The Instigator
GodSands
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

To take for granted the preconditions of intelligibility is only consistent with the Bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
gizmo1650
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,929 times Debate No: 12790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (3)

 

GodSands

Con

This debate was to be originally between me and JCMT. But I decided that anyone can take this debate.

I have a lot to type. So I will waste no time.

What are the preconditions of intelligibility? Preconditions of intelligibility are things that we take for granted without thinking why we take them for granted, in that we perceive them to be absolutely true. So in other words we must see preconditions of intelligibility as true before we can know anything about the universe. The list follows:

.The basic reliability of memory and senses.
.Laws of logic.
.Uniformity of nature.
.Morality.
.Personal dignity.
.Freedom.

There maybe more, but we take all these things for granted, we think about things in understanding that these things already exist, but we never really question if they exist?

I am defending (although the Bible does not need defending) the Bible to be the Word of God. And that evolution cannot be true if we take for granted these preconditions. In other words; if biblical creationism is false we cannot know anything.

Setting the 'evidence' arguments:

Imagine that I said, "For my argument I am going to use fossils, DNA and rock layers for proof of creationism." And the evolutionists says, "Oh that's funny, I was going to use the same things to support evolution."

This clearly shows that facts are interpreted to suit our world view. When a creationist looks at a fossil then see that it must be thousands of years old, but with the evolutionist, he or she will see it at millions of years old. It is like we have a pare of mental glasses on, I see the world through the biblical glasses and the evolutionist see the world through the evolutionary glasses. When really the world is not one sided.

"This evidence says that evolution is true" Says the evolutionists, "I said no such thing" The fossil metaphorically replies. The same goes for the creationist. Fossils do not speak for themselves, same goes for any other 'evidence' creationists or evolutionists seem to have. It is not the question who can gather the most evidence to support their claims, it is that we are fighting over the same evidence to support our own world view.

This is why both evolutionists are creationists get frustrated at each other. Because we both seem to think it is unreasonable for the creationist or the evolutionist to reject our evidence.

"Rescuing device":

This is where either the evolutionist or the creationist will invent a way to escape a problem by believing that there is some kind of evidence that will contradict the contrary evidence given either by the evolutionist or the creationist. For example: Both evolutionist and creationist know that comets do not last for more that 100,000 years, as they get close to the sun, the ice and dirt that they are built up of breaks apart from the comet. So why are there still comets about if the solar system is billions of years old? It seems that I have given evidence for creationism, but I haven't. The evolutionist will now think up of a 'rescuing device'. In this case it is an Oort cloud, the cloud contains particles too small to be seen by any telescope of today. It is far past any planet, so the evolutionist will believe there must be an Oort cloud which fires out new comets. However it has never been observed, that though, does not mean it does not exist.

So where do I go now?

All we do is interpret evidence to match our world view. To resolve this, we must realize that world views have consequences. We all have an ultimate standard which leads to us believing in certain things, which then leads us to believe other things and so on. However some beliefs do not match up reasonably, and a good world view has to be logically consistent. A contradicting world view cannot be true because contradictions are logically inconsistent.

Unfortunately for the secularist, if their world view were to be true it would be false and therefore it would be false. Let me explain further. The Bible or as Christians tend to call it, the Word of God is the ultimate standard, not empiricism, evolution or the claim that there is no God. Everyone has ultimate standards, but only one is self-consistent, all the others lead to contradiction. As a result of a inconsistent ultimate standard, knowledge cannot be found.

Take relativism for instance. Relativism says that truth differs for people. In other words, there are no absolutes. However I have just contradicted myself because relativism says there are not absolutes, yet I just said that is absolute.

Just because a world view is self-consistent, doesn't mean it is true, this is were the preconditions of intelligibility come in. If evolution is true then creationism isn't true and therefore God didn't create the universe in 6 days.
Evermore if evolution is true then it would be logically incorrect to have the Bible as our ultimate standard, let alone just as a standard. So in that case we must have other ultimate standards. Preconditions of intelligibility must be true if we are to know anything about the universe. As I mentioned earlier that memory was one of these preconditions, yet it is insufficient to be used as a ultimate standard. Consider someone says, "My memory is perfectly fine, I took a memory test a week ago and I did very well." It would seem, by the test that his memory is totally reliable, however is it? It begs the question 'how do you know you took a memory test a week ago?' Just because he remembers taking a memory test, it does not mean it happened unless he already knows his memory is reliable. And he does not know he memory is reliable. The same goes for the senses.

Laws of logic are no different, we assume laws of logic exist to decide correct reasoning. To prove that laws of logic exist we would have to assume that laws of logic already exist to logically reason that they do exist. Or for that matter, reason about anything.

We take for granted that our senses are reliable and our memory is reliable, and that laws of logic exist. This view suits the biblical world view perfectly, since our senses and our memory were designed by God to reasonably experience the universe which He created. And the laws of logic reflect the way God thinks because He created the universe and therefore the universe suits the existence of the laws of logic. Since God thought about creating the universe.

If biblical creation is incorrect, thus making the Word of God incorrect, what reason is there to assume the preconditions of intelligibility are true in a evolutionary world view? The only reasonable response would be that, if anyone is to make sense of the universe, biblical creationism has to be true. And in light of that, non-believers of the Bible take biblical principles to make a secular world view make sense. When really that would be contradicting. Although non-Christians assume preconditions of intelligibility are true, they do not know that they are true. Unless they believe in biblical creation. Again that word, self-consistent comes into play. The biblical world view says that precondition of intelligibility are true, and therefore those who believe in the biblical world view have reason to take these preconditions for granted.

Secular world views take these preconditions for granted, but they reject the biblical view, this causes the secularist to have no reason to accept these precondition in the first place, yet they do anyway. This is because they take from the biblical world view.

So if my opponent tried to argue against this (which he or she will) they have already proved the biblical world view to be correct. Since they are assuming that the preconditions of intelligibility can be taken for granted without reason. It is really like trying to disprove the existence of air, while at the same time using air to get across the argument that air does not exist.
gizmo1650

Pro

I don't know where to begin on this. I guess i will start with the preconditions, which i have many problems with.

.The basic reliability of memory. - false memories are always a possibility. In an experiment "About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print ad describing a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny said later they remembered or knew the event happened to them." (1)

.The basic reliability of senses. - ever hear of illusions?

.Laws of logic. - granted for the 3 logical absolutes:
The law of identity - something is what it is and is not what it is not.
The law of non-contradiction- a statement can not be both true and false at the same time in the same sence, at the same time.
The law of Excluded Middle- a statement is either true or false.
Their may be others that I did not think of.

.Uniformity of nature. - what scale are we talking about?

.Morality. - I have thought about it and do not believe objective morality exists. I will grant the existence of subjective morality

.Personal dignity. i wouldn't call this a precondition but i will grant its existence

.Freedom. Demonstrate true free will exists. I agree that in my life I act as if it does exist without giving it a thought, but when we talk about the true reality we must talk about what is true, not what we act as if is true. I am of the intellectual position that free will does not exist (meaning when i think about i reach that conclusion, not that it is the 'smart' one)

While we may think in terms of these existing, our thoughts have no effect on the nature of the universe, so the fact that we take them for granted is irrelevant and you must demonstrate their existence.

Con: "the Bible does not need defending" Yes it does!

Pro's resolutions:
1) The Bible is the word of God
2)Evolution cannot be true

pro re-states this in the following way "if biblical creationism is false we cannot know anything." i fail to see how he says this is the same as his two resolutions. Also I hope this isn't going to be about semantics because we can not know anything with absolute certainty whether or not biblical creationism is true. But i would just say that wasn't really his resolution, just a faulty explanation of it.

In response to the 'evidence' argument
I agree people (sometimes) distort evidence to support what they are trying to prove.
By saying this occurs does not invalidate either sides evidence, in order to do that we have to see how they got from observance to conclusion and find flaws their. It is impossible to do anything on this subject in the abstract if you want you can present specific examples and we can go from there.

In response to the Rescuing Device
The method we use to arrive at our current model does not affect the truth of our model.

Con: "All we do is interpret evidence to match our world view."
correction: All YOU do is interpret evidence to match our world view. Science changes with new evidence. For example it used to be the scientific consensus that the universe's expansion would slow down. However while investigating the rate the expansion would slow, they discovered that it is accelerating, and that is know the widely believed theory.

Con: "A contradicting world view cannot be true"-agreed

Con: "Unfortunately for the secularist, if their world view were to be true it would be false and therefore it would be false." this is simply an accretion, you must demonstrate the internal inconsistency. And even if you did that, proving that we are wrong does not prove that you are right.

Can you provide a clear definition of ultimate standard?

Con: "The Bible or as Christians tend to call it, the Word of God is the ultimate standard" again, an assertion.

Con: "the claim that there is no God [is not the ultimate standard]." assertion. this statement is not internally contradictory, and I am taking the position that I am not justified in believing in God due to lack of evidence

Con: "Everyone has ultimate standards, but only one is self-consistent, all the others lead to contradiction. As a result of a inconsistent ultimate standard, knowledge cannot be found."
Demonstrate that only standard that only one standard can be SELF-consistent, and that it is yours.

Con: "Take relativism for instance" i will grant that relativism is false, SO WHAT?

To respond to the paragraph beginning with "just because a world view is self-consistent,"
In this paragraph we are assuming evolution is true. Con draws the following conclusioins:
1) creationism isn't true-agreed
2) it would be logically incorrect to have the Bible as our ultimate standard. - we don't need evolution for that
3) we must have other ultimate standards. - why?
other points in the paragraph
4) Preconditions of intelligibility must be true if we are to know anything about the universe.- with absolute certanty, and don't you have the same problem with Biblical creationism?
5) memory cannot be trusted.-agreed

in response to the next paragraph, you established that in the beginning.

Con:"We take for granted that our senses are reliable and our memory is reliable, and that laws of logic exist. This view suits the biblical world view perfectly" your view fits the biblical view. This does not prove either are right.
The rest of the paragraph assumes your view is correct to prove your view is correct.

Con: "what reason is there to assume the preconditions of intelligibility are true in a evolutionary world view"
the only precondition that i know (to near absolute certainty) to be true is the logical absolutes. The explanation is evolution. We succeeded in it because of our superior intelligence, and if that was based on false logic and preconditions we would have died out.

I don't understand how these same problems don't apply to you. You are using logic to justify the bible being a reason to believe your logic is correct.

Although refuting your arguments would sufficient to win this debate as you have the burden of proof i will also
provide some.
I assume you take the entire bible to be true.
If your God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, why is their suffering? (also known as the problem of evil)
The bible is also not as self-consistent as you believe.
for example in chapter 1 of Genesis it says "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:25-26) clearly the order was beast than man.

but in chapter to it says, "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:18-19)

to go directly to the title statement, "To take for granted the preconditions of intelligibility is only consistent with the Bible."
Con's entire arguent has only attempted to demonstrate that the current mainstream secular view is not consistent with the preconditions. even if he succeeded in that he would not proof that there is not another that we have not considered, or that the bible is.

Also preconditions are easily explained by evolution. We succeeded in evolution because of our intelligence. Part of that intelligence included these preconditions, without them we would have lost to the sub-species that did have them, and that sub-species became us.

1)http://www.unis...
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Con

I won't waste time, but thank you for accepting this discussion. Although it won't, I feel, get a lot of response, not many people will vote in other words.

Memory is not a reliable source for knowledge:

How can it be? As my opponent pointed out we can have false memories at any time. Given that, what if all of our memories are false? And how could you know that they aren't, rather you can only believe they aren't all false. Well you could confirm your memories to be true with other people, and they could say, 'oh yeah that happened.' so you would then take their word for it? This goes onto empiricism which I will get to in a short while.

Firstly though let me give you an example of why memory cannot be relied upon for a source of knowledge. Say I asked, "How do you know your memory is reliable?" You then reply, "Well I took a memory test just last week, the results showed that I have a good memory."

This is a fallacious argument which the person is making. The person who took the memory test had to use his memory to remember that his memory was up to scratch. The fact that he took the memory test should prove anyway that our memory is not a reliable source for knowledge and therefore should not be an ultimate standard.

Now moving onto the other preconditions of intelligibility: The senses.

The senses are used to examine the universe around us. However people a lot of the time tend to misjudge with their senses, they can think they saw something for example, when really they misinterpreted what they really might have saw.

Further more we have hallucinations, although we can seemingly pick out hallucinations from what might seem to be real by the use of witnesses, that does not solve anything. It has just moves the problem of hallucination to more people rather than just one. If you have ever studied epistemology you will discover that empiricist philosophers believe the external world is not as it seems. Indirect realists will say that we don't experience the external world directly, but indirectly. Therefore we experience our sensations, not the external world. Due to this it is said that our sensations resemble the external world, just not exactly. Because of hallucinations and illusions, this conclusion is drawn.

Despite all of that, it still does not deal with the real issue, are our senses a reliable source for gaining knowledge? No they cannot be. If no one has experienced the external world directly, we cannot know it's appearance and therefore we cannot gain knowledge through that method either. Plus you have to assume that all knowledge is gained via empiricism, you have to assume because it is impossible to know. And that creates yet another fallacious problem. There is no reason to suggest that all knowledge is gained through the senses. In fact the statement I just said, proves that some knowledge is thought to be gained through laws of logic.

Memory and the senses together?

Could that work if both worked together? Well as I has discussed we know that memory is no a reliable source for knowledge, and neither is empiricism. But simply putting the two together wouldn't create a reliable source for knowledge. First of all they are two different things, your memory is just data of what you did or of past experiences. And empiricism isn't a reliable source of knowledge so why would our memories be?

Laws of logic, are they a reliable source? My opponent pointed out 3 logical absolutes, the laws of logic. This precondition of intelligibility is particularly circular when taken for granted without reason. The fact that you use logic to reason about the universe seems at first, reasonable. But no one seems to reason why logic is a source to gain knowledge. Rather people tend you assume that logic is the key to knowledge at face value. It would be absurd to reason why logic is logical, therefore laws of logic must be assumed first to exist before reasoning about anything, even reasoning about laws of logic. So the fact that we have to assume that they exist means we do not know that laws of logic exist, assuming is not knowing. So perhaps the evolutionist would say, "We know that the laws of logic exist because we use them." Well if they know that the laws of logic exist, they would have a reason to take them for granted. Which they do not because they discourage the biblical world view. So they believe they know the laws of logic. The fact that the evolutionist agrees that laws of logic exist means that the biblical world view must be correct. I will explain why later.

My opponent's evidence for us being able to know anything about the universe is that we have evolved to become more intelligent than other creatures. However again this a fallacy. Evolutionists only believe we are more intelligent than any other creature via the senses. Yet as I have discussed, they cannot be a reliable source for gaining knowledge.

These problems don't apply to the biblical world view because the Word of God is the ultimate standard, not laws of logic or any other preconditions of intelligibility. We take them for granted but for a reason, however a secular or even just a non biblical world view does not have reason to take them for granted.

What is the reason why we take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted? Well if God created the world in 6 days, as the Bible says, we then were created by God from His image directly. Therefore we are god-like because we are created from God's image. God thought about creating the universe and then He spoke it into existence. Therefore there is a correct way to think logically, this is why the biblical world view has a reason to reject that contradictions are logical. Whereas the non biblical world view just takes it for granted that contradictions or illogical.

