clean.”

>>To answer your unanswerable questions, based on your truth:

I just KNEW you wouldn’t, read couldn’t, answer those within your worldview. Yet a worldview is there to answer such questions (One’s personal view of the world and how one interprets it). More EVIDENCE that your worldview is a dismal failure.

>>See how easy that was?

Yes, easy from borrowing another worldview, but very difficult within your worldview.

Shhhh we understand.

Dan,

Where do I begin? It’s really difficult to reply without sounding like I’m getting personal, but you are nothing more than a delusional idiot.

Your “observation” of denial is your entire argument. You accuse me of making “bare assertions”. I’m just quoting your works from comments on the same page! Do you not believe that your god is the source of your truth? Do you not believe that the bible is true?

Your repeated reference to “overwhelming evidence” is easily refutable and doesn’t lend any credibility to your argument, as shown by the numerous comments left on your own blog.

You claim the bible is true because it says so internally. How convenient – a self authenticating text.

You claim that the bible’s “truth is evidenced and obvious” – only to an uneducated idiot who is easily led and doesn’t bother to critically examine dubious claims.

By the way, the list of questions you keep referencing on this page is totally subjective and irrelevant to nature. The sad fact is that nature would probably be better off without you or your delusional self-importance.

Instead of just accusing me of denying your truth and endlessly quoting other morons, please come back with some evidence to support your ego-driven and self-righteous claims without linking back to your own retarded blog or any other website void of facts or objectivity.

Georgy,

>>Unicorns never existed, they didn’t just miss the Ark by ten minutes; and oddly enough, words have context and meaning that doesn’t bend to your will.

Are you CERTAIN of that? Have you ever heard of Rhinoceros unicornis? Folk stories pointed to the Elasmotherium. Look it up.

>>I can be certain that my worldview is workable and correct. I don’t have doubts.

O’rly? Yet cannot address life questions. Imagine that? A Christian worldview can answer many crucial life-questions about life that an Atheist’s worldview cannot. A very brief list of some of these are:

1. How did the world and all that is in it come into being?

2. What is reality in terms of knowledge and truth?

3. How does/should the world function?

4. What is the nature of a human being?

5. What is one’s personal purpose of existence?

6. How should one live?

7. Is there any personal hope for the future?

8. What happens to a person at and after death?

9. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

10. How does one know what is right and what is wrong?

11. What is the meaning of human history?

12. What does the future hold?

On and on. Also the questions I posed to zqtx:

13. How do you know that you really know what you pretend to know?
14. Why is there something (or order) rather than nothing at all (or chaos right now)?
15. What are your reasons behind your belief that truth is more preferable than deception, right is better than wrong, and good is higher than evil?

My worldview can easily address these, can your worldview? If not, lacking, inadequate, and dysfunctional are terms that comes to mind to describe your worldview. Its absurd NOT to be able to answer/address crucial life-questions.

>>I have no reason to doubt my worldview, and you have said nothing so far that proves it unsatisfactory or unreliable.

Done! (see above)

>>My worldview certainly allows for evidence of God.

Scratch off atheism as part of your worldview then. How would it be possible to show evidence for God if you do not believe in God? Its not possible to have evidence for God. You worldview believes unicorns didn’t exist, yet they did at one time. Maybe there is still hope for you. God willing.

>>I don’t have the power to change my worldview? Are you CERTAIN that this question makes sense? If so, how?

No, actually you’re a slave to sin. (Romans 7:14-25) You chose your master and must live with that choice. In order to break from that “underground” you must depend on Christ, who is the railroad. The ONLY one that can take you from your current master. First you must deny your master, and trust Christ, then Christ can remove you. You must be born of a new heart (Ezekiel 36:20-27) and must be born again in Christ. (John 3:7, 1 Peter 1:23)

>>Could God reveal some things to us through miracles?

Would not change a thing. People were standing near Jesus, witnessing the miracles, and still remained Atheists back then.

>> I have proof that in any respect that we can measure, constants are constant. Try again, Danny Boy…

Ahem! You claimed >>”We know that many natural laws do not hold at the level of quantum mechanics, for example.” Try again, Georgy Porgy…

Oh my. No wonder you are so confused indeed!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Dan,
You are really stretching now.
Are you saying that because humans mistook a Pliocene rhinoceros for a unicorn that this proves unicorns existed? No wonder you find it so easy to believe in God. That something that no-one who has a concept of a unicorn would call a unicorn existed is not evidence of a unicorn. It is evidence of an ancient species of rhinoceros. Just like manatees are not evidence of mermaids. These things are evidence of the human capacity to be mistaken, and to turn evidence of one thing into a mythology of another thing.
I can answer every last one of those questions just as satisfactorily as any other person. Have you ever asked me those questions? No. So you are projecting an inability to answer them based on your ignorance of the totality of my worldview. Bad logic. Really bad logic. Are you sure you want to continue using bad logic to poke holes in my logic? Seems counterproductive.

How would it be possible to show evidence for God if you do not believe in God? Its not possible to have evidence for God. You worldview believes unicorns didn’t exist, yet they did at one time.

Oh my. You really ARE that thick. I suspected it, but that confirms it. Let’s just ignore your “rhinoceros is a unicorn” belief. If that area of biology confuses you then evolution will forever be lost on you. I don’t believe in plenty of things that I allow evidence for. Your entire premise is false. People can not believe in something they have insufficient evidence of and still accept evidence of it. Show me your logic there, because I think that is an abuse of logic and reason.

The rest of my comment clearly escapes your grasp. You don’t even address my miracle quote in the context it was written in. You are slipping Danny Boy….maybe you should just throw out some insults and bible verses, act all arrogant and proud and boastful, tell me how much you love me, quote your usual kiss goodbye from Titus 3, and just disappear from the discussion before you hurt yourself.
Shhhh, we understand….


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 370 other followers

%d bloggers like this: