Total Posts:806|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Non-Christian worldviews not rational

scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:26:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

Are you still incarcerated? Hey, one good question begging fallacy deserves another! Keep 'em coming, bulproof---you're doing wonders for the cause of Christianity!! I am pleased with that!
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:31:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:26:34 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

Are you still incarcerated? Hey, one good question begging fallacy deserves another! Keep 'em coming, bulproof---you're doing wonders for the cause of Christianity!! I am pleased with that!

Isn't it time for you to go to special kindy? Go ask mummy.
ROFLMFAO
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:33:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

^ Yet another example of someone walking his dogma around without a popper-scooper - it's simply drivel.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:48:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:33:33 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

^ Yet another example of someone walking his dogma around without a popper-scooper - it's simply drivel.

Glad to see you have no rational objection to the argument! Thanks for the confirmation!!
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

http://th08.deviantart.net...
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 3:29:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 12:02:02 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

http://th08.deviantart.net...

Too hard for you as well I see.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 4:21:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:26:34 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

Are you still incarcerated? Hey, one good question begging fallacy deserves another! Keep 'em coming, bulproof---you're doing wonders for the cause of Christianity!! I am pleased with that!

Hmm... it almost seems like you are admitting to employing a question begging fallacy in your argument. The main problem here, though, is that you are not here to debate; you are here to claim victory at the outset (via question begging fallacy).

Here is a good essay that critiques presuppositional apologetics:

"Sye ten Bruggencate, among others, has said that the purpose of presuppositionalism is not so much to change minds as to shut mouths. Indeed, the argument garners little respect among even conservative Christians. Even William Lane Craig, he of the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit," has accused the argument of begging the question (which is really not what one would call a glowing recommendation, especially considering the source...). Very few people find presuppositionalism convincing if they are not already believers, in other words.

Because most people have not delved particularly deeply into epistemology, presuppositionalism may catch them off-guard. It is extremely disconcerting; one gets the distinct impression that sleight of hand has been perpetrated but is not able to see where and how. The strength of this argument is that, rather than trying to defeat its opponent in a race, it ties his shoelaces together so that he immediately falls on his face off the starting blocks.

There is thus a heavy element of psychological warfare in presuppositionalism, either of the coarse type evidenced by the Sye-clone brigade (repeated demandings of "could you be wrong about everything you know?!"), or a more subtle but no less infuriating facade of triumphalistic smugness from the slightly higher-caliber users of the method. In either case, what is notable is the lack of argumentation from the presups' side; it's a tar pit of an argument, and attempting to defend one's worldview is futile since, in his own mind, the presupper has already won the debate.

Nevertheless, there are several glaring flaws in the argument. It attempts to smuggle in several assumptions with the hope the opponent won't notice them: chiefly, it is unable to prove that all opposing worldviews are incoherent.

The presuppositionalist will often say "the Bible isn't the evidence, it's the claim," but the Bible is contingent on divine revelation, which itself is contingent on there being a God, not any specific one. Thus, the argument fatally lacks specificity; just substitute Allah for Yahweh and the Koran for the Bible as a counter-argument and the entire debate grinds to a halt. A Deist could also run the argument just as well, and arguably better, since her God communicates through nature, and does not rely on a collection of books full of known contradictions, inaccuracies, and outrages. An atheist could presuppose that consciousness, logic, etc., are simply brute facts, and claim a similar advantage.
Furthermore, one consequence of the transcendental argument family is that logic, knowledge, morality, consciousness, etc., are contingent upon God, can therefore can be altered by him at will and, here's the key, without any of us necessarily knowing it. Van Til himself has said that God can take any fact and put it into a new relation with any other fact. In other words, God can lie, and we may not know when or if he does. This is commonly met by objections that God cannot lie, but 2 Thessalonians 2:11 specifically recounts God sending a "deluding influence" on people for the sole and explicit purpose of making them disbelieve the truth. Note that this is not a "lying spirit," something with agency of its own, but a "deluding influence" direct from God. So from the Bible itself, which the presuppositionalists are starting from, we know that God could lie, can lie, has lied, and very possibly still does lie.

Because they take the Bible as their pre-rational axiomatic concept, then, they have no grounds for assuming the uniformity of nature, their own consciousness, or even their own existence. Of course, this means they also have no grounds for the laws of logic, including the laws of identity and noncontradiction. Therefore, fittingly and poetically, the presuppositionalist is hoist by his own petard, destroyed by the very charges of epistemic guilt he seeks to lay on the opponent. Presuppositionalism is defeated by internal critique and reductio ad absurdum; to even make its argument at all, its proponents must borrow lumber from another worldview."

http://rationalwiki.org...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 4:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

With all due respect Christianity is only one religion represented in this forum and you will find that opinions will differ. As for logic, the burden of proof lies on you as you have made claim that logic, truth and knowledge are obtained only through the Christian world view.

Provide your evidence along with your argument or expect trolls to be the only ones posting here.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 6:05:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

These laws are not like human laws. Where as when some breaks the speed limit they were physically capable (can) go faster than 50mph but are legally bound (shouldn't) go over 50mph. With natural laws there is no photon "shouldn't" go faster than 3x10^8 m/s. It is that the photon "can not physically" go faster than that.

The laws of nature are descriptive. In human experience certain observations come about to a high degree of consistency. The observation is recorded as a Law of Nature, to "describe" the conditions necessary to create an effect.

Not prescriptive. Take the law that like charges repel. This "Law" has no influence on 2 electrons that repel each other. It just describes what we have seen across all charges and continue to see.

Notice the Law does not say what the mechanism is that repels like charges. It doesn't say it is electrical, magnetic or weak atomic, what have you. It says given A, then B will occur.

Your error stems from the word "law" being used but the sense and definition are different. If this is your argument for a Law-Giver, I think it is lacking. You should continue to look at such things, I think you will find the idea of abstract but existent entities is an interesting route.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:56:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

Nobody has to use your definition of these tenets of epistemology. Moreover you are assuming platonic realism with your assertion that the laws of logic "exist", which is a outdated and discredited idea.

For example, a nihilist epistemology rejects the notion of "objective truth", and defined "true" and "false" according to incorrigible experiences and labels to concepts, from which an epistemological framework can be built (and the familiar laws of logic happen to outcomes of that building process).

Certainty is irrelevant to that, and is also irrelevant to knowledge if it's just defined as "justified true belief".

So, not only do you set up false goalposts, but you also make the assumption that Christianity is the *only* framework in which epistemology can be justified. Fail.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 11:03:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 6:05:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

These laws are not like human laws. Where as when some breaks the speed limit they were physically capable (can) go faster than 50mph but are legally bound (shouldn't) go over 50mph. With natural laws there is no photon "shouldn't" go faster than 3x10^8 m/s. It is that the photon "can not physically" go faster than that.

The laws of nature are descriptive. In human experience certain observations come about to a high degree of consistency. The observation is recorded as a Law of Nature, to "describe" the conditions necessary to create an effect.

Not prescriptive. Take the law that like charges repel. This "Law" has no influence on 2 electrons that repel each other. It just describes what we have seen across all charges and continue to see.

Notice the Law does not say what the mechanism is that repels like charges. It doesn't say it is electrical, magnetic or weak atomic, what have you. It says given A, then B will occur.

Your error stems from the word "law" being used but the sense and definition are different. If this is your argument for a Law-Giver, I think it is lacking. You should continue to look at such things, I think you will find the idea of abstract but existent entities is an interesting route.

Thank you for your response, Mhykiel. Unfortunately the error is yours in this case. You are referring to 'natural laws' such as physics, thermodynamics, etc. in your response (which indeed are descriptive as the means by which God upholds and sustains the universe). However, I am asking about transcendent laws of logic and reason. Laws of logic are a universal, immaterial, unchanging standard by which human beings 'should' reason, as they reflect the way God thinks and how expects us to, being made in His image. I am challenging any non-Christian to provide a rational justification for the existence of such concepts in their worldview. Thanks again for the response and I hope this is clear(er) now.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 11:11:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 11:03:00 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 6:05:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

These laws are not like human laws. Where as when some breaks the speed limit they were physically capable (can) go faster than 50mph but are legally bound (shouldn't) go over 50mph. With natural laws there is no photon "shouldn't" go faster than 3x10^8 m/s. It is that the photon "can not physically" go faster than that.

The laws of nature are descriptive. In human experience certain observations come about to a high degree of consistency. The observation is recorded as a Law of Nature, to "describe" the conditions necessary to create an effect.

Not prescriptive. Take the law that like charges repel. This "Law" has no influence on 2 electrons that repel each other. It just describes what we have seen across all charges and continue to see.

Notice the Law does not say what the mechanism is that repels like charges. It doesn't say it is electrical, magnetic or weak atomic, what have you. It says given A, then B will occur.

Your error stems from the word "law" being used but the sense and definition are different. If this is your argument for a Law-Giver, I think it is lacking. You should continue to look at such things, I think you will find the idea of abstract but existent entities is an interesting route.

Thank you for your response, Mhykiel. Unfortunately the error is yours in this case. You are referring to 'natural laws' such as physics, thermodynamics, etc.
Are you suffering in the misconception that thermodynamics are separate from the laws of physics?

in your response (which indeed are descriptive as the means by which God upholds and sustains the universe). However, I am asking about transcendent laws of logic and reason.
Such as? What do these laws transcend, and if they transcend falsifiability, how do you know they're correct?

Laws of logic are a universal, immaterial, unchanging standard by which human beings 'should' reason, as they reflect the way God thinks and how expects us to, being made in His image.
Quantum mechanics has taught us that what we believe to be universal and unchanging laws, need not be so. And the entire portion where you claim this has anything to do with God, is a phoney assertion simply tacked onto a claim you've yet to support to begin with.

I am challenging any non-Christian to provide a rational justification for the existence of such concepts in their worldview. Thanks again for the response and I hope this is clear(er) now.
The rational justification for logical laws is that there is no intelligent force over-seeing the universe to prevent it from destruction. Thusly, a universal set of laws is a necessity, because the universe can't cease to exist.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 11:17:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 4:21:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:26:34 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

Are you still incarcerated? Hey, one good question begging fallacy deserves another! Keep 'em coming, bulproof---you're doing wonders for the cause of Christianity!! I am pleased with that!

Hmm... it almost seems like you are admitting to employing a question begging fallacy in your argument.

Try to keep up, fly. I was simply demonstrating the fallacious nature of bulproof's argument in my response. I see no reason to offer logical arguments to those who have no intention of reciprocating in kind.

Here is a good essay that critiques presuppositional apologetics:

"Sye ten Bruggencate, among others, has said that the purpose of presuppositionalism is not so much to change minds as to shut mouths. Indeed, the argument garners little respect among even conservative Christians. Even William Lane Craig, he of the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit," has accused the argument of begging the question (which is really not what one would call a glowing recommendation, especially considering the source...). Very few people find presuppositionalism convincing if they are not already believers, in other words.

Because most people have not delved particularly deeply into epistemology, presuppositionalism may catch them off-guard. It is extremely disconcerting; one gets the distinct impression that sleight of hand has been perpetrated but is not able to see where and how. The strength of this argument is that, rather than trying to defeat its opponent in a race, it ties his shoelaces together so that he immediately falls on his face off the starting blocks.

There is thus a heavy element of psychological warfare in presuppositionalism, either of the coarse type evidenced by the Sye-clone brigade (repeated demandings of "could you be wrong about everything you know?!"), or a more subtle but no less infuriating facade of triumphalistic smugness from the slightly higher-caliber users of the method. In either case, what is notable is the lack of argumentation from the presups' side; it's a tar pit of an argument, and attempting to defend one's worldview is futile since, in his own mind, the presupper has already won the debate.

Nevertheless, there are several glaring flaws in the argument. It attempts to smuggle in several assumptions with the hope the opponent won't notice them: chiefly, it is unable to prove that all opposing worldviews are incoherent.

The presuppositionalist will often say "the Bible isn't the evidence, it's the claim," but the Bible is contingent on divine revelation, which itself is contingent on there being a God, not any specific one. Thus, the argument fatally lacks specificity; just substitute Allah for Yahweh and the Koran for the Bible as a counter-argument and the entire debate grinds to a halt. A Deist could also run the argument just as well, and arguably better, since her God communicates through nature, and does not rely on a collection of books full of known contradictions, inaccuracies, and outrages. An atheist could presuppose that consciousness, logic, etc., are simply brute facts, and claim a similar advantage.
Furthermore, one consequence of the transcendental argument family is that logic, knowledge, morality, consciousness, etc., are contingent upon God, can therefore can be altered by him at will and, here's the key, without any of us necessarily knowing it. Van Til himself has said that God can take any fact and put it into a new relation with any other fact. In other words, God can lie, and we may not know when or if he does. This is commonly met by objections that God cannot lie, but 2 Thessalonians 2:11 specifically recounts God sending a "deluding influence" on people for the sole and explicit purpose of making them disbelieve the truth. Note that this is not a "lying spirit," something with agency of its own, but a "deluding influence" direct from God. So from the Bible itself, which the presuppositionalists are starting from, we know that God could lie, can lie, has lied, and very possibly still does lie.

Because they take the Bible as their pre-rational axiomatic concept, then, they have no grounds for assuming the uniformity of nature, their own consciousness, or even their own existence. Of course, this means they also have no grounds for the laws of logic, including the laws of identity and noncontradiction. Therefore, fittingly and poetically, the presuppositionalist is hoist by his own petard, destroyed by the very charges of epistemic guilt he seeks to lay on the opponent. Presuppositionalism is defeated by internal critique and reductio ad absurdum; to even make its argument at all, its proponents must borrow lumber from another worldview."

http://rationalwiki.org...

Thanks, I guess. Tell you what, if you wish to engage me and have a (more condensed) rational objection of your own that you would like to posit, please do so and I will be happy to address it. Hope to hear from you soon!
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 11:31:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 11:17:33 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 4:21:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:26:34 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:18:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:15:06 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:06:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are?
Good for you.

A little friend who follows me from post to post? A finer example of obsession I have never seen! Priceless! : )

Don't look now but those tickets have no value.
Question too hard for you as usual?

Are you still incarcerated? Hey, one good question begging fallacy deserves another! Keep 'em coming, bulproof---you're doing wonders for the cause of Christianity!! I am pleased with that!

Hmm... it almost seems like you are admitting to employing a question begging fallacy in your argument.

Try to keep up, fly. I was simply demonstrating the fallacious nature of bulproof's argument in my response. I see no reason to offer logical arguments to those who have no intention of reciprocating in kind.

Oh. Well, then, I must spell it out for you: your argument is one big question begging fallacy-- aka "circular argument."

Here is a good essay that critiques presuppositional apologetics:

"Sye ten Bruggencate, among others, has said that the purpose of presuppositionalism is not so much to change minds as to shut mouths. Indeed, the argument garners little respect among even conservative Christians. Even William Lane Craig, he of the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit," has accused the argument of begging the question (which is really not what one would call a glowing recommendation, especially considering the source...). Very few people find presuppositionalism convincing if they are not already believers, in other words.

Because most people have not delved particularly deeply into epistemology, presuppositionalism may catch them off-guard. It is extremely disconcerting; one gets the distinct impression that sleight of hand has been perpetrated but is not able to see where and how. The strength of this argument is that, rather than trying to defeat its opponent in a race, it ties his shoelaces together so that he immediately falls on his face off the starting blocks.

There is thus a heavy element of psychological warfare in presuppositionalism, either of the coarse type evidenced by the Sye-clone brigade (repeated demandings of "could you be wrong about everything you know?!"), or a more subtle but no less infuriating facade of triumphalistic smugness from the slightly higher-caliber users of the method. In either case, what is notable is the lack of argumentation from the presups' side; it's a tar pit of an argument, and attempting to defend one's worldview is futile since, in his own mind, the presupper has already won the debate.

Nevertheless, there are several glaring flaws in the argument. It attempts to smuggle in several assumptions with the hope the opponent won't notice them: chiefly, it is unable to prove that all opposing worldviews are incoherent.

The presuppositionalist will often say "the Bible isn't the evidence, it's the claim," but the Bible is contingent on divine revelation, which itself is contingent on there being a God, not any specific one. Thus, the argument fatally lacks specificity; just substitute Allah for Yahweh and the Koran for the Bible as a counter-argument and the entire debate grinds to a halt. A Deist could also run the argument just as well, and arguably better, since her God communicates through nature, and does not rely on a collection of books full of known contradictions, inaccuracies, and outrages. An atheist could presuppose that consciousness, logic, etc., are simply brute facts, and claim a similar advantage.
Furthermore, one consequence of the transcendental argument family is that logic, knowledge, morality, consciousness, etc., are contingent upon God, can therefore can be altered by him at will and, here's the key, without any of us necessarily knowing it. Van Til himself has said that God can take any fact and put it into a new relation with any other fact. In other words, God can lie, and we may not know when or if he does. This is commonly met by objections that God cannot lie, but 2 Thessalonians 2:11 specifically recounts God sending a "deluding influence" on people for the sole and explicit purpose of making them disbelieve the truth. Note that this is not a "lying spirit," something with agency of its own, but a "deluding influence" direct from God. So from the Bible itself, which the presuppositionalists are starting from, we know that God could lie, can lie, has lied, and very possibly still does lie.

Because they take the Bible as their pre-rational axiomatic concept, then, they have no grounds for assuming the uniformity of nature, their own consciousness, or even their own existence. Of course, this means they also have no grounds for the laws of logic, including the laws of identity and noncontradiction. Therefore, fittingly and poetically, the presuppositionalist is hoist by his own petard, destroyed by the very charges of epistemic guilt he seeks to lay on the opponent. Presuppositionalism is defeated by internal critique and reductio ad absurdum; to even make its argument at all, its proponents must borrow lumber from another worldview."

http://rationalwiki.org...

Thanks, I guess. Tell you what, if you wish to engage me and have a (more condensed) rational objection of your own that you would like to posit, please do so and I will be happy to address it. Hope to hear from you soon!

You're welcome, I guess. I don't really wish to engage you as I see no need to reinvent the wheel for you personally. You act as though your argument here is your own. No, "your" argument has been posited by others, engaged by others, and soundly defeated already. It's just that when you got that memo, you threw it away...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 11:34:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

... you can't be serious.

Are you honestly wanting to rationally put forth that no such thing as logical deduction, basic math and investigation of the natural world existed before or during the time the Bible was being invent... er... written? Roman/Greek cultures, Mesoptamian, the Eastern cultures, to say nothing of the yet undiscovered far Eastern, these all made use of those tools long before the creation Christianity, or introduction of the carriers of the fables of the Bible. The Bible isn't a creation, its an account at its most factual, and allegory and parable at its most fantastic.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 12:51:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But iron age views on life the universe and everything are valid worldviews?
Ya reckon?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:07:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:33:33 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

^ Yet another example of someone walking his dogma around without a popper-scooper - it's simply drivel.

Not that though, THAT is science and logic!

The atheist world view is explained! Derision and insults explain EVERYTHING!!!! YEAH!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:08:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:56:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

Nobody has to use your definition of these tenets of epistemology. Moreover you are assuming platonic realism with your assertion that the laws of logic "exist", which is a outdated and discredited idea.

For example, a nihilist epistemology rejects the notion of "objective truth", and defined "true" and "false" according to incorrigible experiences and labels to concepts, from which an epistemological framework can be built (and the familiar laws of logic happen to outcomes of that building process).

Certainty is irrelevant to that, and is also irrelevant to knowledge if it's just defined as "justified true belief".

So, not only do you set up false goalposts, but you also make the assumption that Christianity is the *only* framework in which epistemology can be justified. Fail.