God designed us and therefore He created our brain and our senses. Thus we can trust them and gain knowledge through them. However only because God designed us, if God didn't we could not know that our memory or our sense are reliable.

God allowed Adam to reign over all the creatures. So Adam was permitted to name them.

My opponent claims that the preconditions of intelligibility are easily explained through evolution. Yet they cannot be, if evolution were true, then there would be none of these preconditions available. Morality, laws of logic, senses and memory and so on. Since the evolutionist has no reason to take them for granted, then they could just as easily not take them for granted. But they don't. Therefore evolution must be incorrect. Not only that, only the biblical world view can be logically correct. Given that, because evolutionists take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, they must believe that they can gain knowledge through them for anything.

Why is there evil if God exists?

God is just, loving, holy, good and righteous. If you disobey God, all these characteristics will work against you, but if you are obedient then all these characteristics will work for you. Unfortunately we have all sinned and disobeyed God. Therefore it is righteously correct that there is evil in the world. We don't deserve heaven but hell, however it is the grace of God that keep us breathing through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If God does not exist, then how do you know what just and unjust is? You can only make subjective distinctions of what is good and evil. However if evolution is true, then there should be no reason to accept evil as evil and good as good. Why can't good be evil and evil be good? Because you take for granted that evil is evil and good is good without reason. Then you only assume, not knowing that there are certain laws which create distinctions between good and evil, evolution must be false. Morality must only be chemical reactions, so who can say one chemical reaction is good or evil? It is illogical to say a action is good or evil.
gizmo1650

Pro

What reason to you have to take the bible or God for granted?

Con:"perhaps the evolutionist would say, "We know that the laws of logic exist because we use them." Well if they know that the laws of logic exist, they would have a reason to take them for granted. Which they do not because they discourage the biblical world view. So they believe they know the laws of logic. The fact that the evolutionist agrees that laws of logic exist means that the biblical world view must be correct. I will explain why later."
In the future could you explain these things in the same round.

Con:"My opponent's evidence for us being able to know anything about the universe is that we have evolved to become more intelligent than other creatures. However again this a fallacy. Evolutionists only believe we are more intelligent than any other creature via the senses. Yet as I have discussed, they cannot be a reliable source for gaining knowledge."
they are not a completly reliable form. While they must always be questioned they are our only method of gathering data, regardless of if we have a biblical world view.

Con:"These problems don't apply to the biblical world view because the Word of God is the ultimate standard, not laws of logic or any other preconditions of intelligibility. We take them for granted but for a reason, however a secular or even just a non biblical world view does not have reason to take them for granted."
This is just shifting the problem, what reason do you have for taking God for granted?

Con:"God designed us and therefore He created our brain and our senses. Thus we can trust them and gain knowledge through them."
I will grant that in the biblical world view senses can be trusted entirely. As we both argued in reality senses can not be trusted entirely. Therefore the biblical world view clearly contradicts reality.

Con:"if evolution were true, then there would be none of these preconditions available. Morality, laws of logic, senses and memory and so on."
aren't we in agreement that senses and memory should not be preconditions?

Con:"Since the evolutionist has no reason to take them for granted, then they could just as easily not take them for granted."
Our acceptance of the preconditions are hardwired into us through evolution. Whether they are true, or we are a crazy species by evolution has no bearing on reality.

Con:"only the biblical world view can be logically correct."
I am still waiting for the justification of this claim.

In defense of the problem of evil.
God is all knowing, and created everything. Therefore he knew that his creations (us) would sin.
Also he could have created a world with no suffering, therefore he clearly made the choice to introduce suffering into the world.

