The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
lovelife
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

To take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, you must have a biblical ultimate standard

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,412 times Debate No: 12791
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (8)

 

GodSands

Pro

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.
lovelife

Con

I thank my opponent for this challenge and I just want to say I am not the smartest nor the best debater so if I might fail at explaning myself correctly.

GodSands is trying to say basically that we cannot be sure of anything unless the bible is correct.

Perhaps he is right and we can't be sure of anything. What reason is there to believe the bible is correct? Because already intelligent men wrote it? Whether or not its with the help of God doesn't really matter, because how would they know that God was real, even if he was talking to them? You cannot prove anything is real, and religion doesn't change that one bit.

In order to take the laws of logic for granted you must aknowlage that what you can sense is true. That in no way says that you must believe in God because people cannot sense God and the ones that can tend to end up in the asylum.

Who is to say who is right? No one can say for sure, we could all be living in the Matrix world, we may be a TV show for some aleins that laugh at our existance, or nothing could be real at all. They are all possibilites, but most people don't believe them to be true.

When it comes to proof there may not be any proof that we are intelligent from evolution or from God. The fact is though in order to take it for granted you just have to experience it and believe that what you feel is real. You don't have to accept the bible or its standards to do so, all you have to do is be like any other living creature.

If you run after a cat it will run because it senses danger. Whether or not you are dangerous to it does not matter, its instinct. Every animal has it, every animal lives with it. Every animal acts upon it. Humans are no different.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

No worries I also fail many times at explaining myself correctly.

First question; what reason is there to believe the Bible is correct?

Well the Word of God is the only logical ultimate standard, any other standard blows it's self up. You cannot have the laws of logic as your standard because it is illogical to not have a reason to have them as your ultimate standard. The reason why I have a reason for using the laws of logic without just simply using them without reason is because I for one believe in the Bible, but the Bible says we are made from God's image. In that case we think like God and therefore our logical thinking is universal. To be logical, we must have a logical reason to believe in things, ironically those who don't believe in the Bible have no logical reason to accept the laws of logic. This implies that creationism is fundamentally true, and by that evolutionists or secularist or rather non biblical world views stand on biblical soil, yet claim the biblical soil to be secular or non biblical. No only that, but non biblical world views use the preconditions of intelligibility against the biblical world view. So what is happening? The non biblical world view is being self destructive. If they prove them selves right then they are false and therefore their world view is false.

If evolution is true then the biblical world view is false, and therefore it would be intellectually incorrect and illogical to have it as an ultimate standard, so you would have no other choice logically but to accept the preconditions as our standards. Although this anyway is logically incorrect, because if we are to gain knowledge we could not gain it by the preconditions alone, since what are the preconditions based upon? Nothing, therefore it is illogical to simply accept them and take them for granted. Thus the only logical solution is to believe in the Word of God to allow the preconditions to gain us absolute knowledge about the universe.

This is a misunderstanding that I think my opponent has made. I don't need to give any evidence of my argument because the laws of logic and all the other preconditions speak for themselves. The fact that we can know things about the universe proves creationism, I am just explaining to you why. Since you wouldn't take my word for it.

"If you run after a cat it will run because it senses danger. Whether or not you are dangerous to it does not matter, its instinct. Every animal has it, every animal lives with it. Every animal acts upon it. Humans are no different."

I do not disagree with this statement, I have no obligations against it, however I am arguing that without the Bible being true as the Word of God, we could not know anything at all, yet we may believe we know things, with the preconditions alone, there is no reason to take them for granted. The Bible states that everyone knows in their heart that God exists. In Psalm 14:1 it reads, "Whoever says in their heart 'there is no God' is a fool." In this verse the word fool means that a person is willingly ignorant of the truth. Through being illogical and unreasonable they would prefer to be so, than to bow the knee to God.

So we do have instincts and they are related to feelings, but they cannot be used as ultimate standards, yet as standards nevertheless, just not the ultimate one. The Bible is like a rock that does not end, but if you reject the Word of God then you have baseless standards.

By simply making an argument is refuting if you don't believe in the Bible, if you don't say anything you have not said then you haven't proved that your world view is correct, if you make an argument for your secular or non biblical world view then you take for granted that you can use logic to make sense, and thus you would have proved creationism.
lovelife

Con

How can you be sure that the biblical world veiw is correct? Why is it so unreasonable that man just evolved into a more logical species? Why can't we just understand that what we sense and deduct is true?

There is no real reason for believing that the bible is the source of logic. It may be but there is no reason to just decide that it is, or to say that that is where truth comes from.

My opponent says that if evolution is true then the word of God must be false, since evolution is pretty much proven, it looks like my opponent says that the word of God must be false.

We know we are knowlagable because we know what we can sense. We started doing things that helped us better survive, such as fence in cattle and other such animal used for food. We adapted to the environment, much like every other animal. We are just different not superior. Like any other animal we accept what we can sense to be true, and that is how we came to accept logic. There doesn't need to be any biblical truth to prove that logic is correct. We adapted and formed logic, and using my opponent's argument proves the bible is false, so the bible cannot be the source.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

How can I be sure that the biblical world view is correct? The biblical world view is the only world view that is consistent with the laws of logic, morality, uniformity of nature, freedom, and all the other preconditions of intelligibility.

Let me give an example. If the evolutionary world view is correct and the biblical world view is myth then the laws of logic would most certainly be subjective. In accordance, the laws of logic would evolve as we do. Since everyone is different, every brain is slightly different, the laws of logic will not be the same for everyone, maybe for a few individuals but the majority of people would not understand one another. Hence the word 'laws' of logic. Laws apply for everyone, laws treat everyone as equal, but if evolution were true why should that be the case since there is no law giver.

If the biblical world view is correct then God designed us and God created the universe. Therefore God created our minds to understand the universe as it should be understood. If God did not create the universe thus didn't create our minds also, then there is no objective understanding of the universe. Some might say, "Well I believe in evolution and I understand the universe just fine like most people." This is fallacious. It is arbitrary and therefore contradicting. If a person willingly believes in evolution, yet says he understands the universe through the laws of logic, he his being inconsistent. If evolution were true there would be no objective law, only a made up, man made subjective law which would only apply to the individual. Therefore no one can say you are right or wrong, given that the universe is what you make it to be. Since the laws of logic are objective, most if not all people adapt to them. This is why people are convinced by others, and also this is why education can be organised.

The Bible is not the source of logic, logic comes from the mind which was created by God. The Bible needs to be true however, otherwise if it were not then we weren't created by God and the 6 days of creation would be myth. No other faith can be trustworthy, but only the Christian God of the Bible. If we are searching for knowledge here, we need a God that is 100% trustworthy, righteous, all good, just, and loving. If God lets people into heaven without justifying their sin first, then God is not 100% trustworthy, righteous, all good, just and loving. Rather it is more of a man made figment of the imagination. Either God is 100% godly, or God does not exist. A righteous man or woman will not settle for luke-warmness. In that how would we know if God, not being 100% godly, is not giving us hallucinations or incorrect data about the universe?

Evolution isn't pretty much proved, that is a false statement. There is no evidence, which consists with the present, but art work and animation which isn't evidence at all.

We know that we can sense, but you cannot trust your senses 100% because of possible hallucination, illusions etc. So our senses should not be our ultimate standard, if they were then how could we proceed in finding knowledge? Without biblical creation being true, there is no definition of what is real and unreal, only a subjective belief.

We can accept what we sense to be true, but that is contrary to the evolutionary world view. If evolution were true then hallucinations, illusions, delusions even would not necessarily be considered as hallucination, illusions and delusions but a individuals perspective of what reality is. Why can say someone is right or wrong if everything is subjective. There should be no insane people if evolution is true. And why would we care, if all our brains are is chemical reactions occuring, why should we care about other people and what they think? Words like 'ought' and 'should' make no sense in the evolutionary world view since there are no laws to abide by but your own, and even them you don't have to abide by.

The laws of logic did not come from our senses. Laws of logic are innate because God created the human mind to think in a certain way accordingly to the universe to make sense of the universe. If on another planet evolution of intelligent life occurred there, and there were no laws of logic which were innately given to the mind, then these aliens would have a different set of logical laws to us. For that matter if evolution were true, we all would because nothing is innate, given that everything that exists is material.

Conclusion:

The Bible must be your ultimate standard, since knowledge is objective and not subjective, how can we be sure what is and isn't knowledge is evolution is true? We could guess or believe that something is knowledge, but we couldn't know. Therefore nothing would be knowledgeable. Only believable.

Thank you very much for debating along side with me.
lovelife

Con

Not really feeling up to it but I suppose I should post something for my last round.