The rules of logic are doing just fine Envy. Its when we abandon them that things start going all hay wire.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:10:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 11:34:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:


Are you honestly wanting to rationally put forth that no such thing as logical deduction, basic math and investigation of the natural world existed before or during the time the Bible was being invent... er... written? Roman/Greek cultures, Mesoptamian, the Eastern cultures, to say nothing of the yet undiscovered far Eastern, these all made use of those tools long before the creation Christianity, or introduction of the carriers of the fables of the Bible. The Bible isn't a creation, its an account at its most factual, and allegory and parable at its most fantastic.

See above.

Are you using any logical deduction? Basic Math? Investigation? Nope. As usual.
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:17:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 12:51:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
But iron age views on life the universe and everything are valid worldviews?
Ya reckon?
I see we have no valid or invalid response to this from our godbotherers, what a shame.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:24:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 4:10:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/8/2014 11:34:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:


Are you honestly wanting to rationally put forth that no such thing as logical deduction, basic math and investigation of the natural world existed before or during the time the Bible was being invent... er... written? Roman/Greek cultures, Mesoptamian, the Eastern cultures, to say nothing of the yet undiscovered far Eastern, these all made use of those tools long before the creation Christianity, or introduction of the carriers of the fables of the Bible. The Bible isn't a creation, its an account at its most factual, and allegory and parable at its most fantastic.

See above.

Are you using any logical deduction? Basic Math? Investigation? Nope. As usual.

Not called for, its basic history. I get that you have serious issues about 'focusing', but you should really asses the premise of the OP and the refutes that are put toward it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 4:08:58 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/8/2014 10:56:13 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

Nobody has to use your definition of these tenets of epistemology. Moreover you are assuming platonic realism with your assertion that the laws of logic "exist", which is a outdated and discredited idea.

For example, a nihilist epistemology rejects the notion of "objective truth", and defined "true" and "false" according to incorrigible experiences and labels to concepts, from which an epistemological framework can be built (and the familiar laws of logic happen to outcomes of that building process).

Certainty is irrelevant to that, and is also irrelevant to knowledge if it's just defined as "justified true belief".

So, not only do you set up false goalposts, but you also make the assumption that Christianity is the *only* framework in which epistemology can be justified. Fail.

The rules of logic are doing just fine Envy. Its when we abandon them that things start going all hay wire.

I never argued we should abandon them...
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:34:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:

Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

Responses to this thread were interesting. bully dodged the question of the OP and then asked the OP if the question he asked of the OP was "too hard".

Several people noted, (I think correctly) that the OP's argument was based on a presupposition. But if you love debate, you shouldn't allow little things like grammar, typos, or a small lapse in logic stop the debate if the OP was able to transmit his main idea.

His basic question here is, (he will forgive me if I'm wrong) to ask what is it which underpins your philosophy if it isn't God? What authenticates your moral system? Why does logic work? What is your grounding?

It seems to me that one could point out that he is making the mistake of assuming his world-view correct and still answer the question he was asking. Pointing out what you think is his error need not make you toss his question.

He has made a challenge. He's saying that each of the concepts we see in reality can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview. So he's asking those without the Christian world-view, how does your world-view make sense of these things?

Is that not valid question?

The idiot bully responds about the Bible being from the "Iron age". The stupidity of answers like that amaze me. 2000 years from now people as stupid as him will be saying the same disparaging things about the "digital age". He can't fathom that each age will have stupid people from a later age calling the previous one ignorant.

Most posters seemed to be vaguely angry with the OP, why? Because he was condescending to word-views different from Christianity? Is it a surprise that he would be partial to his world-view? I bring this up because often it seems atheists are more interested in telling the theist how rotten he is than in answering the question he has asked.

If you simply must tell him how bad he is, can't you do both?
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:41:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 4:34:15 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:

Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

Responses to this thread were interesting. bully dodged the question of the OP and then asked the OP if the question he asked of the OP was "too hard".

Several people noted, (I think correctly) that the OP's argument was based on a presupposition. But if you love debate, you shouldn't allow little things like grammar, typos, or a small lapse in logic stop the debate if the OP was able to transmit his main idea.

His basic question here is, (he will forgive me if I'm wrong) to ask what is it which underpins your philosophy if it isn't God? What authenticates your moral system? Why does logic work? What is your grounding?