In response to con's origin of morality argument.
We are a social species, this means that we evolved to work together. Therefore a subspecies with it hardwired into our brains that killing another person is 'wrong' would survive better than one that considered it 'right'
These morals our further reinforced with social evolution.
I don't want to be killed.
Therefore it is in my interest to live with other people who do not want to be killed.
As a group we agree not to kill each other.
To maintain this through the generations children are taught 'killing' is wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Con

Ok, my opponents largest and most frequently asked question is 'What reason do you have to take the Bible or God for granted?'.

I am going to make this as clear as daylight for my opponent. The Bible, the Word of God, is the only source that gives us reason to take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted. Now let me explain why; the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and He exceeds the limits of time, He is not bound by time. In the same way, the laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging.

The Bible says that God created us, and the universe in 6 days. Therefore God created our minds and God created the universe, so it is reasonable to think that our minds can study and understand the universe, in that the laws of logic are reliable sources for knowledge. My opponent has no reason to believe that the laws of logic can restrain knowledge into a box, for that matter, my opponent has no reason to believe that the laws of logic or an other precondition of intelligibility can succeed in being reliable sources for knowledge. Why is this?

It is because my opponent does not have the Word of God as his ultimate standard, rather he has the preconditions as his ultimate standard. A precondition simply means that a condition must exist before something can occur or be considered. In this case it is knowledge, but if you believe something without reason, it is an irrational belief. This is exactly what my opponent and those would don't have a biblical world view are doing, believing that the preconditions just exist for no reason. But they believe that they are the key to knowledge, yet it is irrational to believe in something without reason.

So what is your reason for believing in these preconditions or intelligibility from a non biblical world view?

Intelligibility simply means that something has the capability of being understood. (The Bible is intelligible).

"We are a social species, this means that we evolved to work together."

This is a contradicting claim, evolution and working together do not go together. If evolution were true then our brains just create chemical reactions, therefore why should we have feelings towards chemical accidents? If evolution were true then we should not be concerned about each other. Why should we get along with each other? The biblical world view has an answer and more importantly has a reason for this. It is the immorality is contrary to God's nature. Although it may seem like we are evolved into a social species to the evolutionist, there is no good reason that an evolutionary process should of unity should occur. Given that, words such as 'should' and 'ought' don't make sense in an evolutionary world view. Since there is no know way to know of a higher authority because everything would be subjective and mind stimulated. What might be moral and good or evil to one person might be contrary to another person, there is no reason for people to have a similar moral code. To say society creates the moral code isn't solving the problem either, all it is doing is moving the problem from an individual to a group of people. So why has society have a moral code? There is no reason why it should in an evolutionary world view. However the biblical world view has a reason, because God owns us and therefore He can set the rules.

In an evolutionary world view there is no right or wrong/good or evil. If our brains just create chemicals, then why would one set of chemical reactions care for another? There is no reason why they should, since as I have discussed, the word 'should' makes no sense in an evolutionary world view. If you care for someone else, you are not being beneficial towards your own survival, rather you are being beneficial towards another persons. This does not match with the evolutionary world view of survival, if it was all about you and your own survival and passing on the more successful gene, why would you care about the sick, the unfortunate and the helpless? After all to rid the earth of people who are sick, unfortunate and who are helpless would create and much more prosperous society.

So in an evolutionary world view where everything is meant to be about being successful in passing on the successful gene and where our survival is most important there would be no society as we know of today.

"I don't want to be killed. Therefore it is in my interest to live with other people who do not want to be killed."

This again is a fallacious statement, if evolution were true it wouldn't be in your interest to get along. You are saying evolution is true yet you are being contrary to that very statement. Since our brains create chemical reactions out of time and chance then the chemical reactions would be random, yet evolutionists seem to create order out of randomness, so if someone were to murder someone, it would be reasonable to think that it was the chemical reactions in side that someone's brains that caused him or her to murder, it was not out of choice. This of course ruins all morality for the evolutionist, since they believe in the precondition of intelligibility of morality. Morality should not exist if evolution were true.

We don't want to die because it is inconsistent with God's nature. If the evolutionary world view were true then we wouldn't care about whether we die or not. Since there is no purpose to life, just chemical reactions which drive our thoughts and actions.