If you really think evolution is stupid here is a link explaining how it works in the beginning, I'm pretty sure its a Christian friendly site too, http://www.questioningchristian.com...
The article talks about squares and balls in a barrel and how more survive depending on their environment.

Another link explaining evolution and how there is no difference in micro and macro evolution http://atheism.about.com...

My opponent says that without the biblewe would never be able to understand logic, but that is just not true.
There are some key parts on how to determine if someone is insane based on how they act. Read up http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Like most other animals we can tell when others feel pain and most of us do not like it, thus the majority has dubbed harming others as wrong. From the veiw of a society it is the only way to keep any order so we make laws and such against such things.
Humans aren't so special http://rudhro.wordpress.com...

There is really no reason to believe that the bible is what gives us the ability to think logically as opposed to we evolved into a certain way of thinking, especially when we can clearly see other animals with similar ways of thinking.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
I'm not sure why I'm reading this on, but GodSands, I think you need to learn to stick to the topic in order to be successful in a debate. Your opening statement seems to lay out what you'll be talking about (the preconditions for intelligibility), but then seems to side track itself into a dismissive rant on evolution.

It's almost as though you are putting forth: It's either evolution or my version of creationism. Which is a false dichotomy. It is also putting forth a vast amount of material for you to defend, when it's utterly unnecessary.

You ramble on about evolution and then you depart into astronomy by bringing up the Oort cloud - as though it was relevant towards biological evolution. I suppose you are trying to show that the solar system is under 100,000 years old, but instead of setting forth a clear mission to do this you meander from point to point.

You also shoot yourself in the foot by implying that other worldviews could be internally consistent. I'm left to wonder how exactly you are going to show your worldview is superior to any other worldview given this - especially when the resolution to the debate is transcendental.

Headaches ensue...
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
I have heard this argument from only the most extreme factions within Christianity...

In any case, logic doesn't need a biblical ultimate standard to exist. Logic is simply a form of reasoning.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
How can you trust that your God is the real one? How can you trust that a god made you? How can you trust anything at all? How can you trust any book ever written?

Logic is human nature. Humans can make conclusions based on repeating tests, similar to a dog running into a glass door. Humans can tell that others feel pain based on their reaction. It is in human nature to test and retest what others have done to make sure.
Humans trust their senses, humans trust logic.
Not every human needs a god to tell them what is and is not true.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Because it is reasonable, God created us and God created the universe therefore because of that, we are made out of God's image, able to understand the universe in likeness of Him. Logic cannot be contradictory, but if creationism is false, then who can say what logic should or shouldn't be, but ourselves?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
But how does that show that you have to trust that logic came from God?
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Well, the get go of Con's argument and yours too, was why trust the Bible, the Word of God. And I said why very clearly.

"If the biblical world view is correct then God designed us and God created the universe. Therefore God created our minds to understand the universe as it should be understood. If God did not create the universe thus didn't create our minds also, then there is no objective understanding of the universe."
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
" you can't say my argument was a fraction better, rather it was a mile better. In that my argument is based off of Jason Lisle's book."
this implies that your argument is superior because it is based on Jason Lisle.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
What do you mean by that?
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
Jason Lisle is not accepted as absolute truth.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Thanks Panda for voting for me, but you can't say my argument was a fraction better, rather it was a mile better. In that my argument is based off of Jason Lisle's book.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
GodSandslovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not answer the problem of how knowledge, morality, and law could be objective if such things were all accidental byproducts of evolution. Why should we even trust them? Con showed how a Christian has better reason to accept the laws of logic than the atheist.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
GodSandslovelifeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Pro gets conduct since he took the time to make his arguments long whereas Con did not do that. 2. Arguments also go to Pro since he answered Con's questions in depth. Con also presumes that evolution is true, which is a mistake on her part. Pro argued well when he was saying that we cannot interpret reality apart from God, who makes the absolute standards. I thought this was really convincing. Con did not argue so thoroughly. 3. Pro gets the points for reliable sources since he refers to the Bible, and con never used any sources except for the last round. That doesn't count because Pro wouldn't be able to refute them afterwards. 4. S/G is tied.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
GodSandslovelifeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't mean to vote on this debate. Leaving this at a tie.
Vote Placed by tigg13 6 years ago
tigg13
GodSandslovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets negative points in conduct and sources for pretty much plagiarizing Jason Lisle.
Vote Placed by Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
GodSandslovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Blank 6 years ago
Blank
GodSandslovelifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
GodSandslovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
GodSandslovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30