It seems to me that one could point out that he is making the mistake of assuming his world-view correct and still answer the question he was asking. Pointing out what you think is his error need not make you toss his question.

He has made a challenge. He's saying that each of the concepts we see in reality can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview. So he's asking those without the Christian world-view, how does your world-view make sense of these things?

Is that not valid question?

The idiot bully responds about the Bible being from the "Iron age". The stupidity of answers like that amaze me. 2000 years from now people as stupid as him will be saying the same disparaging things about the "digital age". He can't fathom that each age will have stupid people from a later age calling the previous one ignorant.

Most posters seemed to be vaguely angry with the OP, why? Because he was condescending to word-views different from Christianity? Is it a surprise that he would be partial to his world-view? I bring this up because often it seems atheists are more interested in telling the theist how rotten he is than in answering the question he has asked.

If you simply must tell him how bad he is, can't you do both?

But iron age views on life the universe and everything are valid worldviews?
Ya reckon?
I see we have no valid or invalid response to this from our godbotherers, what a shame.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:52:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:57:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
Isn't Debate.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of 'debate' assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge.

That is an argument. It is dialectical. The *truth* is only reached via dialectics, and debating is more of a "win this-lose this" affair.

Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).

This sentence is perplexing. Astounding. ABSURD. So let us affirm that an all omnipotent God exists, and we could say that God was a "He/She" etc. i.e We know that God exists, and that God has facial structure, and has a gender. i.e he has a body, and a soul! Then via body, and via soul, we understand as something as being finite, but omnipotence entails infiniteness. So via saying God is a He, or a She, you are reducing God of God's true omnipotence. Yet you claim to love God. Hypocrite much?


One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?

How about the God of Pantheism, who says that everything is self-contained within an immaterial God, whose our intuitive knowledge do we conceive God by? Or how about the theory of evolution, in which our reasoning and logical skills are part of our intuitive need to find the truth? Buddhism does just as much (perhaps much more) to explain logic, and ultimately, the worth of the truth, to the common man than Christianity. So via the logical functions of Christianity, it is inherently flawed in the conception that God is a person who has a body and mind. God has no definite structure.

btw if God is material, but ever expanding due to infinity.
praise the lord Chin Chin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:54:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

His basic question here is, (he will forgive me if I'm wrong) to ask what is it which underpins your philosophy if it isn't God? What authenticates your moral system? Why does logic work? What is your grounding?

The presupposition that it is because of God that those things are made possible. Or originate. The same could be said of nearly every other religion on the planet. The Aztec ziggurats weren't laid down by random chance and lucky hammer strikes. Nor were the pyramids. Or Stonehenge.


It seems to me that one could point out that he is making the mistake of assuming his world-view correct and still answer the question he was asking. Pointing out what you think is his error need not make you toss his question.

If the things listed were specific to Christendom, it would would be a tough question to answer. With such instruments being widely practiced across the globe before and during the times in question, however, one is forced to wonder if that basic human intelligence and understanding drives these discoveries and methodologies, rather than it being part of a religious portfolio.

He has made a challenge. He's saying that each of the concepts we see in reality can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview. So he's asking those without the Christian world-view, how does your world-view make sense of these things?

Bit of a silly question, don't you think? Isn't that akin to asking why some one thinks water is wet, or fire is hot? You don't need a religious world view to make sense of logic, methodology, philosophy. A thinking mind comes upon such questions and conclusions naturally.


Is that not valid question?

I would say 'arrogant' before 'valid'. It doesn't stike me as a genuine question, beyond personal curiosity to attempt to understand how people can reason through a concept without needing to refer to the Bible for further explanation.


Most posters seemed to be vaguely angry with the OP, why? Because he was condescending to word-views different from Christianity? Is it a surprise that he would be partial to his world-view? I bring this up because often it seems atheists are more interested in telling the theist how rotten he is than in answering the question he has asked.

Because it -is- condescenion. Isn't all this about claiming the moral high-ground because theists have the monopoly on moral authority? After all, it came from the highest place concievable.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...