Conclusion: My opponent has given no reason to accept the preconditions of intelligibility for granted. He has only gone by his feelings, which have seemed to play against the evolutionary world view. The evolutionary world view is inconsistent with the preconditions which are necessary to gain knowledge. Although my opponent agrees that the laws of logic, morality, unity of nature, the senses and our memory are reliable sources in gaining knowledge, they are inconsistent with the evolutionary world view, in other words, they wouldn't exist if evolution were true. Why would be care about the laws of logic if they are subjective, for example?

To even make an argument against my position is contrary once more to the evolutionary world view. An evolutionist is attempting to provide a reason for taking for granted the preconditions of intelligibility, yet if they he comes up with a reason which supports the evolutionary world view, if it prove the evolutionary world view to be contradicting, thus the evolutionary world view would be inconsistent and therefore incorrect. It is really like for the evolutionist trying to disprove air with an argument, while at the same time they are breathing air to get across their argument that air does not exist. Therefore if the evolutionary world view were true, it would be false and therefore it is false.
gizmo1650

Pro

You have explained the the biblical world view make the preconditions able to be taken for granted, but you merely shifted the burden to taking God for granted, and evolution still provides another explaniation as to WHY we take the preconditions for granted regardless of if we should or not.

Con:"It [the reason i don't have a reason to believe in the preconditions] is because my opponent does not have the Word of God as his ultimate standard, rather he has the preconditions as his ultimate standard. A precondition simply means that a condition must exist before something can occur or be considered."
I have explained why it is i believe them through evolution, whether or not i can logically justify them does not alter the possibility that natural selection put the pre-conditions in my head. Also, aren't you just shifting the problem to God.
By your logic Greek mythology is the way to go.
Let me explain a simplified version of the myth.
starting in the middle, with the creation of humans (i'll go to earth later)
The God Prometheus made humans in the image of Gods, while Eupimetheus created the animals.
Eupimetheus gave each animal a gift, when Prometheus asked for a gift for the humans he had none.
Prometheus decided to give us fire, which was reservered for the Gods.
Prometheus was punished for eternity.
Zeus also punished mankind by giving a woman, Pandora, a box with the order not to open it.
Pandora opened it releasing all the evils of the world.

This explains why we can take the preconditions for granted, we were created in Gods' image. Their is also no problem of evil because the Gods are not omnibenevolent. However like your myth we still have the problem of taking the gods for granted, this is answered by the titans. I won't go through the entire myth but Kronos and Rhea had children whom were the gods.

Why do we take Kronos and Rhea for granted, because they came from Uranus and Gai.
Uranus and Gai hatched from an egg layed by Nyx. Uranus became the sky and Gai became the earth.
The earth being a Gai would explain why plates move, volcanoes erupt etc.
Similarly the sky being Uranus explains why clouds move, rain etc.

Back to the myth.
By this point it has already explained more than yours, but it wouldn't be complete without explaining Nyx, who came from nothingness.
Clearly this is true because without a god-like being nothingness would be all there was, so before Nyx there was nothing.
By my oppenents logic greek myths are the superior ultimate standard.

returning to the debate
con:" if you believe something without reason, it is an irrational belief. This is exactly what my opponent and those would don't have a biblical world view are doing"
it may be irrational, but with the evolutionary world view it is explainable, these irrational belliefs are hard coded into are mind.

In explantion of evolution.
Cons response to my arguement "We are a social species, this means that we evolved to work together." shows a lack of understanding on his part.
He says that coraporation does not evolve into species. While this is true for some species, it is not true for social species. The pre-humans that lived together had higher chances of surviving and reproducing. So natural selection made us live together. Among those groups, the ones that did not fight each other did better, so natural selection picked the groups that did not fight with themselves, in other word the groups that worked together.
Cons explanation of biblical morality that God makes absolute morality. This ignores the fact that many followers of the bible have different moral views, for example, slavery.

Con:"To say society creates the moral code isn't solving the problem either,"
Yes it does, it opens the door to social evolution where the moral code is continually improved to create a better society, how do you explain the moral code changing over time.

Con:" Since our brains create chemical reactions out of time and chance then the chemical reactions would be random"
research evolution, it took billions of years for natural selection to created our brains, they are the best of random permutation of the previous best of random permutations of the previous best...ECT

con:"if evolution were true it wouldn't be in your interest to get along"
The ones who got along had more babies.

Con:"If the evolutionary world view were true then we wouldn't care about whether we die or not."
one of the most important thing evolution created is the survival instinct. if we die how do we reproduce?

Con:"Although my opponent agrees that the laws of logic, morality, unity of nature, the senses and our memory are reliable sources in gaining knowledge,"
I thought we agreed that memory and the senses were not reliable sources.

Con:"they the preconditions wouldn't exist if evolution were true."
I already explained this, but unlike the biblical world view, evolution explains why we take memory and the senses for granted, even though they should not be.

Your last paragraph is just a series of assertions without justification.
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
I would like to debate any of you and contend for a biblical worldview on this very issue if any of you dare.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Yeah your probably right.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Mabye you could consider that I am not an America. Rather British."

LMFAO!!!!!!

British English is even MORE stringent than American English. The ONLY one of those that makes sense in British English, but not American English is "you haven't got to grips".
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
I think you love being RIGHT and hate being WRONG. Even when you are actually WRONG, you still hate being WRONG. You hate to be corrected or out witted.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Mabye you could consider that I am not an America. Rather British. I think half of those were perfectly fine, you just like things to support your view. Your being over critical in other words, unnecessary critism.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Could you give reason for why you voted for Pro? For example explain why you thought his spelling was more accurate than mine?

It's spelling and grammar. Your grammar is absolutely atrocious. It is completely beyond me how any university would accept you after seeing a writing sample. For example, your above statement contains two grammatical errors...

Things like this do not help:

"because it do not have any reason"
----- Subject-Verb agreement
"Whereas the Bible uses the logic and all the other preconditions of intelligibility."
----- Sentence fragment.
"you haven't got to grips"
----- Improper tense usage.
"I said that was abit to a stronger word to use 'hate', but I am sure many people dislike me, people unfairly vote against me without good reason."
----- I assume "abit" is a typo, but this is a run-on sentence. There should be a ';' after "me."
"So in other words we..."
----- Missing comma.
"There maybe more..."
----- Improper word usage (maybe vs. may be).
"...really question if they exist?"
----- Question mark on a declarative sentence.
"In other words; if biblical..."
----- Should be a ':', not a ';'.
"I am going to use fossils, DNA and rock layers..."
----- Improperly formatted list.
"a creationist looks at a fossil then see that..."
----- Subject-Verb agreement
"a pare of mental glasses"
----- Incorrect word usage.
"the evolutionist see..."
---- Subject-Verb agreement.
"When really the world is not one sided."
----- Sentence fragment.

I mean, really!?! Do I need to go on?

Your comments and the first few paragraphs of your opening statement contain so many obvious and terrible errors of grammar that we are stuck spending half the time deciphering your horrid English!
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
My argument in a nut shell is this: your world view contradicts the ability to know anything because it do not have any reason to assume that the preconditions of intelligibility are valid for obtaining knowledge. Whereas the Bible uses the logic and all the other preconditions of intelligibility.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
I honestly think you haven't got to grips with my argument.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
i like you GodSands, but a bad debate is still a bad debate.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
I have one guy send me an e-mail asking me why does everyone hate me? I said that was abit to a stronger word to use 'hate', but I am sure many people dislike me, people unfairly vote against me without good reason.

It's beggining to annoy.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
GodSandsgizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by ZKnecht 6 years ago
ZKnecht
GodSandsgizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
GodSandsgizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05